Author |
Topic: Ideal time control proportions (Read 5399 times) |
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender: 
Posts: 5928
|
 |
Ideal time control proportions
« on: Dec 1st, 2005, 4:58pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
As I was answering Medarch's question about time controls, it reminded me that the list of time controls we get to choose from is somewhat irregular. That is to say, we can choose how long per move, but we can't infer on the basis of move length how long the starting reserve, maximum reserve, and maximum game time will be. (I'll leave out the percentage of excess time transferred to reserve, because 100% is standard and good.)
My hunch is that a standard formula would work very nicely in most cases, because it is the proportion of times that matters. A two-minute maximum reserve is perfect for a game at fifteen seconds per move, but very cramped for a game at two minutes per move. The latter offers a very small buffer compared to being marched along making every move at the same pace.
I submit that a maximum reserve of eight times the per-move increment strikes an excellent balance between keeping the game moving at a steady pace and allowing the players some control over their own time management. With a built-up reserve, one can think twice as long as normal for eight moves in a row before being required to revert to a normal pace, but one never can slow the game to a crawl by thinking for twenty times the average move length on a single move, as happens at times in chess. If you need doubled think time for more than eight moves in a row, you don't need more control over your time management, you just need more total time.
For starting reserve, the present time controls vary wildly from one extra move up to the maximum reserve. I suggest standardizing on a starting reserve of half the maximum reserve. This emphasizes good time management more than either extreme, because a full starting reserve removes any incentive to move quickly, but an empty starting reserve removes any possibility of thinking longer for a few moves. If your reserve starts out halfway between, you have the option of moving either faster or slower, and are therefore rewarded for having good judgement as to which is appropriate.
Finally, the maximum game time really only comes into play when there is a bot that is winning by enough that a human can't beat it, but the bot is too stupid to convert its advantage. To take care of this case, a maximum game length of 240 times the per-move increment seems adequate. Admittedly, there might be a rare theoretical win that needs more than 120 moves to convert, but speaking as the only guy who has played out a full eight-hour game against a bot, believe me it is enough. Even so, for blitz games the 8-hour cutoff is silly: I certainly don't want to play on for 960 moves just because a bot is too dumb to finish me off. For blitz a one-hour cutoff suits me fine.
To summarize, I propose that the standard time controls be
0:15/1/100/2/1
0:30/2/100/4/2
0:45/3/100/6/3
1/4/100/8/4
1:30/6/100/12/6
2/8/100/16/8
3/12/100/24/12
Noboby plays at four minutes per move, so that time control can be abandoned.
Does this set of standard time controls sound reasonable?
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
 
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #1 on: Dec 1st, 2005, 6:27pm » |
Quote Modify
|
A few comments:
2/8/100/16/8
Be warned that if you make this change, the bots really will take 18 minutes to make a move sometimes (at least Gnobby will). This is guaranteed to drive both spectators and players barmy - especially if they are easily winning  . In general I think you have made all the time reserves too long. My optimum would be to cut about 25% off all the reserves you propose.
3/12/100/24/12
Surely no-one would like to play a 12 hour game, even if they were happy with 3 min per move!!
Bot-Bot games often go for more than 120 moves. I know it's due to their stupidity, but I'd definitely prefer not to see games settled by time running out. Therefore I suggest NOT using these standard timeout controls in bot-bot tournaments or games.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #2 on: Dec 3rd, 2005, 3:45pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 1st, 2005, 4:58pm, Fritzlein wrote:
To summarize, I propose that the standard time controls be
0:15/1/100/2/1
0:30/2/100/4/2
0:45/3/100/6/3
1/4/100/8/4
1:30/6/100/12/6
2/8/100/16/8
3/12/100/24/12
|
|
The current time controls were setup without much practical experience and did eventually have to be tuned. I like the idea of having a set of standard time controls; that makes it easy to be able to just say "a 30s per move game" and not have to specify the other parameters. I think we have a lot of practical experience now to be able to tune these better.
I like the set of time controls proposed by Karl, but I also agree with Toby that some of the long max reserves might be a bit difficult for spectators to handle.
Since we are often the players we usualy don't consider things from the spectators point of view. But in the long run the spectators decide the fate of any sport. So lets not forget about them.
How about if we trim the max reserves a bit.
