| |
BGonline.org Forums
A better clock for backgammon
Posted By: Chris Yep In Response To: A better clock for backgammon (Colin Owen)
Date: Wednesday, 11 March 2015, at 6:31 a.m.
I was a bit confused about the new setting that Phil announced that he and Mochy would be employing. Was the 3 sec add on per move in addition to a standard delay of some kind? I guessed that it would be a Chronos clock that would be used for this, if so. I now suspect that they are employing simply a time bank for each game plus the 3 sec increment only. Would be interesting to know.
The 3-second increment per move is actually in addition to a standard delay. Most clocks don't allow both an increment and a delay, so it may not be practical to use this time control for a tournament where players bring their own clocks. But I think it's still worth experimenting with it in an exhibition (e.g. Mochy vs. Phil).
In more recent years, I have realised that this setting (Bronstein, US Delay) is actually best for our game - as long as the setting is not too high. To have any kind of Fischer style setting merely encourages players to skimp on shaking and rolling the dice, and to move pieces in a slapdash manner, not to mention picking up a seemingly cocked die before it actually comes to rest. (Yes, the rules cover both instances, and it could leave the offending player disadvantaged after a ruling, but many will say or do nothing, and nobody wants to have the experience in the first place.) It is true, but to a lesser extent, of standard delay, as we may still be able to complete a rerolled number within the delay. Further disadvantages of Fischer Delay occur around the opening roll, on pressing the clocks again after an illegal play, and the fact that a player's bank is increased when he is closed out (and may not have cube access either).
I agree with your comments for the case where the players are using a Fischer-style increment without any delay at all. Mochy and Phil want to use both an increment and a delay. (Note: for the benefit of other readers and to avoid confusion, in your last sentence you mean "Fischer Increment.")
If the delay is too short (less than 9 or 10 seconds), then it encourages insufficient dice shaking (this concern goes away if the players are using a Simborg baffle box) and sloppy checker play.
It's true that a player easily gains 3 seconds per move if he's closed out, though this may or may not be considered a disadvantage. Note that his opponent usually also gains 3 seconds per move during this phase of the game since checker plays are usually easier than normal when the opponent is closed out.
It's also true that if Player 1 makes an illegal move, in most cases both players will gain 3 extra seconds of clock time. (Player 2 will hit his clock to indicate an illegal move. Player 1 will then hit his clock again after revising his play.) This is a disadvantage of this time control, though it seems very minor as long as the players don't make a large number of illegal moves. Note that the current system (for a time delay only) isn't perfect either as Player 1 gets his full time delay back (e.g. 12 seconds) to consider his new move after Player 2 hits the clock. One solution is to impose a time penalty for illegal moves, though I don't think it's worth the trouble with Mochy and Phil. (Of course if it's clear that a player is intentionally making illegal moves just to gain 3 seconds of clock time, then that player should receive a fairly harsh penalty.)
For the opening move it's possible that a player could miss out on his 3-second bonus on his very first move, but as long as the players agree on a protocol for handling the opening move (e.g. the player who lost the opening move is required to immediately hit his clock), there won't be any inconsistencies from game to game. In any case, the difference is very minor (only 3 seconds, i.e. it affects the first move only).
If you are using an increment in a match, there's the additional problem of what to do if one player wants to resign early (e.g. with 0.1% winning chances in a non-contact race). His opponent may prefer the game be played out (so that both players keep accumulating 3 seconds per move). Or, even in a gin race, one player may want to resign while the other player may want to play all the way until the final checker is borne off. As long as the players agree on how to handle these situations there shouldn't be any problems. None of this is a problem in a (standalone) money game or a 1-point match though.
Having a 2 minute per point time bank, which is easy for TD's to apply, even when imposing a clock during a match, surely is simple enough?
I think 2N minutes (for an N-point match) with a 12-second delay is usually fine for matches, but it may not work so well for money games or 1-point matches.
Consider the case of an 11-point match. Let X be the number of moves in an 11-point match. Sometimes X is small. Sometimes X is large. But if you look at the ratio of the 95th percentile of X to the 50th percentile of X, this ratio is a reasonable number. Maybe it's about 2.0, i.e. the 95th percentile of X is only twice as large as the 50th percentile of X. So, a time control like "2 12" (22 minutes reserve time, 12 seconds delay time per move) is reasonable across all 11-point matches.
But now consider the case of an individual money game (or a 1-point match). This same ratio,
(95th percentile of X) / (50th percentile of X) [X = number of moves in the game]
is much greater than 2.0 for a money game (or a 1-point match). So a time control like (M minutes reserve time, 12 seconds delay) may not work as well. That is, if you choose M large enough such that it provides sufficient thinking time for a "95th percentile" (number of moves) game, this same time control is way too long for a "50th percentile" (number of moves) game.
In my opinion, one problem a "no increment" time control has is that if the game unexpectedly has a large number of moves, both players will use up almost all their time early in the game and will have to play most of the game on "delay only." Furthermore, cocked dice are very stressful during this state. It's true that one could argue that this is just part of the game, but I think it makes for a more enjoyable game for the players and spectators if a small increment (bonus) is added.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.