[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]

StartingPoints
ReferenceSection
About


Sub-pages (up)
FAQ
FileHandling
GameHandling
GeneralUI
Social
SocialSection
Technical
Web
Discussion
Hotkeys
Unsorted

Referenced by
KGSWishlist/FAQ

 

KGS Wishlist / Fischer Discussion
Sub-page of KGSWishlist

A heated discussion from KGSWishlist

dnerra: Fischer Time as an additional option. (Yes I know it's not well-known among go players, but I'd bet a lot that it would become popular quickly.)

Tamsin: I second that request.

joshual000: Fischer Time would be my time control choice if development time allowed.]

wms has stated on the Fischer Time page that it will not be implemented any time soon since there is very little demand and its utility for Go is in doubt.

Magdirag: just to increase the demand a little bit: I think Fisher Time would be quite a good addition and it would probably be my preferred time system.

mAsterdam: Fisher_Time_preference++ . Oh well I have no right to speak. I haven't been playing at KGS lately. Besides the weekly game at the club I haven't been playing at all!. But I intend to - play more and play at KGS again.

Evand: another vote for Fischer Time here.

ChessWhiz: And here! It's been implemented on the DGS, and it's one of the most popular time controls. My favorite, in fact.

MikkoSaari: I very much prefer Fischer Time on DragonGoServer - I think it's much better than Japanese B-Y for e-mail play. However, I'm not that sure it's the best choice for real-time games.

TJ: Just to be contrary: Fischer time controls, yuck! I don't like Canadian overtime either, but I like normal B-Y overtime in go much more than I liked Fischer time when I used to play chess. Maybe proponents of fast games would like Fischer better, but I wouldn't.:) It at least makes better sense in chess, where openings are pretty much set pieces and you're always likely to gain time if you know your book. Anyways, just wanted to throw in the opposing side, lest it be thought it didn't exist.

Evand: TJ: is that a vote to not include the feature, or a statement that you wouldn't use it? Is there any reason not to include it other than the fact that it would take wms a little while to implement?

TJ: It's an opinion on and a reason for why I don't think Fischer time and Go go together. Of course, life would be easier for me if there weren't an option for people to play any time controls I don't like, so I do think I'm entitled to expressing that opinion.*grin* So, it's just me saying that there are people out there (at least one) who agree with the opinion attributed to wms: that the utility of Fischer clock for go is, and should be, in doubt. The fact that it would take effort for wms to implement is ALWAYS an argument against anything on this list taking priority over anything else, an argument easily taken up by anyone with a contrary opinion, so I won't argue that. Although I'm sure it's an issue much on wms's mind, I wouldn't presume to prioritize directly on that basis for him.

wms: I'd like to add that it's a common misconception that adding a feature is a fixed cost (ie, once it is added, you are done). It is not a fixed cost. Every feature added to any software system, no matter how well written or how simple, adds to the complexity of that system, and means that all future changes will be a tiny bit more complicated. Ever worse, adding fischer time makes the UI more complex; people have to learn what fischer time is or else they may end up in a game where they don't understand the clock. In addition, I think that something like an added time system are very hard to be removed once added, because some people will be accustomed to using it even though it isn't particularly better than the other time systems provided. All these add up to reasons why I wouldn't add a new time system unless there was really strong evidence that it would be better in some way than the existing time systems, and for Fischer time that evidence simply isn't there. (Plus of course my personal opinion on looking at the time system is that it isn't very good for go, as posted in one of the fischer time pages here at Sensei's).

ChessWhiz: You're right, of course. Sorry, I now realise that a feature is not just a feature -- it increases inflexibility, compile-time, .exe size, and complexity. I think Fischer time works well for turn-based go, such as on the DGS, but real-time go is probably better as Canadian and Japanese byo-yomi. Hey, we're still one step ahead of IGS! :-)

Tamsin: They're not very convincing arguments, Bill, if you will pardon me for being blunt. The truth is that some people would like it, others wouldn't. It wouldn't take very long for newbies to learn what Fischer time is (as it happens, I found the way you initially implemented traditional-style byo-yomi confusing when I first met it), and it can't be inherently any less suited to go than Canadian byo-yomi or any other time control system (how on earth can anybody declare it's not suitable for go without even trying it?). If you don't want to add it because you don't want to add it, that's the best reason, as it's your server and your work. But adding Fischer time would only make the server better by increasing peoples' options. People who don't like it would decline games with that kind of control. On a final (still more controversial?) note, I'd advocate adding Fischer time for the purpose of getting ahead of the game -- I doubt it will be very many years before it is tried and accepted in real-life tournaments. Better to be a trendsetter than a dedicated follower of fashion.

dnerra: Tamsin, you know that I have the same opinion with regards to the technical merits of Fischer time. But keep in mind that wms not only would have to do the work to implement it, but also would hold responsible for the decision, as he has been responsible for all previous design decisions for KGS. And that he has been very successful in making KGS a good server, so he has been right probably more often than wrong.