Fast
0:15/1/100/2/1 -----> 0:15/1:00/100/2/1
0:30/2/100/4/2 -----> 0:30/1:30/100/3/2
Medium
0:45/3/100/6/3 -----> 0:45/2:00/100/4/3
1:00/4/100/8/4 ------> 1:00/2:30/100/5/4
Slow
1:30/6/100/12/6 -----> 1:30/3:00/100/6/6
2:00/8/100/16/8 -----> 2:00/3:30/100/7/8
3:00/12/100/24/12 -> 3:00/4:00/100/8/10
I chose the max game time for the last one as 10 hours instead of 12 because I think any human would already be totally exausted after 8 hours of a long game.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 3rd, 2005, 3:50pm by omar » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Janzert
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #247
Gender:
Posts: 1016
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #3 on: Dec 3rd, 2005, 4:19pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I was going to mention something about the time control during the first round but had decided to wait till after the wc was over. Now that the conversation has come up anyway though.
I like the pace watching the games at 90s per move. But the reserve time seems short when the situation get's complicated and someone wants to do a deep think. I was going to suggest going to a 10m reserve, but also wouldn't mind Fritzlein's 12m. 6m seems like it would be really tight. Maybe if adopting Omar's suggestions, going to 2:00/3:30/100/7/8 for the wc would work out ok as well.
Janzert
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #4 on: Dec 6th, 2005, 6:50pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I think Omar has overreacted a bit with his proposed reduction of the time reserves. I know it's for the spectators, but I think it will force us to use longer time controls than we would otherwise, just to give ourselves a bit of reserve leeway.
Arimaa is quite an assymmetric game. The person under rabbit pressure almost inevitably uses more time than the other. So in some phases of the game you need more time, and others less time. Hence the need for a reasonable reserve. I would hate to see us change to rabbit-forward games just to put our opponents under time pressure.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #5 on: Dec 7th, 2005, 9:14am » |
Quote Modify
|
I was too hung up over exact proportions in my first post. Now that I think about it, a little bit longer max reserve and max game time are in order for blitz games, and a little bit shorter max reserve and max game time for slow games. For computers the ideal proportions might be uniform, but for humans there are issues of attention span and exhasution. My revised proposal would be
0:15/1:30/100/3/1.5
0:30/2:00/100/4/2.5
0:45/3:00/100/6/3
1:00/4:00/100/8/4
1:30/5:00/100/10/6
2:00/6:00/100/12/8
3:00/8:00/100/16/10
I agree with Janzert and 99of9 that the max reserve times in the current WC games and in Omar's proposals are a little tight. To some extent it is fine with me if people complicate the situation hoping for a mistake under time pressure, but we don't want to encourage unsound play too much.
If the objective in having a smaller max reserve is to benefit spectators by keeping the game moving steadily, then I propose a different solution for WC games, and any other games that will draw live observers. Rather than reducing the maximum reserve, reduce the percentage of excess time that is banked, e.g. try 2:00/6:00/75/12/8 for the finals of the WC.
The smaller percentage of excess time going to reserve has a double benefit for spectators: Not only are players slightly discouraged from thinking longer on any given move, they are also slightly discouraged from moving quickly, since they will bank less time for doing so. The net effect is to encourage the game to proceed at exactly two minutes per move, which means specatators will suffer neither long waits, nor a flurry of quick moves where they don't have time to kibitz in the chat room about what is going on.
On the other hand, if players earn it by moving faster most of the time, they will still be able to compile an adequate reserve to deal with delicate situations. Having a relatively large stockpile of time would discourage intentional surprise "cheapos" that only work because the opponent didn't have enough time during a couple of critical moves. To exhaust a larger reserve, it takes a pressure that lasts for more moves, i.e. it takes strategic pressure rather than tactical tricks. (By a tactical trick, I mean something which can be resolved in two or three moves with careful play.)
