| |
BGonline.org Forums
"Give back" feature
Posted By: Henrik Bukkjaer In Response To: "Give back" feature (Tom Keith)
Date: Monday, 14 March 2011, at 9:26 p.m.
Tom what you suggest is a 75/25 Bronstein Fischer hybrid clock? :-)
With the good old analogue clocks, you could take yourself completely out of any time trouble by playing faster than your opponent. If you were up by a few minutes you were home safe. You could speed up a section of your games, and "gain time" that way.
I (and others - I noted PJT at the semi and final in Nordic Open the year he won it) adopted a playing style of moving all the "next" moves in around 6-8 seconds, then maybe pausing at a move for 15-20-30-60 seconds every now and then, planning, calculating, etc.
When we changed analogue clocks for digital ones, my initial take was to advocate short delays and longer bank time (or even some variant of Fischer time) to keep the high correlation between actual time (total time spent by a player) vs. clock time (time left on the clock). I wanted to see the delay as short as the fast played "next" moves. Instead of 2/12 I would have preferred 3/8. The initial suggestions for DBgF adoption of Bronstein time was as high as 3/15 because people was very uncertain about how it would play out, and there was a lack of empirical data. We looked at the few tournaments that had experienced with Bronstein clocks. Finally I (and a few others) convinced the Tournament Committee at the time, that 3/15 was way to relaxed and that the more tight 2/12 would be sufficient for reasonable play. And that it was better to start with that control, than to adjust the bank time and delays (several times) after introducing the Bronstein type controls.
Now, looking back, I think it's good that we didn't go below 12 (or at least didn't go below 10) seconds delay. And that we didn't go Fischer. Because the one best thing with 12 Bronstein compared to the old analogue clocks, I think, is that no one can benefit from shaking, rolling and moving like a maniac to save up time. All the discussions if 1 or 2 shakes is enough, checkers not put in their right place, sloppy antics and imprecise moves, etc. is not there. (or at least, the rules does not encourage it). There's time enough for everyone to play properly.
In the first matches I played, I hadn't adjusted from my old analogue clock approach. I spent more bank time than my opponents even though I was 99,9% certain that I played faster than them. 6+6+7+6+8+6+20 = 59 seconds (and 8 seconds used from the bank). Where as 10+11+9+12+14+15+10 = 81 seconds (and 5 seconds used from the bank). I recall thinking "this is completely crazy" - why can't we just get the same amount of time and decide for our selves how we spens it!?
But now I understand and see the benefits of not rewarding sub 10 second moves. At least in regular match play. Speedgammon is something else! ;-)
So even though I in principle agree with Tom's ideas here, I would not suggest that they are implemented. I think they will give you more problems than benefits.
Players just need to learn how to play optimal with 2/12 controls - it's a "dicipline" if you want to perfect it. The speed allows you to do running counts, etc.
------
BTW: I really miss the more hardcore time-aspects of analogue time controls - how the time left affected the ME table, how you could exploit an opponent in time trouble by playing certain strategies, adjusting your cubes accordingly, etc. I think it brought much more skill into the game. And the very positive effect on tournament schedules! But I also understand and respect the more "clean" and "true to the game" Bronstein controls that simply ensures a reasonable playing speed, nothing else.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.