I can understand what you are saying, but still Fischer timing is not natural(simple) to my feeling. Maybe because I am a fool. :-)
There are many other time-limit competition's time system, (football,boxing...) I think they all have the same point: time goes steadily. (decreasing) not like Fischer-timing, time goes irregularly. (increasing while decreasing) but I know this is a problem of feeling. Thanks a lot for the comments. igo ------------------------------------------------- Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
