Author |
Topic: Ideal time control proportions (Read 5397 times) |
|
Ryan_Cable
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #951
Gender: 
Posts: 138
|
 |
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #15 on: Dec 13th, 2005, 9:17am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
0/2h/0/0/0/5m is certainly an interesting time control. If you added 15s/30m/0/0/0/3m, 15s/45m/0/0/0/4m, and 15s/1h/0/0/0/5m and made them count for PotM, I think some people would play at those controls and enjoy it. (Currently the PotM rules say: Games with only a reserve time and no time per move are not counted) I would try it out at least. However, I would oppose making this our WC time control.
With the Xm per move system, time management is tactical. You only have to decide if considering an alternate candidate move / investigating a line further is worth the time it will take from your reserve. Basically this is just a simple guestimate of how sharp the position is. With Zm per Y moves, one must always be thinking of how many moves are left until the next increment and whether the position is likely to get sharper or duller in the future. This makes time management harder for newbies and people who just want to focus on playing the game. Still, for Z = X * Y, Zm per Y moves dominates Xm per move (by which I mean you have the flexibility to do anything you can do with the other and more), so it can be a good time control for professionals and serious amateurs. However, I think Wm per game goes much too far, because you must estimate how many moves are left in a game to decide how to spend your time. Moreover, the main advantage of Wm per game is being able to think for a long time about a move or two at a really critical spot, which you explicitly forbid.
Still, I think the T parameter is probably a better way to keep the game moving along for the spectators than the L factor. I suggest the following for a potential WC time control:
1m30s/10m/100/0/100t/6m
The key to making this control work really well is to alter the specification so that when G is reached the game doesn’t end but instead the increments stop. (I think this is a good idea independent of other time control decisions.) This time control is dominated by 0/2h40m/0/0/0/6m, but normal length games will take half as long, and for all but record length games the players will always have at least 1m30s per move.
Personally, I would prefer to increase the T factor to 6 times the increment (9m). While, 5m or 6m is pretty good for even the sharpest of tactical situations there are often strategic situations for which it is reasonable to think for much longer. Look at my WC game against MrBrain around move 19b or 28w:
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/replayFlash.cgi?gid=22244&s=w& client=1
Yes, it would be a pain for the spectators to have to wait 9m for a move, but if it only happens once or twice in an otherwise fast paced game, I don’t think it would drive people away. I think the worry about long pauses is clouded somewhat by chess, where games will often only have 15 to 25 moves that are thought about at the board. Arimaa doesn’t have long opening books, frequent short draws, and a culture of resignation brought on by massive endgame study.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #16 on: Dec 13th, 2005, 4:03pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 13th, 2005, 6:06am, PMertens wrote: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)
|
|
In my last post I was just trying to bring to light the possibility of using the T parameter. The specific values I proposed were just an example and not intended for any specific tournament. We still need to think about what values might be good and try them out.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #17 on: Dec 13th, 2005, 4:30pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I think it is a great idea to have a five-minute limit per move. I actually thought about proposing that myself, but then shied away of creating more programming work. Given that it is already coded, I think it should be the standard for the WC, and maybe for lobby games too.
The reason I was arguing for a larger maximum reserve was that someone may need a slightly longer think for several moves in a row, not a super-long think on one move. The maximum time for a single move solves that problem nicely.
Could we use all six parameters at the same time, e.g. 1m/1h/75/1h/5h/5m? If so, then let me rethink my proposals for ideal time controls.
Between the extreme of "All reserve and no increment" on one hand and the extreme of "All increment and no reserve" on the other hand, I would lean towards most of the total time coming from increments. Arimaa is not like chess, where the position simplifies towards the end. Chess players actually need less time per move to play at a high standard towards the end than they need in the middlegame. Arimaa, in contrast, often has tactically complex and tense positions late into the game. It would be a shame for those positions to be blitzed because the reserve is gone and the increment is small or non-existent. I buy PMertens' argument on this issue.