Now that I think about it, reducing the percentage of banked time makes sense to me, not just something for games with lots of spectators, but as a standard for all games. You always have at least one spectator, namely your opponent. With that in mind maybe the standard time controls should be
0:15/1:30/100/3/1.5
0:30/2:00/100/4/2.5
0:45/3:00/100/6/3
1:00/4:00/100/8/4
1:30/5:00/90/10/6
2:00/6:00/75/12/8
3:00/8:00/50/16/10
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 7th, 2005, 9:34am by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #6 on: Dec 7th, 2005, 9:31am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 1st, 2005, 6:27pm, 99of9 wrote:| Bot-Bot games often go for more than 120 moves. I know it's due to their stupidity, but I'd definitely prefer not to see games settled by time running out. Therefore I suggest NOT using these standard timeout controls in bot-bot tournaments or games. |
|
It's true that bots are more likely to need more than 120 moves to settle a game on the board than humans are. Also we don't need to protect bots from exhaustion. On the other hand, bots are also more likely to get stuck in a nearly infinite loop where nothing is happening. I think it makes sense to impose a move limit somewhere, because there is no guarantee that a game which has gone 250 moves won't go 2500. Eventually a tournament director is going to need to start the next round. I can see allowing bot-bot games to have double the move limit of games with a human involved, but having any game be totally open-ended is asking for trouble in my book.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MrBrain
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #344
Gender:
Posts: 148
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #7 on: Dec 9th, 2005, 9:54am » |
Quote Modify
|
I have noticed that nobody mentions the other effect of having a max time reserve in that when you hit it, you actually begin thinking longer on some moves than you ordinarily would. There are many times when I have my reserve maxed, and think I have a good move almost immediately. But then why move immediately (it won't go to reserve)? Use the additional time to make sure the move is right. This actually slows the game down.
In short, I am in favor of as much control over how to spend your time as possible. I think the spectators have to come second when it comes to Arimaa. If the game is not fun to play due to being under time pressure all the time (which is how I always feel), then the spectators won't have anything to watch, because people won't play.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #8 on: Dec 9th, 2005, 11:36am » |
Quote Modify
|
Mr. Brain, I know that you prefer slow games, and you would support anything that gives you more time than is currently allowed. However, the issue of how much time to give the players is somewhat distinct from the issue of how much control to give the players over time management. We're concerned about game pacing as well as total game length. In addition to your opinion that anything longer is better (which I respect) I'm also interested in your opinions on tradeoffs within a given time control.
For example, Janzert proposed compensating for a smaller reserve with a longer time per move. As an extreme example, we could play the WC games at 2:30 per move with zero reserve or at 1:30 per move with a ten minute maximum reserve. Would you prefer the extra time per move even at a loss of control over time management?
I personally value some degree of time management. I find that I don't need lots of time on every move. As you say, sometimes a good move is quickly apparent. And, like you, I want to have more time on the moves where I really need it. I can get by with less total time if I'm given more control on each move. But (perhaps unlike you?) I almost never feel unprepared to move after four minutes of thinking. If I haven't found a good move after four minutes, it's not because I think too slowly, it's because I'm losing!
I agree that the needs of the spectators should be balanced with the needs of the players. However, as a player, I actually support restricting time management so my opponent can't blitz for twenty moves and then think for half an hour on one move. Huge pauses are annoying to me as a player even more than as a spectator. I like the game to move along at a fairly steady pace, and I'm willing to give up some of my control over my own time to make that happen.
At the moment I'm still enamored of moving away from banking 100% of time in all games with longer time controls. The slower games are exactly the ones where one is likely to not need all the time on some moves, so if you banked everything without a maximum, the potential for overly long thinks would be too great. Yet if you solve the problem by installing a low maximum reserve, then players will quickly exhaust it in a complicated situation, although they could use a bit of extra time for a few more moves.
As you point out, when the max reserve is low, players will often reach it, but when maxxed out they have no incentive to "throw away" extra time, even on obvious moves. This increases total game length without increasing the standard of play much. In contrast, a higher reserve with a percentage discount on banked time would actually speed up games, given the same time per move. Players would less often be at the max reserve, and therefore more often choose to throw away extra time (when appropriate) in order to build a reserve. To the extent that players manage their time rather than moving at a steady pace, they choose to use less total time. Yet if they don't manage their time, they will move steadily, which satisfies Omar's concerns about keeping spectators engaged.
