The Chu Shogi variant is already getting so popular on Lishogi! I can already tell that the WC is going to work! Let's celebrate!
20 members celebration!
Hey, that is great!
I would debate, however, about the time format; 0|90 doesn't allow any deep thinking that is often required in long games, especially considering chu shogi complexity, and the fact that most of us just started playing. I believe something like 60|10 would be more appropriate, for 60mins would allow much more time to be used on a single move, and we all know that often, in critical positions, that is necessary. The |10 (might be 15?) would help to play the last moves of the endgame in case the 60 mins are gone.
Maybe we shall create a pool with a proposal of few diff time formats and vote, what do you think?
Daniel
I have had a lot of thinking about time control, and I was sure that the games should not be played in a hurry. No blitz games.
For the Chu Shogi, I consider the blitz mode as the time control starting with 30-40 seconds of byoyomi. If less, then it's basically not a blitz but rather a bullet for such a complex game like Chu Shogi.
Chu Shogi requires deep analysis and calculations at all stages of the game, from opening to the endgame. If we limit thinking time on endgames to 10-15 sec byoymi, then we will have dumb blunders in endgames, which will basically spoil the quality of games.
I believe the 0|90 time control is the best fit. You have more than enough time to not miss the dumbest blunders, you have time for calculation of some tactics for your and your opponent, and you're rich with time on general strategy planning in the non-sharp positions.
You can also use your opponent's thinking time for planning the general strategy, looking out for weaknesses in your and your opponent's position, etc.
1 hour is far not enough for the entire Chu Shogi game. It is worth 40 of your moves on 90-sec byoyomi, and your opponent's 1 hour will add 40 more moves, so this is 80 moves. The average Chu Shogi lasts 200 moves.
The concept of 0|90 is simple - you have 90 seconds for every move and do not have to think much about your time. The 60|10 concept requires you to manage your time and save it for future thinking, which will bring additional difficulties for the players who haven't been used to it.
Hope, I explained to you, why the 0|90 was chosen.
I am sorry, but I strongly disagree. Being a classical chess tournament player I well know the importance of selecting candidate moves, calculating precisely, recalculating if the position is complex, and evaluating alternatives. Even though 60|15 would not allow for the endgames to be "perfect", we might set the limit higher, maybe even with 2 hours|0, or less time but adding some fischer increment from move 1, so that the player can save some time in certain phases etc., then it would be up to the players to reach the endgame with enough time to complete it decently.
In chess time management is one of the strategic elements of the game, 0|90 would not only just destroy any deep strategical thought, but also time management itself; as you well said, there would just be time to not blunder obvious tactics but NO WAY you can come up with a seriously thought, backed up plan in a complex middlegame with only 1 minute and a half per move. To sum up, if you say 60|10 is a problem for endgames, I claim that 0|90 is a problem for the whole game.
Being these merely our opinions, which are of course debatable, I'd stick to the pool idea, proposing a few alternatives, then putting it to vote. But if who's organizing (you?) doesn't want to change that well, then I'll see whether to participate or not with such weird time control.
Chu Shogi is not Chess, and patterns from the second are not applicable to the first, at least, with such precision.
>Even though 60|15 would not allow for the endgames to be "perfect"
It will not just make endgames "imperfect", it will lead to unavoidable blunders at any stage where the player has spent his primary time.
That's not only endgames. 1-hour primary time with the proper use most likely leads you to the 150th move, too far to the final.
The average 200-moves game means the game lost by resignation. If you're playing until actual endgame, that means 300+ moves.
At any stage, a player can make a blunder that can completely turn the achieved advantage off or even lead to the losing position. That's if we use 15-sec byoymi which is a little bit better than the crazy 10-sec byoyomi but still too small time control for an adequate finishing game with a previously gained advantage.
If we're saying about the proper byoyomi for finishing a game, it starts with a 30-sec byoyomi.
To consider the Ficher control time is interesting but it's hard for me to predict the outcome of an average Chu Shogi game with the concept of less Ficher time against the byoyomi.
The reason is that if players are more or less equal (at least, comparable) level, the game promises to be sharp for the major part of the game (almost the whole game, depending on the point where the battle started). This means the necessity of frequent tactics calculations, and you rarely can get comparatively "calm" positions (how paradoxical is it).
>In chess time management is one of the strategic elements of the game
Time management is not an element of the game itself, it is an element of the tournament rules.
What really sucks is losing the game by time in a completely winning position, where you can't apply your advantage, because the position is still too complex.
For that reason, the 120|0 is even worse because the sharp time control is like a disaster in Chu Shogi.
>but NO WAY you can come up with a seriously thought, backed up plan in a complex middlegame with only 1 minute and a half per move.
Sure, but for deep calculations, you rather need correspondence games. Btw, there were Chu Shogi correspondence tournaments, like the ones here www.chess.com/clubs/forum/chu-shogi-league
>To sum up, if you say 60|10 is a problem for endgames, I claim that 0|90 is a problem for the whole game.