With a large starting reserve, some players are going to approach the per-move maximum almost all the time until the reserve is exhausted. This probably isn't in their best interest, but the punishment could be a long time in coming. For example, in a game at time control 15s/2h/0/0/0/5, someone could (unwisely) think for four minutes every single move, and not feel the pain until move 32, when they suddenly have to blitz every move. I wouldn't like this as a spectator, and I wouldn't like this as the opponent.
Yes, as Omar argues, there may be some early moves that require a longer think before there has been much time to build up reserve, but (parallel to my earlier comment) if you need a long think for more than half a dozen moves in a row, you are not fighting through a tactical trick of the opponent, you are under strategic pressure.
I therefore suggest a starting reserve of six times the increment. Any time beyond that, you have to earn. This places a premium on correct time management from relatively early on, as opposed to allowing lousy time management for most of the game before dropping the hammer.
However, there is no longer any need for a maximum reserve. The maximum time per move takes care of long waits for spectators and opponents alike.
I stand by my earlier ideas for percentage of unused time banked. At longer time controls, extreme time management should be discouraged. This is also in the best interest of the spectators. In a two-minute per move game, moving in ten seconds is not only rarely wise, it also gives spectators insufficient time to follow developments, and merits a discount on time banked.
Thus my revised revised proposal for standard time controls is:
0:15/1:30/100/0/1.5/5
0:30/3:00/100/0/2.5/5
0:45/4:30/100/0/3.5/5
1:00/6:00/100/0/4.5/5
1:30/9:00/90/0/6/5
2:00/12:00/75/0/8/5
3:00/18:00/50/0/10/5
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #18 on: Dec 13th, 2005, 5:30pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 13th, 2005, 4:30pm, Fritzlein wrote:
0:15/1:30/100/0/1.5/5
0:30/3:00/100/0/2.5/5
0:45/4:30/100/0/3.5/5
1:00/6:00/100/0/4.5/5
1:30/9:00/90/0/6/5
2:00/12:00/75/0/8/5
3:00/18:00/50/0/10/5 |
|
I think these look pretty good and the 1:30 time control happens to be pretty close to what Ryan suggested for the WC.
Lets give this set a try and get a feel for it; we can always adjust it more if we feel the need to. I'll added it to the invite form. I did not test out these kind of time controls very much so if you notice any problems, let me know.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
PMertens
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #692
Gender:
Posts: 437
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #19 on: Dec 13th, 2005, 5:50pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 13th, 2005, 4:03pm, omar wrote:
In my last post I was just trying to bring to light the possibility of using the T parameter. The specific values I proposed were just an example and not intended for any specific tournament. We still need to think about what values might be good and try them out.
|
|
I agree and am always open for a game to try new things out 
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #20 on: Dec 13th, 2005, 6:46pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I justed tested out the T parameter with Paul's help. Unfortunately I had added it to the specs, but did not implement it yet. Bummer. I'll try to add it soon.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 13th, 2005, 6:46pm by omar » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Ryan_Cable
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #951
Gender:
Posts: 138
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #21 on: Dec 14th, 2005, 6:03am » |
Quote Modify
|
Omar, what do you think about my proposal to alter the specification so that when G is reached the game doesn’t end but instead the increments stop? The only downside I can see is that infinite move draws would be won by the player who blitzes fastest. I don’t believe infinite move draws have ever been much of an issue in actual play, but PMertens v. bot_Clueless2005CC does look close to an infinite move draw after 55w with perfect play:
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/replayFlash.cgi?gid=22232&s=w& client=1
In fact, Arimaa could very well be an infinite move draw with perfect play. A workaround could be to say if after G is passed, the game ever goes 50 moves without a capture then the game is declared a draw, and score is used only for tournament purposes.
