more clock scenarios
Robert Koca
in time and feel that I have faster hands. It would be to my advantage
to not cube a gin racing position in order to magnify my time
advantage. I feel this would border on poor sportsmanship. Is there
currently a rule about being forced to accept a resignation for maximum
you could win? In a clock match I think there should be.
Conversely should I be allowed to claim a win as soon I reach
a gin position? If answered that must accept resignation in above scenario
seems should answer yes here. If answer is yes, how would rule be implemented?
Should there be a penalty for wrongly claiming that a position is gin?
I favor the use of clocks but scenarios like these should be
ruled on before they occur in a tournament.
,Bob Koca
bobk on FIBS
ko...@bobrae.bd.psu.edu
Kit Woolsey
: Suppose I am playing in a clock match and have the advantage
These are excellent points. There are many other ways to take advantage
of the clock when playing in a timed tournament. For example if you have
plenty of time left on your clock but your opponent does not, you might
choose to steer into a more complex position where the game is likely to
take more moves. Or you might refuse to turn the cube (when your
opponent has a clear pass, you have no real gammon threat, but nothing
bad is likely to happen immediately) in order to chew up a few more
precious minutes. Imaginative players can find several other ways to use
the clock in order to increase their advantage.
One form of backgammon, which can be quite interesting, does put a
premium on time. It is called speedgammon. The usual rules are a
5-point match with each player having 9 minutes on his clock. If your
flag falls, you lose regardless of the state of the match. There are
some other rules involving fouls (things like illegal moves which would
take time on your opponent's clock, etc.). There is often a side
speedgammon tournament at major tournaments. It can be a lot of fun,
plenty exciting, and any legal ploys which take advantage of the clock
are clearly called for.
For regular tournaments, the real question we want to address is: Should
the clock be a major part of the game. In chess, it is. It is quite
common for a player who has the advantage on the clock to steer for a
more complex position (even if it involves making a less sound move) in
order to create problems for his opponent who is already in time
pressure. In backgammon, the clock was first introduced just for the
sake of speeding up the very slow players so they wouldn't disrupt the
tournament by taking too long to finish their matches. There are two
main reasons why I don't think it is good idea to use the clock to
determine the results of backgammon matches:
1) In chess, you can effectively pace yourself. Normal tournament play
is something like 40 moves in 2 1/2 hours. If you choose to spend 2
hours and 20 minutes on your first 20 moves, leaving yourself with only
10 minutes for the next 20 moves, at least you know what you are doing
and can play the next 20 moves at the necessary pace. In backgammon,
this doesn't work. Obviously you can't have the same structure of X
moves in Y minutes, since the pace is too fast for anybody to keep a
record of the number of moves made. Also, you just don't know how long a
backgammon match will be. It might be a few games if the cube gets high,
or it might be many games. Also, any individual game my be quick or may
last over 100 moves if it turns out to be one of those marathon games.
Thus, if you are using a clock it is impossible to pace yourself properly.
2) In chess, it is possible to play virtually instantaneously if
necessary -- in fact, masters do this in a time scramble -- they can make
a move and hit the clock in a fraction of a second. Thus, even if they
are under real time pressure with only a few seconds remaining on the
clock they can still squeeze out a bunch of moves if necessary. You
can't do this in backgammon. Regardless of how fast you are trying to
play, it still takes time to shake the dice, see the roll, move the
pieces, pick up the dice, and punch the clock. In fact use of the clock
encourages players to inadequately shake their dice in order to speed
things up, as if this isn't enough of a problem already.
So, what is the solution? We still need to speed up the slow players at
tournaments, but use of the clock the way it is used in chess tournaments
can lead to some very unfair situations and encourage players to try to
win with the clock rather than by playing good backgammon. I don't think
we want this. My proposed solution is as follows:
Initially give each player a specified time on his clock to complete the
match (say 1 hour for an 11 point match, for example). If a player runs
out of time, a monitor is called over. From then on, the player is
required to make every move in 10 seconds -- if he does so there is no
penalty, but if he fails to do so he loses the match. These are the
advantages of my suggestion:
1) The match will not be decided by the clock. Any player can find a
reasonable (if not best) move in 10 seconds, so the final result will be
a backgammon result and not a clock result.
