On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 19:38 +0900, igo wrote: > Thank you very much. > > I think the writer was discussing from the "player's point of view", > but not from GO's view. > For the game of GO, if the time-system is fair and > can avoid Sudden-Death naturally, that's enough. > > The writer's conclusion is "Keep it Simple!", > but the Fischer timing's action is not simple to understand.
If you are that locked into byo-yomi thinking you will probably think anything else is "wrong." If you only know one thing it's simple and everything else is complicated. I have an example of emotional sentimentality vs practical superiority in the Post Script at the end of this. > Can someone explain me why a player receives times after played a move > even when he doesn't lack of time ? Why does byo-yomi allocate a big chunk of time at the beginning even though it's not needed? Would it be more "logical" from your point of view to play the whole game in byo-yomi time so that you never have time on the clock that is not needed? As I've stated before, you can think of any time-control system using clocks in terms of who is given control over time-allocation. I think it should be the players themselves, you lean in the direction of thinking that decision should be automated and decided for the players. Sudden death is the least heavy-handed time-control system but fails to recognize that it's impossible to predict how long a game might last. So EVERY system is some compromise between you controlling your time-allocation or having the control taken from you. A skilled human will do best when given as much control as possible over his time allocation. However, it's probably also the case that an inexperienced player will do better if those decisions are imposed on him, like a child who needs the guidance of his parents before he is mature enough to make wise decisions on his own. > If it's ok, instead of receiving times, I prefer receiving money. :-) Time is a far more precious resource than money. I'll take the time, you can have the money :-) - Don P.S. I was playing club chess when the USCF decided to stop using what is called "descriptive chess notation" and go with "algebraic notation" which is what most of the world was then using and still does. There was quite an outrage over this. There was no real pattern over who embraced it and who didn't. Some very strong players resisted and so did some very weak player and visa versa. As an observer of human nature I tried to detect some pattern and what I thought I saw was two different personality types. Some people were more into the "culture" of chess (regardless of their strength) and others didn't care so much - they just wanted to play chess. The ones who wanted to stay with the archaic system also tended to know more about the history of chess and in my (imperfect) judgment were the more intuitive type of players. Of course there was nothing very scientific about this, it was based only on my very subjective assessment. I was very fascinated with the phenomenon and wondered why someone could be so passionate about something like this. I immediately starting training myself to use the new system and it slowed me down a little at first - it was awkward getting used to something new when you are so comfortable with a different way of doing things. It got harder and harder to get chess books that used descriptive notation and over time virtually everyone stopped using it even for their personal games. Just about everyone eventually acknowledged the superiority of algebraic notation but it took a while for some. Personally, I expected the strong players to embrace the new system (because I believed it was superior) and the weak players to be the sentimental fools but it didn't seem to to work that way - there was no pattern that I could detect in regard to the strength of players advocating one system over the other. - Don > igo > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