If we made these changes, I would then want to change Fritzlein’s time control set to
0:15/1:30/100/0/150t/5 (max game length 1h18m)
0:30/3:00/100/0/150t/5 (max 2h36m)
0:45/4:30/100/0/150t/5 (max 3h54m)
1:00/6:00/100/0/125t/5 (max 4h22m)
1:30/9:00/90/0/125t/6 (max 6h33m)
2:00/12:00/75/0/125t/8 (max 8h44m)
3:00/18:00/50/0/100t/12 (max 10h36m)
I also increased the T factor to always be at least 4 times the increment. I think it is mostly a waste of people’s time to play at 2m or 3m increment per move if they must always move within 5m.
on Dec 13th, 2005, 4:30pm, Fritzlein wrote:| Yes, as Omar argues, there may be some early moves that require a longer think before there has been much time to build up reserve, but (parallel to my earlier comment) if you need a long think for more than half a dozen moves in a row, you are not fighting through a tactical trick of the opponent, you are under strategic pressure. |
|
True, but the T factor makes it significantly harder to deal with strategic pressure because you can’t sit and think strategically for 10m or 15m at the first of those half dozen or more moves.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 15th, 2005, 2:33am by Ryan_Cable » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
PMertens
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #692
Gender:
Posts: 437
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #22 on: Dec 14th, 2005, 10:14am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 14th, 2005, 6:03am, Ryan_Cable wrote:
good question ...
Infitite move draws are usually not for humans because games would just take to long ....
(The only reason I messed that one up was because I did NOT want a draw ... or actually a victory by points at the end of time ... and because I was simply to tired )
The whole speedtrap experiment and the rabbit pulling with no piece crossing the line are both fine examples that infite moves are more than just a possibility, but a very real thing to consider.
Unfortunately most bots would play blitz eventually and never run out of reserve (unless bugged)
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #23 on: Dec 14th, 2005, 12:56pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 14th, 2005, 6:03am, Ryan_Cable wrote:| Omar, what do you think about my proposal to alter the specification so that when G is reached the game doesn’t end but instead the increments stop? The only downside I can see is that infinite move draws would be won by the player who blitzes fastest. |
|
So after the game time expires the players no longer get the time per move and can only use up the time they have in reserve, right?
I think this is an interesting possibility. But keep in mind that the real purpose of the G parameter is to allow tournament organizers to be able to fix a definite time on how long the game will take, due to practical considerations. For example people might have to catch a plane or have an important appointment and so the game must finish in 5 hours. If after the G parameter expires and there is a lot of time in reserve it could become a problem. Of course if that is expected than the G paramter could be set to a lower value; but might involve some guess work.
Fortunately all the important games so far have ended without hitting the game time limit since we set it high enough to allow for about 120 moves. But still I plan to discuss in the future alternatives to what happens when the game time runs out. Currently the result is determined by score. But other solutions have been proposed and we eventually need to hash through them. So lets hold this tought till we get into that discussion.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 14th, 2005, 2:13pm by omar » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #24 on: Dec 14th, 2005, 12:58pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 13th, 2005, 6:46pm, omar wrote:| I justed tested out the T parameter with Paul's help. Unfortunately I had added it to the specs, but did not implement it yet. Bummer. I'll try to add it soon. |
|
It's working now. Give it a try and let me know if you encounter a problem. Many times I end up breaking something else whenever I make a change 
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #25 on: Dec 14th, 2005, 1:52pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 14th, 2005, 6:03am, Ryan_Cable wrote:2:00/12:00/75/0/125t/8 (max 8h44m)
3:00/18:00/50/0/100t/12 (max 10h36m)
I also increased the T factor to always be at least 4 times the increment. I think it is mostly a waste of people’s time to play at 2m or 3m increment per move if they must always move within 5m.
|
|
From my experience with 2-minute games, I definitely don't think a 5-minute limit per move makes the reserve pointless. An "I'm in trouble" pace of thinking, where I take twice as long on every move, is still extremely useful. Obviously it gives me less control than an 8-minute limit per move, but the control I do still have is nothing to sneeze at. I think a 5-minute limit per move is a reasonable concession to the needs of the spectators.
For 3-minute games, I don't feel strongly. The WC, CC, and Challenge tournaments will never be played this slowly anyway, nor will I likely ever play a lobby game at this speed, so my opinions should count less than those of someone who would actually use the time control.