2) There is no longer any incentive to maneuver to take time from your
opponent, since you will not directly gain even if his flag falls.
3) The very slow players will be forced to speed up, since they will not
want to have to make a move every 10 seconds if they can avoid it.
4) The problem of those 12 hour matches (yes, this has happened before in
major tournaments when one or both players is extremely slow) will no
longer exist since the players will be forced to eventually play at a
crisp pace.
5) If you have a really difficult decision you can take the necessary
time to solve it without dangerously handicapping yourself later in the
match due to the clock, since having to play the last couple of games at
10 seconds a move is not the end of the world.
Kit
David Montgomery
>There are two main reasons why I don't think it is good idea to use
>the clock to determine the results of backgammon matches:
>
>moves in Y minutes, since the pace is too fast for anybody to keep a
>record of the number of moves made. Also, you just don't know how long a
>backgammon match will be. It might be a few games if the cube gets high,
>or it might be many games. Also, any individual game my be quick or may
>last over 100 moves if it turns out to be one of those marathon games.
>Thus, if you are using a clock it is impossible to pace yourself properly.
>
I feel like I have heard of a different kind of game clock, not a chess
clock, which would be more amenable to backgammon. Does anyone else
remember where this was?
I'm thinking of something like this: You could have a digital
clock, and at the beginning of a match you credit both players with
some small amount of time, say 10 minutes. Now, every time a player
makes a move, some small increment, say 10 seconds, gets *added* to
a player's time. This way, if players are playing at a fairly brisk
pace, they will *never* run out of time, regardless of how many moves
a game may take or how many games a match may take. There would be
no incentive to steer towards complex games or not double or any of
the other clever strategies Kit mentions, just because of the clock.
Just an incentive to keep up a brisk speed of play.
David Montgomery
monty on FIBS
Rolf Strebel
> Initially give each player a specified time on his clock to complete the
> match (say 1 hour for an 11 point match, for example). If a player runs
> out of time, a monitor is called over. From then on, the player is
> required to make every move in 10 seconds -- if he does so there is no
> penalty, but if he fails to do so he loses the match. These are the
> advantages of my suggestion:
What about Bobby Fisher's Chess clock rule?
You have an initial amount of time, and for each
move you get a specified amount, say 10 or 20 seconds,
in addition.
This has the advantage of not restricting the time on
single moves, but the medium speed of play. This
gives you the time to think longer in complex
positions, if you're doing fast routine play else.
Just consider the horror (using the 10 sec-for-move rule)
in the (almost) infinite improbable situation when a dice
cannot decide on which side to fall for 9 seconds :)
-- Rolf (strebel@fibs)
Darse Billings
>Robert Koca (ko...@bobrae.bd.psu.edu) wrote:
>: Suppose I am playing in a clock match and have the advantage
>: in time and feel that I have faster hands. It would be to my advantage
>: to not cube a gin racing position in order to magnify my time
>: advantage. I feel this would border on poor sportsmanship. Is there
>: currently a rule about being forced to accept a resignation for maximum
>: you could win? In a clock match I think there should be.
>: Conversely should I be allowed to claim a win as soon I reach
>: a gin position? If answered that must accept resignation in above scenario
>: seems should answer yes here. If answer is yes, how would rule be implemented?
>: Should there be a penalty for wrongly claiming that a position is gin?
>: I favor the use of clocks but scenarios like these should be
>: ruled on before they occur in a tournament.
>These are excellent points. There are many other ways to take advantage
>of the clock when playing in a timed tournament. For example if you have
>plenty of time left on your clock but your opponent does not, you might
>choose to steer into a more complex position where the game is likely to
>take more moves. Or you might refuse to turn the cube (when your
>opponent has a clear pass, you have no real gammon threat, but nothing
>bad is likely to happen immediately) in order to chew up a few more
>precious minutes. Imaginative players can find several other ways to use
>the clock in order to increase their advantage.