Omar proposed 2:00/3:30/100/7/8 as the standard for two-minute games, but I would be more comfortable playing 2:00/6:00/75/12/8, which I think meets his concerns just as well.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 9th, 2005, 11:44am by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
PMertens
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #692
Gender:
Posts: 437
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #9 on: Dec 9th, 2005, 3:35pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:| I actually support restricting time management so my opponent can't blitz for twenty moves and then think for half an hour on one move. |
|
yes I always hated that about gnobby, but I have not ever seen a human to play like that (without good reason)
Due to my personal playstyle I would definitively prefer longer reserve with shorter moves ... and it also solves my problem of constant interruptions, possible network problems and anything like that ...
So I love the reserve and would hate to do without it.
Sure, I play fast, so my reserve is quickly filled up - mostly quicker than for my opponent but with no/low reserve the "slower" has no advantage (apart from less interruptions or a better network ) since he will time out far more easily.
I like the reserve because it is a pressure-meter.
Therefore it cannot be to small because its value would decrease.
Most of the times it is not only one move that needs time but a series of moves because playing to fast brought you into a stupid position
I think 5 minutes is a healthy mininum, but I could live with more (so 1:30 with 10 is better than 2:30 with 0)
In addition I am well aware that many players just need their time and that anything below 2 minutes would make no sense since we do not want to see who plays best under pressure but who plays best.
I know it is unrealistic, but I want breaks like in tennis 
If it rains I want to be able to stop without timeout.
Anytime a game goes longer than 4 hours I am in extreme risk of timing out - be it because of timezones, work, sleep, food, wife, child, restroom, phonecalls or any combination of the above or what else you can think of
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #10 on: Dec 10th, 2005, 1:21am » |
Quote Modify
|
This issue of ideal time controls is not something which has a definite right or wrong answer. If it did I would definitley want to find it, but this issue is tangled with personal prefernces and different people will want different things. We could talk about this till we run out of disk space and we may still not all agree on the same thing. I hate dwelling on such things especially when in the end it won't even matter too much whether we go with A or B as long as we're in the ball park.
Without getting into too much details, let me just state some things that I beleive:
* No matter what the time control is there will always be someone who thrives at that speed.
* The time control has nothing to do with wether or not players will enjoy playing the game, but has a big impact on how the game appears to spectators.
* The true spirit of a player should be: I don't care what the time control is; I'll just consider it part of the game rules; as such I'll just practice till I get good at it. And practice does make a difference:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99513&page=1
* Besides no matter what the time control is, your opponent has the same. So a player has no real reason to complain other than personal preferences.
* The main reason for increasing the time controls is so that there will be less errors and the games will be of higher quality. But at some level of analysis even the best played games contain strategic errors. So there's a limit on how much can practically be acheived by increasing time controls.
* The main reason for decreasing the time controls is to reduce the maximum wait time for a move and the maximum time it will take the game to reach a certian number of moves.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #11 on: Dec 10th, 2005, 8:56am » |
Quote Modify
|
Omar,
I actually started the thread with no intention of reviving the slower/faster debate. I mostly wanted to talk about good values for the other parameters when the number of seconds per move is given. I think there is some room for improvement there, but I agree that as long as we're in the ballpark it is fine. I also believe you have other important ways to spend your time, especially in tournament season, and that this thread could be back-burnered until June when nothing else is going on. It's even no big deal to me if you ignore it entirely.
I do, however, want to particularly comment on one thing you said.
Quote:| * The time control has nothing to do with wether or not players will enjoy playing the game, but has a big impact on how the game appears to spectators. |
|
This is too strong. The time control does affect how much players enjoy playing the game. Many people have expressed this in many different contexts. It may be based in pesonal preference, and it may be difficult to satisfy everyone simultaneously, but that doesn't mean it makes no difference to anyone.
That said, I will of course try to adapt to whatever time controls you decide on as standard for the gameroom, and I accept the time controls for tournaments as part of the rules. Anyone who isn't satisfied with your decisions has the option of not playing, and for the record I am quite satisfied, even though I am still suggesting minor adjustments. I like the way things run around here, and I appreciate all of your efforts. If I ever stop playing Arimaa, it won't be because you didn't go the extra mile to create a great environment for playing, in addition to having created a good game.
