Fast Correspondence Tournaments


Feel free to join our 2d+8h tournaments:


Fast Correspondence Tournaments - Discussion

I extended the deadline for the Dan tournament. Join in! :smile:


Missed the deadline… :frowning:


@Seferi Ooh… Well, I’ll put up more if they work okay :wink:



:blush: Thanks mate, looking forward to it!


Only two timeouts so far seems like a nice number. Here’s two more:



3 days to go!


Dont miss the deadline @Seferi! :slight_smile:


Thanks mate, would have missed it if it wasn’t for you…


Seeking for opinions: Is Round Robin too much for this time control? I feel like only one game per tournament doesn’t get to fill one’s stomach. :blush:


Here’s a 2d+8h round robin tourney:

How do I set time when I want the game to to finish within a time frame?

That one got filled fairly quickly, so here’s another:

This time without weekend pauses.


Comment on the format of the currently active Fast Correspondence Players open “For Lovers of Fast Correspondence Tournament” organised by Onno.
The Double Elimination format is excellent for players of mixed strength: everybody gets at least two games and when Strength is used as initial pairing, many weaker players will get more than two games. The start with 1 day and incrementing by 4 hours per move is the kind of thing faster correspondence players like. I don’t know if tournament directors have the right to ban Vacation, but if possible I think it should be banned in fast correspondence. There is always a higher risk of timeout with such games and this would be increased if Vacation were banned. However, I think if maximum were increased from 1 day (as in this tournament) to, say, 7 days it would allow players to build up a time buffer to cater for the need to occasionally be offline for a while! Thanks.


How to handle vacation is an open discussion, and not an easy one to solve. The thing is, vacation feature is there to give people an instant way out when they have an emergency or exceptional routine change IRL.

This is my humble opinion in this regard: Banning vacation is not the way to go. Correspondence players should embrace the posibility of their opponents going on vacation, the same way as they could come to a certain point themselves where using the vacation feature is the only way not to lose some games.

So, we should separate the vacation feature from the problem of finishing a correspondence game after a certain amount of time. Again, this is my opinion, and this is still an open discussion.


In the Fast Correspondence Tournament - August 2017, there are four players who always resign to each other within 4-5 moves (and looking at their history, in other tournaments as well). Probably nothing against the rules about that…but it’s a bit odd, right?


The solution is so simple, I’ve already suggested here. Just have the option to disable vacation in the tournament settings. The player is free to enter or not enter a tournament with thes rules. It’s so simple.

Unfortunately, it’s not possible to have quick tournaments on the OGS. A tournament designed to be fast can last for months or years if players go on vacation.

I would like to organize frequent tournaments in one of the groups I manage, but in OGS it’s not possible. It isn’t attractive for most to enter a tournament that can last for months or years.

Add to this the complaints I have heard from people I invited to the OGS and have not had games computed for ranking because the opponent strategically lost by timeout.

I’m disappointed.


As Tourney organiser, why not just make it a rule?

Then if a player is demonstrably “On Vacation” while in the Tourney, it means they resigned their current games.

Record the result that way in the tourney.

Seems as simple as that?


This will not move the tournament to the next round. I can disqualify the player. But his games will continue to impede the tournament’s progress at that round.

If I need to manage the tournament manually it doesn’t make sense to use the OGS tournament system.


Ah, I see. In that case it does appear you need more support for this from the system.


Then I think the real issue that needs resolving is that no active game from a disqualified player should hold up round progression.