Fast Correspondence Tournaments

Why not have some of both?

1 Like

I want to know what’s each one’s preference, this doesn’t mean we’re gonna have only one of them.

1 Like

Hello fellow fast correspondents. As most of you know, I run a weekly FC-9x9 series which is open to all. This will continue but I have noticed that it has become primarily filled with regular SDKs. In response I trialed a couple of DDK only versions to gauge interest. Both (https://online-go.com/tournament/566372 & https://online-go.com/tournament/56829) were well received with minimal disqualifications.

In short I am wondering if anyone would be interested in running a series of DDK FC-9x9 tournaments along these lines. Ideally a person who would often wish to play in them as well, as this makes monitoring the no-vac rule easier.

1 Like

Hi all! I’ll start creating 2d+8h Round Robins restricted by rank, apart from the ones without rank restrictions, which I’ll continue creating. Let’s begin with three groups with some overlapping to see how they go:

DANs (3k and above)
SDKs (9k up to 1k)
DDKs (7k and below)

4 Likes

What happens if my rank drops out of the bracket before the tournament starts :joy:

1 Like

Yeah, that can happen :man_shrugging:

2 Likes

I thought I’d give it a try, but tournaments for my rank have all spots taken. :cry:

1 Like

I’ll start one for next week. You can join that one.

1 Like

Are there enough Fast C. players to make this work? I was going to ask first and then figured why not just find out. :grinning:

My conditions for success are 100 entrants and at least 40 finishers making it comparable to a title tournament.

4 Likes

I hope there is enough interest for this to get started. Currently only 52 players have signed up, and the tournament will not happen if we don’t have 60 signed up.

3 Likes

17 days left and only 8 players missing.
There should be no problems. :slightly_smiling_face:

I’d like to participate but I have already two tournaments going with good pace.

3 Likes

I created this one, it will be buried in the tournament page so I thought to also post it here.

1 Like

I’d argue that 2 days per move, even with the strictness of simple timing, is not really “fast” correspondence.

I think fast correspondence should be faster than the typical 1 day/move pace, and preferably 12 hrs/move or less.

1 Like

Most tournaments I see in Fast Correspondence are up to 3 days per move (with Fischer), but I’ll remove it if it’s not common consensus.

Yeah, I really don’t understand why others would create even slower 3 day/move tournaments.

I think different people would have different opinions about what is considered fast, but I consider 1 day/move to be the typical OGS pace (since it is used in ladders and many open correspondence challenges) and thus only faster than that should be considered fast.

In a similar tournament I created, we usually end up playing 1 move/day (or more) anyway, 2 days/move seems good enough to cover different timezones and the occasional “life happens” without anyone disqualifying. I like fast games but also I don’t want people DQ’ing left and right.

I think the most important is not 1/ 2/ even 3 days (which is a bit on the longer side indeed), but no vacation/ no pause and TDs willing to enforce that.

refuse to comment :stuck_out_tongue: (nominally 1 day/move, but vacation/ pause throws it out the window more often than not)

2 Likes

There’s a difference between “up to 3 days” in Fischer and 3 days per move simple, if that’s what you mean.

In Fischer it’s the maximum time you could have on the clock. But since the increment is usually 8 hours per move, you have to play on average 8h per move or faster. If you consistently play slower, you’ll run out of time.

5 Likes

Yes, the increment is key, but remember to double it because there are two players. 12h per move times two players means one move a day for each player.

Actually what really make fast games are fast opponents. :smile:

6 Likes

115, first part is done.

2 Likes

Shouldn’t the 40 be easy to hit? If we assume a quarter of players will time out of day correspondence, as seems to happen in the round robins, and that each round the portion who time out will halve as the more likely to time out players have already timed out, then the remainder of players after an infinite number of rounds should be about half the starting player count, no? So with this rough estimation we expect to still have at least 57.5 players by the end, no?