Nope. The Chu Shogi is a long game in which the strategic impact is collected by numerous small moves, surrounded by local tactics.
You do not think out the perfect plan in a single move and then quickly implement it and achieve a win. Rather, you evaluate the common strategic position, advantages/weaknesses, and every move you look up for the best move from the strategic perspective, if the position is not sharp enough, and for the best tactic move, if the position is quite sharp.
And because of Lions and long-ranged pieces this lasts almost the whole game, often including endgames. Unlike chess, where the endgames are far more simple, and you quickly calculate here many moves forward in a row.
I was a tournament player in Chess, Shogi, and Chu Shogi as well, so I know what I'm saying because I faced differences in many aspects.
I believe you are debating with the same goal as me -> to make the tournament the better experience for players, as it is possible, and make it fair, thus making defining the strongest player based on his actual power not on good luck and blunders.
I'll consider any concerns if you have anything to say except the experience in regular chess.
60|15 just won't work. While it more or less guarantees that games finish within 4 hours, games are very likely to require byoyomi, and 15 seconds is nowhere near enough time at that stage of a game. It's not unlikely that games last 300+ moves. The only benefit is now time to think in the early middlegame.
Then we have 0|90. Yes, 90 seconds is plenty for any move at any stage of the game. However, games could exceed 4 hours, and you'd want more time to think at certain points.
My ideal time control would be 0|60+20×60. 60-second byoyomi is enough time to think for almost any move, and the extra periods make up for when things gets complicated. Alas, lishogi doesn't allow 20 periods. So if I had to suggest a time control, it'd be 0|60+5×180.
In Lishogi unfortunately you can't set separate byoyomi settings for byoyomi time and period byoymi time either.
So looks like this works only like this -> 0|60+5×60
"It will not just make endgames "imperfect", it will lead to unavoidable blunders at any stage where the player has spent his primary time."
"60|15 just won't work."
You guys quoted a few proposals out of context. I am not saying 60|15 or 120|0 were the solutions, I m just claiming that it's the player responsibility to take care of his time, and that if a player "feels" like there is a difficult mate combination or whatever he should be able to think even 20 mins before moving if he/she wills, instead of blundering cause "wait, I can only think 1 min at a time".
"Time management is not an element of the game itself, it is an element of the tournament rules."
What the hell? Time IS a strategic element of the game, for the rules of competition must assign time, which may determine a winner or influence the precision of play. Many grandmasters say so, it's so obvious I don't understand why anybody would say the opposite. That is not debatable! If to plan a sequence of move, a "long-term goal" if you will, you need time, then time is intrinsically chained to strategical (and tactical) reasoning, strongly determining the outcome of your decisions.
"Then we have 0|90. Yes, 90 seconds is plenty for any move at any stage of the game. However, games could exceed 4 hours, and you'd want more time to think at certain points."
Yes, you will want to think more at some point, be it the opening, the middlegame, the endgame! that's subjective and depends on the players and the positions. Is it a mess of a game where everything can take everything? is it a slow positional grind? Ask yourself, would you like to have a single minute x move while trying to calculate a tactic involving 10 pieces? Would you have enough time to try and assess the position after the calculation is over? I don't think so.
Would you be able to recalculate the tactical sequence to see whether you missed a Zwischenzug (in-between move) somewhere? Most likely no, unless you are already very good at the game. And that is my point, such a time format is more based on intuition than on calculation, and shall not be the way a "champion" is decided IMHO.
I also thought of Byo-yomi, that might be an idea. An interesting concept I reminded you of, as Alex pointed out, is the Fischer increment; though it would be difficult to predict how much Fischer increment 'd be needed, we might test it. If we put, i.e. 60 m + 20 sec fischer, by move 100 we will have 20x50 extra secs (considering that chu shogi doesn't count semi-moves), thus about 16 extra minutes! Maybe 20 would not be enough, but it's an idea. 40 would give an extra half an hour every 100 moves. Interesting if we have enough basic time. If the games reach move 250-300, then the total increment would be about an hour and a half, time that can be used at discretion in any phase. I believe it may be the best choice.
"I believe you are debating with the same goal as me -> to make the tournament the better experience for players, as it is possible, and make it fair, thus making defining the strongest player based on his actual power not on good luck and blunders."
Yes, otherwise I wouldn't waste my time on such a topic, I am not that kind of guy.
I'd like to add one more thing, last but absolutely not least. 0|90 can last hours but will not allow going away from the keyboard for toilet breaks or any other important thing that might happen (like a vital job call, somebody knocking at the door, you just name it)- in such cases, you would lose the game on the spot.
Imagine 200 moves of tension, then you can't resist anymore and need to go to the bathroom. Losing like that would be ridiculous.
Daniel, you raised very interesting and discussable topics, I would love to respond to everything later.
For now, I'll cite this:
>And that is my point, such a time format is more based on intuition than on calculation, and shall not be the way a "champion" is decided IMHO.
The "champion" concept is actually not my idea. And the actual tournament planned in the near future is just a test tournament, but still not devoid of a serious approach.