|
| The old recording tradition overturned | 2008-04-30 02:43:12 |
I am writing this statement in the deep concern over the decision that the organizers and the referees of TWC 2008 made regarding the notation of thinking time on game protocols.
In the past, at least for 25 years (we have the game records with thinking time information back then, even ... |
| Yuriy Tarannikov | 2008-04-30 06:09:24 |
| I believe that we must not cultivate "downism" and try to make Renju free from the discrimination by IQ level. |
| |
| Bjorn Eriksson | 2008-04-30 18:58:16 |
In general I agree with Ando, it is more informative to see the time spent rather then the time used.
However for some time I have also thought that even that is not enough information. I am thinking about the situation of after a long game players play a lot of moves quickly because the time is running out. If I knew that in the end players had very little time then I would know that probably the last moves very not as carefully thought through as the first ones. Another situation is with win on time, in databases we see games that end in non obvious situations, but with time spent it is not always clear if this is because of time loss or loser seeing a long win I have not been able to spot.
What I am leading up to is that I think it would be good to show at least two of the three: time rule, time spent and time remaining. Or all three of them. |
| |
| Ando Meritee | 2008-04-30 19:21:26 |
Yes, I think Björn's idea is good - it would be nice to record 3 kinds of time information in the future, but I worry it will be nearly impossible in practice, we are even having difficult time getting the most basic "time spent" from players. Maybe if we get more passionate game publishers who can do some extra math while uploading games, it might work. What do you think?
To Yuriy: I don't know what you mean by "downism". I think, bringing in the issue of discrimination by IQ is not serious approach. To ask players to write down the game protocol, write down stone numbers in the ascending order, write down the date (knowledge of calendar), write down the opening name (requires understanding the names of 26 openings), be able to recall the 5th alternative and mark it on protocol - they all require intelligence of some degree. I am sure there are people with IQ level that cannot do any of these. I believe, in that case, such people with disabilities can use assistance, such as a private assistant, or perhaps referee. Everyone has a right to play renju, and we will do our best to assist people who need help.
To bring up the issue of IQ just in relation with writing down the "time" information is very hippocrate. If a player has an interest and feels the obligation to write down the proper time, but simply is unable to do so because of his intelligence, then I am sure the referee or the opponent can assist happily. All it takes is the will.
I hope the discussion can continue without bringing in issues such as IQ. Thank you very much. |
| |
| Björn Eriksson | 2008-04-30 21:22:06 |
I see your point Ando, I think the first important step would be to make sure that when uploading there are options to record all three so that we know which time has been given if not both and hopefully the time rule. As long as we know the the rule and one of the others calculating the third is generally not very hard, maybe this can even be done automatically by the website?
My main thought about difficulties here is to think through what different time rules might be used and make sure all can be given without making the upload process to complicated. On the other hand the time rule should be the same for all games in a tournament so hopefully the time rule can be given when starting a new tournament and then automatically added to all games in that tournament. In which case it might be ok if it is a slightly more lengthy process then if the time rule has to be added for each game.
If all this is to complicated at least have the possibility to give all three, to show the uploader that this is what we want, and make sure that when looking at a game we know which time has been given. Not being knowledgeable about website building I hope that at least it should be possible to give time rule when creating the new tournament so that that is not necessary to do for each game. What are your thoughts? |
| |
| Ando Meritee | 2008-04-30 21:38:11 |
Currently, it is possible to write the tournament time rule into tournament info, such as here: http://www.renju.net/media/tourninfo.php?tournament_id=451 and for the game records, it is possible to utilize the "game info" field - you can already see i have moved the clock times of 1-4 rounds into that info fields, thereby freeing the space for "time spent" field, perhaps sometime later someone will actually fill them, at least I hope so. :)
It will be very hard to make some automated calculations by server, because there exist too many different time-rules for different tournaments, and it is too complicated to create formulas for each time-rule. So I guess the time field writing will still have to be manual after all. But who knows, in future, maybe even automated systems are possible, especially if RIF will move towards standardized time rule systems.
And you are right about the matter that the inputting games should be easy for publishers, including time information, or else the publishers will be less motivated to add games if they have to make calculations by themselves. |
| |
| Bjorn Eriksson | 2008-04-30 23:00:49 |
Yes, I had a feeling that getting automated time calculations was hoping a bit much at the moment.
What I was also (probably not very clearly) trying to suggest above was having a specific field with time rules for each tournament, rather then hoping that the publisher will show it in the general info. This will first of all remind the publisher that this is of interest and secondly it could then be easily added to the header of each game. When it came to game publishing my thought was to have two fields for time per player, one each for spent and remaining. Hoping that both will be given, and if not we should at least know which it is. I see your point that as it is now the info field can be used, but when someone is publishing a game and there are fields for time and time on the protocol they are likely to use it, not thinking about whether this is the time that should be given and maybe not knowing that if it is time remaining it should be given in info rather then time.
I think a large part of things is making sure people think about what time is given, we need to be clearer about spent or remaining. It would help if we could get tournament organizers to change the protocols to show both spent and remaining time so that the publishers gets all the information and won't need to do the calculations themselves. |
| |
|