wms: OK, Tamsin, I'll be blunt too. In go, most players think a lot in the beginning. A lot in the middle. Less in the end. So saving up a pool of time to use at the end is stupid, and that's what Fischer time is all about. Byo-yomi and canadian times are all about giving you a block of time you can use up early, then forcing you to think faster once that is used up. This matches the way people use time in go, fischer doesn't, so fischer seems dumb to me. So there we go, it can be argued that it is inherently worse than other time systems, without even trying it out. Furthermore, you say adding another time system wouldn't be hard for users - I disagree, every little bit of extra crap you need to know before you can play comfortably makes the server a worse place. You say you had to learn one time system to play, what if you had to learn 2? What if it was 5? The more time systems you must learn, the worse things are. Right now there are 4 time systems, that's probably too many if anything, so I'm really reluctant to add a 5th, especially if it doesn't seem to match the way people play go.

Tamsin: Steady on, Bill. You don't have to use words like "stupid", "dumb" and "crap". If you don't want to implement Fischer time, then fine, but there was no need to put it like that.
You make out that Fischer time is only one of many alternative time systems, i.e., as though it were just another gimmick or fad. That is not the case: it is now one of the principal systems used in professional chess, and will doubtless catch on in go too before long. It is a superb idea in its own right, and deserves consideration for that, if nothing else.

wms: I apologize Tamsin, I should try to be more moderate. It just irritated me because your answer seemed a content-free criticism; to my reading, after explaining why I don't want to add fischer time, you essintially said "No, you're wrong." You gave no reason why you thought fischer time was good (now you have said because chess uses it, which seems odd to me since clock use in chess and go are so different). And you out of hand discarded my argument that extra time systems make the server worse, even though you agree you had to learn a time system yourself by joining the server. Also, fischer is not the only time system I've been asked to add, it is just the one that has gotten the most attention recently - I've had at least 3 or 4 different time systems recommended, I can think of "asymmetrical time controls," "hourglass time," and "Ing time" off the top of my head as proposed changes to time systems.
As a final note, this fischer discussion is getting way out of hand. Please, the next person to add stuff, move it to a different page if we have to continue it so it won't clutter up the wish list. :-) If nobody feels a need to add stuff, we should just chop it out after a few days I guess.

Tamsin: The great advantage of Fischer time is that it prevents players ever getting desperately short of time and making silly mistakes because of that. In Canadian overtime, for example, I have often been in situations where I have had to make 5 or moves in a minute, which is a stress. No matter how generous the rate given for Canadian overtime, there will be time scrambles, and that is bad news quality-wise for both chess and go. I prefer Japanese byo-yomi, but again it can be a nuisance having to make 1 move every 30 secs or every minute. Fischer time enables one to build up time and use it when you need to, without being forced into a scramble situation (Canadian) or one of constant, unending pressure until the end of the game (Japanese).

mgoetze: Eh? People can play entire games in 10 minutes without breaking a sweat. 5 moves in a minute is not the end of the world. Especially not in yose.

As for making the server worse, don't you feel that you might be underestimating players' abilities a little? I'm not the sharpest tool in the box when it comes to that kind of thing, but even so it would not take me more than a very short while to pick up as many as five extra time systems. Besides, a large number of go players from the West come to go from chess, and will have heard of numerous alternative timing systems as part of that experience. I hope that that was a little more persuasive, but thanks in any case for all that you do to make KGS such a fun place. Good luck with it.

Neil: In my experience playing games with Chinese rules, I'm surprised at how many users don't notice those combo boxes in the game dialog. You could probably add Fischer time, Bronstein time, Time After Time, and Howdy Doody Time, and most users wouldn't even notice, let alone be hurt.

Tim Brent: I'd have to agree that Fischer time wouldn't work for Go, as there is an inversion to how Chess, which the system was designed for, and Go work out (i.e. the quickest part of Go is the endgame, Chess the opening). I think the systems in place now (no time,absolute/no byo-yomi,Japanese byo-yomi,Canadian overtime) are more than sufficent, in hat he great majority of players will either use Japanese or Canadian for their games. I also read the complaint about how byo-yomi, Canadian, and of cousrse absolue cause time pressure, that's part of the game. I mean, some moves have to be instinctive and time pressure is good at developing instinct as well as forcing you to learn to read and diest the board in a fairly quick manner. The current systems are fine as they are and don't need to be added to. -- Tim Brent

dnerra: I respect and understand wms's decision not to include Fischer time in KGS, so I am replying here only to discuss the benefits of Fischer time in general. I really don't understand why "playing slowly in the opening, quicker later on" runs contrary to the conception of Fischer time. In a Fischer time game of go with, say, 15 mins plus 10 seconds a move, you can in the beginning take much longer than 10 seconds per move, thereby mostly living from the 15 mins, and later you speed up more and more as your time is running out, until you play the endgame just at the 10 seconds per move (but still having the option to play out some sequences quickly, so that you can read out some harder problems in detail). It seems a much smoother transition to me than, say, in 15 mins plus 30 seconds Japanese byoyomi (which would approximately take equally long). Plus Japanese byoyomi has the disadvantage that the player who runs out of the regular time first gets a benefit, by getting more total time than his opponent for the complete game.

