[computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!

[igo]

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 <drd at mit.edu> 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 at computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/