Looking in my database to see what speeds people actually choose to play, I find over 4000 games played at 3 minutes per move, but that is misleading because the lobby bots played at this time control until near the end of 2004.
If we look just at 2005, and exclude games played against Bomb2004CC and Gnobot2004CC, I find excatly six games played at four minutes per move and three games played at three minutes per move. If a time control is used less than a dozen times in a year, we could leave it out with justice, but then again, why not keep it around just in case?
I guess what the lobby should have is one "long" time control of more that two minutes per move, for the very few people who want it. Furthermore, because no tournament games will ever be played at such a slow speed, we might as well loosen up the restrictions.
With that in mind, I propose scrapping the 3-minute time control (which has been chosen less often than the 4-minute time control anyway), replacing it with
4:00/24:00/50/0/10/16
True, it will hardly ever be used, by why not leave something ultra-slow for the people who actually want it?
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 14th, 2005, 1:54pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
PMertens
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #692
Gender:
Posts: 437
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #26 on: Dec 14th, 2005, 3:52pm » |
Quote Modify
|
to make games longer than 10 hours playable I think the reserve needs to be much larger ... in fact I doubt that reserve makes any sense with that kind of game to the near certainty of interuptions.
But then I certainly am not interested in that timecontrol
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #27 on: Dec 14th, 2005, 5:42pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Actually, I'm having a hard time putting myself in the shoes of someone who wants an ultra-slow game, but doesn't want a postal game or a totally untimed game. You must want the game to keep moving at some pace, and must want it to end at some time, so half-hour breaks don't seem reasonable, yet at four minutes per move you also really don't want to be rushed, and are letting yourself in for a ten-hour game without anything extraordinary happening. It doesn't make sense to me!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
 
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #28 on: Dec 14th, 2005, 7:41pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 14th, 2005, 5:42pm, Fritzlein wrote:| Actually, I'm having a hard time putting myself in the shoes of someone who wants an ultra-slow game, but doesn't want a postal game or a totally untimed game. |
|
Here's a comparable situation that might help:
It's Sunday, a boy and his father both have the day free, they enjoy playing arimaa, and plan a game for the day, but it needs to finish by the end of the day (in say 12 hours time). Both will do other things during this time, for example eating meals, taking phone calls, and even maybe having an afternoon nap. Both want to win the game, and would even consider using sly time-control tactics to win if they were available. Neither wants that kind of exploitation to be possible, because they'd like a fun game.
What time control should they use?
I'd say something like this:
* Each person starts with 6 hours in the bank.
* No increment per move.
* No move limit.
That's it, simple! I don't think any of the other fancy time control measures would help here.
Quote:| You must want the game to keep moving at some pace, |
|
Not really, you may be happy for it to progress in fits and starts.
Quote:| and must want it to end at some time, |
|
It will.
Quote:| so half-hour breaks don't seem reasonable, |
|
They do to me.
Quote:| yet at four minutes per move you also really don't want to be rushed, |
|
You won't be. If you *really* want to think, you are welcome to spend the entire day at the board.
Quote:| and are letting yourself in for a ten-hour game without anything extraordinary happening. |
|
You can do plenty of other things at the same time, it's quite relaxed.
Quote:| It doesn't make sense to me! |
|
Hopefully now it does.
I agree this kind of situation is less likely for pairs of internet players, but it's certainly still possible. For example if there were 3 back-to-back WC games going on, and the two of us were not involved (having been knocked out in an earlier round ), we might be willing to have this kind of game whilst watching the champions battle it out.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 14th, 2005, 7:43pm by 99of9 » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Ideal time control proportions
« Reply #29 on: Dec 14th, 2005, 11:45pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I wouldn't want to play a game with a six-hour starting reserve, knowing that I might have to wait an hour for your move if you went to eat lunch. I'd rather play at four mintues per move, and that's saying something, because I never play at four minutes per move.
But not everyone wants the same things I want, so I should just shut up. Anyone who will actually use a long time control can make the case for it being included in the lobby, and I will make no objection.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print