Joshual000: I also must respect wms and his decision not to include Fischer time, I must however argue that Fischer time is superior to Canadian time. The *only* difference between the two is under Canadian time you lose unused time when entering a new period. Under Fischer time, the unused time is conserved for future moves. Whether or not this store of time is beneficial most players, I don't know. I do know I've lost games on time using the Canadian time control.

That said, I develop software for a living. If the time control portion of the KGS server code (C/C++ if I remember correctly) is inflexable as it appears, it could potentially be very painful to add new time controls. I believe wms is fully qualified to assess the cost of adding such a feature versus the potential benefit. The manner in which he is defending against additional time controls tells me the cost of such a feature is not trivial. Maybe when the source is ported to Java :) -- josh

yoyoma: My opinion is with wms. Every feature added is not only a cost for the programmer, but also for the users. Already with the 4 there are now I only like one, Japanese. None is great for people who don't want a formal time. But for the other 3, it takes experience to get a feel for how the time works. Absolute is the largest challenge to me, how do I account the amount of time I need for the entire game? Canadian is next hardest to me; during a hard problem I find myself looking at the clock and trying to do some sort of fuzzy division in my head to figure how much time I can afford to spend on the current move. With more experience I would be able to get a feeling for that and do it without effort, but it costs several games to get this feeling. So I prefer Japanese because to me it's the least taxing to figure how much time I can spend on a move. Even this time system required some time to get a "feel" for. I played many games before getting a feel for when I can afford to use one of my periods. When looking for a game, I often bypass the games offered with Canadian simply because I would prefer Japanese. And I don't want to see more time systems introduced to further fragment the player population. So my argument is not so much based on Fischer being better/worse than any one time control. Instead I argue that the 4 we have are sufficient, and Fischer is not so much better than the others that warrants it being added or replacing an existing one.

Rich: I have to side with wms too; an extra feature is extra work and extra maintenance, and should not be added on a whim. I also by no means shar Tamsin's optimism that it is merely a matter of time before Go Tournaments start using it; timing is far more game-specific than, say, tournament structures (that have crossed over). For example, you could have players who use up their time, then play several forced sequences, ending up with a lot more time than their opponent, who now has fewer sequences left to play out. Going into penalty time should increase the pressure, in my opinion; people who want leisurely, thought-out games can play to different time settings than people who like the scramble of lightning Go; players who dislike the fact that they make suboptimal moves when time is short should either learn to ration their time better, or learn to accept that this happens for everyone, up to pro level, and work on how they deal with the pressure. In short, I see Fischer as an unnecessary addition.

DragnSlayr: Every feature added to any software system, no matter how well written or how simple, adds to the complexity of that system. Furthermore, having another time system is hard for users, every little bit of extra crap you need to know before you can play comfortably makes the server a worse place. What if you had to learn 2 time systems? What if it was 5? The more time systems you must learn, the worse things are. Right now there are 4 time systems, that's probably too many if anything, so it would be better to remove one and have only 3, especially if it doesn't seem to match the way people play go. Therefore Canadian should be removed. It is not disigned for Go, in Go, most players think a lot in the beginning. A lot in the middle. Less in the end. So having a set amount of time for a set amount of moves, regardless of the progress of the game is stupid, and that's what Canadian time is all about. Byo-yomi and Fisher times are all about giving you the time you need when you need it, not forcing you to think faster at arbitrary points. This matches the way people use time in go, Canadian doesn't, so Canadian seems dumb to me. So there we go, it can be argued that it is inherently worse than other time systems. And allmost all of us have tried it out. Canadian should be removed.

uxs: I actually agree with the previous editor: after all, the Canadian system was only invented because: a) clocks that were made for chess couldn't do japanese byo-yomi and b) most normal people can't afford to hire time-keepers to count for them. (And while normal (chess) clocks can't expicitly do Canadian byo-yomi either, it's easily rigged by taking X stones out of the bowl and adding Y minutes to the clock. The Japanese system isn't so easy to simulate.)

mgoetze: You forget that Canadian overtime only steps in after a (possibly quite long) initial time. I could copy your arguments word for word to argue that Japanese byoyomi should be abolished, and it would be just as silly. (The set amount of moves would be 1.) It always seems to me that the people who dislike Canadian overtime are a very small and very vocal minority - in my poll of league players so far, a large majority have voted for Canadian time. [limited, unscientific poll]

DragnSlayr: So Japanese Byo-yomi, Canadian and Absolute are basically the same time systems. This being Canadian with 1 move per time unit and Canadian with no time per x moves. This would mean that removing Canadian time will not solve any complexity problems. Fisher can start with a possibly quite long initial time to. And thus most of the until now not marked as silly arguments against Fisher time are indeed silly. The only serious argument would be to keep an eye on how many people want Fisher time and compare that to the added complexity of the system.



This is a copy of the living page "KGS Wishlist / Fischer Discussion" at Sensei's Library.
(OC) 2004 the Authors, published under the OpenContent License V1.0.