Thank you for everything you do to run this server. Please take my comments as an expression of my desire to help make things even better, rather than as a complaint that they are unsatisfactory at present. You are doing a great job, which is another thing I have heard many people express in many different contexts.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Ryan_Cable
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #951
Gender:
Posts: 138
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #12 on: Dec 11th, 2005, 10:28am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 10th, 2005, 1:21am, omar wrote:| This issue of ideal time controls is not something which has a definite right or wrong answer. If it did I would definitley want to find it, but this issue is tangled with personal prefernces and different people will want different things. We could talk about this till we run out of disk space and we may still not all agree on the same thing. I hate dwelling on such things especially when in the end it won't even matter too much whether we go with A or B as long as we're in the ball park. |
|
I mostly agree with this, but I think there are a few opportunities to make improvements that nearly everyone will agree with. For instance, I think there is a broad consensus that Arimaa's system of Xm per move is more fun than Xm per Y move even though the latter gives more flexibility. I think that Fritzlein's suggestion of using larger reserves, but having only part of your increment banked could be one of these situations. Does anyone not think that
1:30/5:00/90/10/6
2:00/6:00/75/12/8
3:00/8:00/50/16/10
are better than
1:30/3:00/100/6/6
2:00/3:30/100/7/8
3:00/4:00/100/8/10
? I can't think of an objection other than saying "Well my opponents play more worse with a short reserve than I do?" which I don’t consider legitimate.
I have done much more spectating and kibitzing than I have playing this tournament, and I have had at least as much fun kibitzing as playing. I think the same is true for many players. The only times I have been bored were due to the players playing slowly on the board rather than playing slowly on the clock. Thus I feel qualified to say that adding 3 or 5 min to the max reserve would not decrease my enjoyment of spectating at all. In fact, it would probably make it more fun, by giving a longer chance to look at interesting positions and by marginally improving the quality of play.
Personally, as a player, I would like to have an infinite reserve with full banking, but I agree that a reserve greater than 10 times the increment is potentially harmful to the spectators unless there is a large banking penalty. However, I think increasing the reserve to ~7 times the increment would be a good thing all around. In my experience, Arimaa has runs where the position is sharp for several moves, and other times it is fairly dull for several moves.
While the time control for a tournament is fundamentally tied to the structure of the tournament, there are two other sets of time controls that are at least as important to discuss. The first is the list of time controls that we have available for inviting humans. For this I think Fritzlein has made a good proposal that should be considered and perhaps refined further. The other is the set of times that Omar sets up the championship bots to play. For the blitz and fast bots I would like to see the reserve times doubled, but maybe some people see the short reserve times as part of the thrill. I have gotten pretty good at bot bashing at 30s per move, but a year ago I would have liked to have a bot at 1m per move or else have the fast bots play 45s per move. The P2 bots fill this gap somewhat though.
on Dec 10th, 2005, 1:21am, omar wrote:| The time control has nothing to do with wether or not players will enjoy playing the game, but has a big impact on how the game appears to spectators. |
|
You haven't played bot_GnoBot2004CC lately have you? Seriously, while I can enjoy playing games at 45s or even less, I know I would like the tournament much less if I didn't have at least 1m15s to think. I think the frequent rapid, blitz, and even sudden death games is a notable contributor to the FIDE knockout tournament being such a farce.
on Dec 10th, 2005, 8:56am, Fritzlein wrote:I like the way things run around here, and I appreciate all of your efforts. If I ever stop playing Arimaa, it won't be because you didn't go the extra mile to create a great environment for playing, in addition to having created a good game.
Thank you for everything you do to run this server. Please take my comments as an expression of my desire to help make things even better, rather than as a complaint that they are unsatisfactory at present. You are doing a great job, which is another thing I have heard many people express in many different contexts. |
|
Yes, I would take Omar over FIDE any day. But maybe Omar will put the WC time control up for a vote if MrBrain makes a $1m deposit.  http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2781
on Dec 10th, 2005, 1:21am, omar wrote:
Indeed, practice at blitz has helped me far more than I expected. When I quit playing 'nator back in May, I could only beat it 2/3 of the time, and I struggled badly in games that were 1m per move or less. However, the two games I have played with 'nator since Omar put it back online have felt like a cat playing with a mouse. And most of my games since May have just been Bait and Tackle rating inflation.
on Dec 9th, 2005, 11:36am, Fritzlein wrote:| If I haven't found a good move after four minutes, it's not because I think too slowly, it's because I'm losing! |
|
So true! I lost a 4d/4d/100/8d/0 postal to 99of9 on time because of this. I got into a position where I could not find a good move in 30m of looking, so I put it off to look again another day. I repeated this several times never finding the miracle move I was looking for. Then I went a couple of days without logging into the gameroom, and I lost on time without ever even noticing I was in time trouble.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #13 on: Dec 13th, 2005, 12:44am » |
Quote Modify
|
When I re-read my last post it sounds kind of harsh. Im sorry I didn't mean to come off that way. I was just a little too blunt.