[munch]
>So, what is the solution? We still need to speed up the slow players at
>tournaments, but use of the clock the way it is used in chess tournaments
>can lead to some very unfair situations and encourage players to try to
>win with the clock rather than by playing good backgammon. I don't think
>we want this. My proposed solution is as follows:
>Initially give each player a specified time on his clock to complete the
>match (say 1 hour for an 11 point match, for example). If a player runs
>out of time, a monitor is called over. From then on, the player is
>required to make every move in 10 seconds -- if he does so there is no
>penalty, but if he fails to do so he loses the match.
Congratulations Kit, you have just re-invented the method of time keeping
used in top flight Go. :-) It is called "byo-yomi", and works almost
exactly as you described (but with longer durations, because Go is so
complex).
The Fischer (*) chess clock generalizes this idea, and is gaining in
popularity among the chess community because it eliminates the problems
associated with time scrambles. Each player is permitted a fixed amount
of time per move, and any unused time is added to their total time on
the clock. So, in a manner of speaking, each player starts in a state
of byo-yomi, and must stay ahead of the pace at all times during the
game, or their flag will fall and they lose.
Sounds like a perfect solution for backgammon, where the total number of
moves fluctuates wildly, and where recording of moves is less practical.
(*) Yes, this is the same Bobby Fischer who won the world championship
in 1972, became a recluse, and is a constant source of embarrassment
to all serious chess players).
Cheers, - Darse.
--
char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Kit Woolsey
: I feel like I have heard of a different kind of game clock, not a chess
: clock, which would be more amenable to backgammon. Does anyone else
: remember where this was?
: I'm thinking of something like this: You could have a digital
: clock, and at the beginning of a match you credit both players with
: some small amount of time, say 10 minutes. Now, every time a player
: makes a move, some small increment, say 10 seconds, gets *added* to
: a player's time. This way, if players are playing at a fairly brisk
: pace, they will *never* run out of time, regardless of how many moves
: a game may take or how many games a match may take. There would be
: no incentive to steer towards complex games or not double or any of
: the other clever strategies Kit mentions, just because of the clock.
: Just an incentive to keep up a brisk speed of play.
You are undoubtedly referring to the "Fisher clock", invented by chess
champion Bobby Fisher. I agree that such a clock would solve the problem
adequately. Unfortunately I think this clock has never been mass
produced the way normal chess clocks have, so the cost would be prohibitive.
Kit
Erik Gravgaard
(Many lines deleted)
>. My proposed solution is as follows:
>Initially give each player a specified time on his clock to complete the
>match (say 1 hour for an 11 point match, for example). If a player runs
>out of time, a monitor is called over. From then on, the player is
>required to make every move in 10 seconds -- if he does so there is no
>penalty, but if he fails to do so he loses the match. These are the
>advantages of my suggestion:
(5 very persuading arguments deleted)
> Kit
Oh boy. Why didn't I think of this ?
In my view Kit's suggested "Clock Rule" is simply crying out to be
implemented.
In fact we have been working with a set of clock rules to be added to
the Danish Tournament Rules & Procedures (and really also
International). But with Kit's article in mind, I'll have to go back
and rewrite my first draft.
However one might consider if 10 seconds per move is the right time.
Also one would have to consider time consumed with doubling cube
considerations.
The Fischer Clock (that can be set to add time for every move) is only
the second best. Kit's rules are IMHO better. - after all the idea is
that backgammon should determine the outcome, and not the clock.
The best solution might be Kit's rule, but with a Fischer Clock ?
Erik Gravgaard
Pres. of the Danish
Backgammon Federation
Phil Laak
>Just consider the horror (using the 10 sec-for-move rule)
>in the (almost) infinite improbable situation when a dice
>cannot decide on which side to fall for 9 seconds :)
>
>-- Rolf (strebel@fibs)
>
But there would be an arbitrater and the 10 seconds would clearly and
obviously begin after the dice have settled. Trivial.
