Lila: Berserking increment

[ijhchess]

Instead of taking away all increment when a player goes berserk, cut it in half (i.e. 3+2 would become 1.5+1 instead of 1.5+0)

[dlbbld]

I find the idea interesting. As it shows for me that the Berserk now is a bit more difficult as it seems at first glance. The increment is always removed, but the fixed time not always halved. For the rule in detail see this issue.

Now, 1+2 becomes 1+0 and with the proposed rule 1+2 would become 0.5+1. But 1+0 and 0.5+1 are totally different to play. This change would be too drastic per my point of view.

[ornicar]

I don't think so. Going berserk means making no compromises. It's an all-in, it's crazy, and no sane person would ever attempt to do it. That's what berserk must be.

[dlbbld]

Yes very much so. It's crazy that's why I never use it. But then why not always half the fixed time?! Why 1+2 must become 1+0 and not 0.5+0? For 0.5+0 is really crazy, and right, that's what Berserk should be!

[dlbbld]

Seeking for a royal audition (@ornicar) :-) to reopen the issue.

What is the idea of Berserk now? If to half the time, please check as now this is not the case. The suggestion from @ijhchess comes in handy then.

If the idea of Berserk is other than to half the time, I would very much appreciate learning what the idea ist. For me, it looks random now.

So either halve the time or clarify the idea; this is an issue so or so. Please reopen for this reason.

I take the most extreme example I can find. To compare different time settings, I look at the increment as fixed time, multiplying it by 40, taken as average moves for a game.

Then 1+1 is 100 seconds and becomes by Berserk 0.5+0, so 30 seconds, a reduction by 70%. 1+2 so 140 seconds becomes 1+0, so 60 seconds, a reduction by 57%.

For both examples, the time reduction is not 50%. Also, the time reduction in percentage is different. I don't see the idea of having such a different time reduction.

Following the suggestion to half fixed time and increment, 1+1 becomes 0.5+0.5, so 50 seconds. 1+2 becomes 0.5+1, so 70 seconds. In both cases a reduction of 50%. Both cases treated equally. I don't find this solution perfect, but better than the solution now. Please check.

[ornicar]

Berserk is about waiving increment and splitting your time in two.

I hope it's clear enough now.

[dlbbld]

I have written out below why I think the suggestion from @ijhchess is far superior. One point but not the only one is that now, for example, 5+30 becomes 5+0. In this case, now the time is not halved, and this is where the trouble starts, not where it ends.

Berserk should always halve the fixed time and the increment for the following reasons:

• This rule is transparent, while the existing rule is not. Now 1+2 becomes 1+0, but what does 1+1 become? It becomes 0.5+0. And what becomes 3+5 or 4+5? It should be evident for the user in no time but is not at all. With the new rule, this is clear in a second, 1.5+2.5, and 2+2.5.
• Now the time reduction is entirely unbalanced. It removes at least 50% of the time, but depending on the setting; it can remove towards all the time. For example, 5+30 now becomes 5+0, which is practically a reduction by much more than just half. The new rule always reduces the time by 50%, no matter what setup.
• Using Berserk now results in nonplayable games. For example, 1/4+15 seconds (this is a valid option when creating a tournament) leaves you with 1/4+0, a nonplayable game (one can argue about Carlsen, Nakamura, Firouzja, ... :-)). The new rule gives a playable game of 1/8+7.5.
• Now Berserk is disabled for games with no fixed time. For the rule gives zero time here, 0+5 would become 0+0. And that is no fun at all, loosing before the first move... With the new rule, 0+5 becomes 0+2.5. So with the new rule, the existing restriction of not having Berserk for no fixed time can be removed.
• Last but not least, it reduces the work to adapt the documentation. Now Berserk is always mentioned to half the time, which is more than just a bit wrong for some cases with fixed time and increment. So this needs adapting for giving the user the information needed. The new setting achieves the halfing, thus the existing documentation becomes finally correct.

[ornicar]

Berserk doesn't have to be balanced. It has different mechanisms with each time control, resulting in various interesting strategies.

It won't be changed. I have spoken.

[dlbbld]

Yes, you have spoken, and it sounds nonsense to me. Like others, you should also try to base your opinions on arguments. You say "Berserk doesn't have to be balanced". That is not an argument to me, just an absolutistic statement which sounds boring for me. I would appreciate a discussion on the subject. And then, whatever is decided is decided. Besides all, the rule should be transparent to the user, and that is also not the case.