I guess in my mind I've been re-evaluting the time controls situation completely even though Karl was just proposing some adjustments to a few of the parameters. Im a bit unsatisfied with our slow time controls. The faster time controls Im not too worried about, but the slower time controls like the ones we use in the WC and challenge match have been bothering me and I had put it on the back burner and avoided it. This topic keeps reminding me about it
The thing that bothers me about our slow time controls is mainly the potential for having to wait for 10 minutes or more for a player to move. Yes, it's true that in some situations even that much time does not seem like enough, but I also agree with Karl that: "If I haven't found a good move after four minutes, it's not because I think too slowly, it's because I'm losing!". Likewise for spectators, I think waiting about 5 minutes for a move is the limit of what can be endured in a live game. Beyond that it begins to enter the zone of watching paint dry.
Another problem with our current slow time controls is that players need to build up the reserve by making some moves more quickly than the allocated time per move. If a player has not yet built up the reserve and hits a tough point in the game they are sure to get into time trouble and possibly lose on time because they may only be getting about two minutes to make the move (much less than the four minutes Karl mentioned). The bad thing is that this could happen even when the game is relatively young and there are still many hours before the max time limit for the game is reached.
This afternoon I was re-reading the time control specs on the "Match Rules" page:
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/learn/matchRules.html
and rediscovered the T parameter. I had thrown that in thinking it might be useful sometime, but had never really used it. Now that I am looking at it again, I think it might help us fix the problems I mentioned.
Consider this time control:
0/2h/0/0/0/5
This is basically a sudden death time control where each player has 2 hours to make all their moves. So the whole game will be over in 4 hours. Some people like such time controls because it gives the player full control over managing their time. I also like that part of it, but I don't like the fact that a player could take 30 minutes on one of the moves and put everyone to sleep. However there is twist in this time control. The 5 at the end says that a player may never take more than 5 minutes on any one move even if they have lots of time in reserve.
The more I've been thinking about this kind of a time control (incorporating the T parameter) the more Im begining to like it. Not only is it conceptually simple and easy to understand, but it provides a way to solve the major issues I've been unsatisfied about.
* There is a clear, definite and well controled limit on how long the spectators/opponent needs to wait for the move.
* There is a clear and definite limit on how long the game will take.
* A player does not need to make moves quickly before being able to use more thinking time and can also use sufficient thinking time on a series of moves without fear of immeadiate time trouble. Thus the quality of play problem is solved.
* No need for a game result to be determined by score.
If we are worried about the sudden death ending we could even do something like this:
15s/2h/0/0/0/5
Thus you will always get at least 15 seconds per move.
In any case Im begining to think that we should make use of the T parameter. It really adds a new paradigm to the time controls. Im really glad I threw that in when I was writting the time control specs.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
PMertens
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #692
Gender:
Posts: 437
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #14 on: Dec 13th, 2005, 6:06am » |
Quote Modify
|
Naveed and I played several 15min games and I must say that they do play absolutely different even more stressful than Blitz in some ways.
Assuming one player plays slow with an average of 120s per move and some other player (like me) only needs 60 then I have a totally new way of threatening a goal ... I just need to make the game long enough: 60 moves (and the time pressure around move 50 will be far worse than today)
It does actually pay to play defensive for the faster player ... it is (for me) easier to move the mouse faster than to play on the board and outsmart the opponent (mostly I outsmart myself)
Is this really what you want ?
I would hate to see to many game ended because of this absolute time pressure.
Today a great move can help resolve my pressure and save me.
I guess 15s/2h/0/0/0/5 is a little bit to cruel, but maybe 1m/1h/0/0/0/5 is more acceptable ? (also over at move 60 with 2 minutes per move but far easier to stretch for the slowmoving player)
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print