I disagree with this. I donāt think this is anywhere near close to āthe best way to speed up a tournamentā in practice.
Theoretically, perhaps, butā¦
āConditiional movesā is a feature that is - suprisingly - hardly ever used by correspondence players, in my experience.
I myself rarely use them because so often I find I regret the choice that I made at the time of setting them up!
I also donāt like the experience of receiving them - that sudden āopponent moved in a flash as soon as I playedā feeling. (This could be fixed of course by adding a small delay in conditional move placements)
Weāve had the debate before of why a player should care whether their opponent has analysis enabled. Itās wierd, weāre humans is all I can say - because it does seem to matter for many people.
I really like playing with analysis disabled, because it forces me to read, but I donāt like knowing that this is not a level playing field - if I canāt use it, then you should not be able to either 
Well, sad to see that analysis is disabled, although 53% of the voters wanted it enabled. As I mentioned, I will give the tournament a pass. I hope you guys will have a great time and fun games.
Well the results are in:
1st: Ryogishiki (1d)
2nd: nutpen (1d)
3rd: S_Alexander (1d)
and congratulations to all those who completed the tournament. 
I will make the following observations for the benefit of future tournaments:
-
Completion was about 28%. Not great but not too bad compared to 2018 Meijin (randomly selected comparison) which was 35% with the usually generous time settings.
-
The tournament took less than 8 months which seems ideal to me for an annual event. That was with 3 rounds at āClock starts with 2 days and increments by 8 hours per move up to a maximum of 3 days.ā I think itās a nice benefit of fast correspondence that we can have an annual title tournament without them overlapping but I see no need to go faster which would reduce involvement and completion %.
-
There were 79 disqualifications. The vast majority (74) were automatic by the system due to a timeout result. Only five disqualifications were due to me implementing the āNo Vacationā rule. Given that vacation can slow a tournament significantly, I think itās worth keeping and enforcing the āNo Vacationā rule in FC tournaments. Though itās worth noting that I provided a minimum of 24hrs warning to anyone on vacation (the first time) and many people chose to cease vacation mode and resume participation.
The next one has already begun and is being run by @mlopezviedma:
Keeps yours eyes open for 2022! 
Hello everyone!
As some of you mayāve noted, I wasnāt active this year as a moderator, on forums nor on site chats. Anyhow, I tried to maintain the creation of RR fast correspondence tournaments.
Our second title tournament is coming to its end. Do you have any opinions about it? And in contrast with the first 2020 title tournament? Should we continue with the series? If so, should we change any tournament option? What was your experience playing it throughout the year? And so on.
A while ago I also made some single elimination tournaments, with handicap. Iām also interested in your same thoughts about them! (hereās the last one for reference).
Glad to see many of you enjoy these fast adventures! 
Cheers! 
Iāve enjoyed these. Thank you for all your efforts with them.
Iām less keen on elimination tourneys, although single is not so bad as double but both can drag out I think.
Allright, 2021 Title Tournament finished today, August 31st, after 245 days. Congratulations to @csgrsg, our new title holder!
We finished with 22 disqualified players, among 45 initially subscribed. This is not a very nice metric, hopefully next year players will consider these time limits more consciously before signing up. I donāt think we can set a more flexible time control if we want to maintain a fast correspondence pace. The 3 days cap seemed to work pretty well, completing a round in about 81 days average (about half the time it takes on normal correspondence tournaments).
Iāll setup the tournament for next year around October/November. Meanwhile, we can discuss any changes you may desire.
Cheers all!
I never noticed before that itās better to be disqualified than to resign from a tournament. Everyone who finished gets ranked from 1 to 20 (in this case) and then 21 is the top scoring disqualified person but the top scoring resigned person is placed 43 with the last two who resigned rounding out the list. I realise itās all moot but I would have thought it should be the other way round really.
I got disqualified by accident - no excuse, I had all the warnings I needed, I just didnāt get back in time.
Iād join again with the same time settings, I think they are appropriate, I just goofed.
I didnāt participate in this one (analysis disabled for 19x19 correspondence seems unnecessarily painful to me), but I was curious. I think this is the breakdown:
| round | timed out immediately | timed out later in the round |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | 11 |
| 2 | 1 | 5 |
| 3 | 1 | 1 |
So 19 of the 22 were capable of playing fast at the beginning but couldnāt keep it up? Getting hit suddenly with round 2 after waiting three months seems especially tough; Iām impressed that only one person timed out right away at that point.
It might be interesting to try an invitation-only one, but Iām not sure that would change much.
I donāt think this is right. We canāt say that necessarily for the 11 who timed out in round 1.
I also donāt pretty much get that number 19 and that logic, but I get the general idea. Sudden game batches because of the beginning of a new round can get some people off guard. Itās kinda how it works to play mac mahon correspondence tournaments, itās really something you already know in advance.
Setting up an invitational tournament sounds a bit harsh to me, as well as a decent workload for the director (me in this case). Itās not that Iām not willing to do it, I would if that was the consensus. For now I opted for allowing only group members to sign up, so at least players are totally aware that this follows a fast correspondence format.
Wasnāt there some discussion at some point about inviting people who didnāt time out last time? But I suppose you just end up with a small pool of the same people.
Yes, itās a possible approach. In that case new people could ask for an invitation through the tournament chat. That would include cases like @GreenAsJade 's to ask for another opportunity. Do you all think this will make a difference though?
- Hmmā¦ Yeah, maybe
- Hmmā¦ Probably not
0 voters
For example superdupont888 made it through ~50 moves of their games in first round before timing out of everything. So it seems like they were at least able to play fast for a while. Itās probably just hard to keep it up for months.
I guess most people joining this tournament are at least able to play a move twice a day. However, this may still lead to a time-out if you have an opponent who always plays about one hour after your move. Your daily balance will be -6 hours (+16-22). Even if you catch up on weekends to a total of 3 days, everything becomes very close. I would either increase the cap to 5 days or the additional time to 10 hours, but not both. In either case, the tournament will still finish within less than a year.
Donāt forget Australia!
Will you have enough players in each?
This is a good example and reasoning. But Iām not sure Iād necessarily call playing 50 moves and then timing out āable to play fastā.
I feel that if you played faster than the minimum requirement of the tourney then youād not need to sustain that for too many months!
Also I think playing to the minimum requirements is not really āplaying fastā. To me the minimum is there to cover you for a few days where you canāt play as far as āusualā but shouldnāt dictate the rhythm of the whole game. I think 4-5 moves a day is the lower bound of āfastā. If you need a couple of days from time to time where you play fewer moves then thatās fine but if you can only play 1 or 2 moves a day for whole game thatās just not fast.
Losing 6 hours for every 4 moves, you would have run out of time around move 50. Maybe that explains a lot of the gamesā¦
Right but to me thatās not ākeeping upā. Surely youād see that your clock is going backwards and pick up the pace.