Nice take on correspondence games

General Go Discussion
1

I sometimes listen to the Star Point podcast, and I find the episode on correspondence games resonates with me:

I can agree with most of the pros and cons of correspondence games that Justin mentions. He managed to put some things in words that I find hard to describe, for example when he talks about the “analysis paralysis” you might have when you can’t decide on a move because it’s a slow game and you still have time.

What are your opinions?

edit: Here’s the link to the podcast and this episode: Star Point | 65: Correspondence Go

3 Likes
2

This is why for the most part I had to quit corr. Having multiple ongoing games quickly because too much daily stress for me (I have a low tolerance these days for a variety of reasons)

1 Like
3

Imagine playing in ancient times before time control or time setting was a concept (even before the invention of clocks). Although we do have legends and stories about players who got so anxious and concentrated for days and nights, and then got hit by “divine joy” when they finally found the right response (or they thought they did).

2 Likes
4
6 Likes
5

Agreed. You can also estimate that they have something going on in their lives if the tempo of their moves decline, it’s quite good for spying on keeping track of each other. :stuck_out_tongue:

In my games, the time per move would creep up game over game, until I lost the fun of playing. So I changed my approach and I have fun again:

  1. Take a “live” approach to moves, take 10sec up to a minute for a move.
  2. Only take more time if it’s interesting to see what happens, to learn and have fun, not because I need to not fail. If I feel that fear is talking, I will force-play the simple move. If I lose, too bad.

Furthermore, I add a Goal / Strategy / Focus Point at the start of the game, to the private comments, examples:

  • “No complex fights, only simple moves and solid shape” :nerd_face:
  • “Influence over territory” :crown:
  • “Settle corners lightly/quickly and surprise the other player with fights that turn back in making the corners work” :ninja:
  • “I make a moyo and nothing is allowed to live in it, even if it sacrifices everything” :imp:.

(The smileys are only in my imagination…)

Having a goal does two good things:

  1. Reduces the number of possible good moves. For example, in the opening, after the corners have been mostly settled, many options arise, of which you can cross off half for not fitting the goal. Less analysis paralysis from overwhelming choice.
  2. Easier to remember the story of the game. The Podcasts talks of “not reviewing correspondence games because of having forgotten what the story of the game was”. Aside from the obvious solution of note-taking, with a goal set, it’s so much easier to remember the intention of moves, and if necessary, derive it.

The obvious sacrifice is a lack of flexibility to what the opponents doing, but at 10k, I think my strength actually went up, not down. You can always decide to change halfway through the game if you’re behind. More importantly, my fun (and I think learning) went up. I recommend that Corr players give it a try, but everything is IMO of course.

5 Likes
6

The way I play correspondance games:

  • Keep the number of ongoing games between 10 and 20 (exceptionally up to 30).
  • Play moves many times per day.
  • Take notes in complicated situations, or of endgame values if I decide to count.
  • When I’m not sure of my move I tell myself “let’s go ahead, if it’s a good move I’ll get an advantage, and if it’s a mistake, I’ll learn”.
  • Similarly, "I’m too lazy to count so let’s count approximately a few values. Bad counting is better than no counting at all ".
6 Likes