Ultra
Phil Laak
>
Initially give each player a specified time on his clock to complete the
match (say 1 hour for an 11 point match, for example). If a player runs
out of time, a monitor is called over. From then on, the player is
required to make every move in 10 seconds -- if he does so there is no
penalty, but if he fails to do so he loses the match. These are the
advantages of my suggestion:
>
1) The match will not be decided by the clock. Any player can find a
reasonable (if not best) move in 10 seconds, so the final result will be
a backgammon result and not a clock result.
>
2) There is no longer any incentive to maneuver to take time from your
opponent, since you will not directly gain even if his flag falls.
3) The very slow players will be forced to speed up, since they will not
>want to have to make a move every 10 seconds if they can avoid it.
4) The problem of those 12 hour matches (yes, this has happened before
in
major tournaments when one or both players is extremely slow) will no
>longer exist since the players will be forced to eventually play at a
>crisp pace.
>
>5) If you have a really difficult decision you can take the necessary
>time to solve it without dangerously handicapping yourself later in the
>match due to the clock, since having to play the last couple of games
at 10 seconds a move is not the end of the world.
>
> Kit
>
>
this has got to be the gist of future clock rules - brilliant - solves a
ton of problems .... that is my 2 cents.
Ultra
Anders Nielsen
>I feel like I have heard of a different kind of game clock, not a chess
>clock, which would be more amenable to backgammon. Does anyone else
>remember where this was?
>
>I'm thinking of something like this: You could have a digital
>clock, and at the beginning of a match you credit both players with
>some small amount of time, say 10 minutes. Now, every time a player
>makes a move, some small increment, say 10 seconds, gets *added* to
>a player's time. This way, if players are playing at a fairly brisk
>pace, they will *never* run out of time, regardless of how many moves
>a game may take or how many games a match may take. There would be
>no incentive to steer towards complex games or not double or any of
>the other clever strategies Kit mentions, just because of the clock.
>Just an incentive to keep up a brisk speed of play.
This is a sort of chess clock invented by Bobby Fisher..
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Work is a Four Letter word" (Song by The Smiths)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Anders Nielsen
Dick King
>In article <kwoolseyD...@netcom.com> kwoo...@netcom.com (Kit Woolsey) writes:
>>There are two main reasons why I don't think it is good idea to use
>>the clock to determine the results of backgammon matches:
>>
>>1) In chess, you can effectively pace yourself.
>I feel like I have heard of a different kind of game clock, not a chess
>clock, which would be more amenable to backgammon. Does anyone else
>remember where this was?
>I'm thinking of something like this: You could have a digital
>clock, and at the beginning of a match you credit both players with
>some small amount of time, say 10 minutes. Now, every time a player
>makes a move, some small increment, say 10 seconds, gets *added* to
>a player's time.
It WAS a chess clock, but a different kind.
Bobby Fischer insisted that the last world championship [?] be played
that way. Fischer has the patent, i believe, but you can buy it
inchess shops. rec.games.chess, help me out here?
-dk
USRobots
Kit posted several arguments for a match time limit. I'd like to add a
few ideas to the discussion.
Eric G. suggested a Fischer clock instead of a monitor, which seems more
practical, if these clocks in fact exist. Incidentally, the two
suggestions are not exactly equivalent. With a Fischer clock, a player
can use 1 second on the first move, for example, and save the remaining 9
seconds to use on subsequent moves (e.g., use 19 seconds on the second
move).
Kit's idea specifies a time limit for a match. As a former chess player,
I'm more used to time limits per game. I'm not sure which is better ...
but I'd hate to be the player whose opponent uses 40 minutes to figure out
a move near the end of a match that included large cubes. Using time
limits per game, such as 5 minutes plus 10 seconds per move, means that
such a long think won't be possible.
One disadvantage of per-game limits, from an organizer's point of view, is
that the matches might not end after two hours. Then again, *every* match
in a round might frequently finish up in well less than two hours, while
in a per-match limit situation, it's almost certain that some of the
matches will take the full two hours -- with lots of time left near the
end of a match, a player might as well use it up!
I've never played in a backgammon tournament, so I'm in unfamiliar
territory here. Anyone else have ideas about whether a per-game or
per-match time limit is better?
Thanks,
USRobots
usro...@aol.com