ULTRA-FAST 🏃 Correspondence Games

I’m interested in playing some Ultra-Fast correspondence games. My preferred parameters are:

  • 19x19 ranked
  • Chinese rules, even game, random color
  • Analysis disabled
  • Fischer timing: 2 days initial, 3 days max, +4 hr increment

The last part, a +4 hr increment, is what would make this an ultra-fast game. Essentially, I view it as playing an almost live game, broken up into the flexibly arranged sessions. Typically, the game might be finished over a few days or maybe a week or two, but a lot of the moves might be made across several live-like sessions where both players happen to be online at the same time.

You might think, hey, how is that even possible while sleeping (or just being away from the site) for maybe an 8-10 hour period each day?

The key is that this only works if one is able to check on the game (or promptly respond to email/app notifications) fairly promptly over the rest of the 14-16 hours a day that one is awake. While you might lose 8-10 hours of clock overnight (if the other player moves right after you have gone away). you can easily recover that time by playing a bunch of moves the next day (and the only way you won’t be able to is if your opponent does not make any moves over the 14-16 hour period). So, in the end, the worst-case for not being able to refill back up your own time clock is if your opponent refuses to make any moves during your “day”, which will only deplete their time clock even more.

In practice, with two very active players, that will each make moves as soon as possible upon receiving an email/app notifications, both players might well be able to keep their time reserve well over 2 days throughout the duration of the game.

Making the maximum lower could more consistently enforce fast play, but I like having a little bit of flexibility built-in in case one player might need to take a break of a day or two to deal with other things. However, since the aim of the game is to play ultra-fast, I’m looking for opponents that do not anticipate needing to use vacation time or game pauses over the next week or two. Of course, if some sort of unforeseen emergency would to come up, I would be reasonable in accepting a vacation break or pause.

Anyways, I’ve rambled on for long enough. If you want to play a game like this with me, just go over to the main site and accept one of my open challenges. I think I’ll limit it to a maximum of five fast games. If you don’t see any open challenges, drop a reply or message me (in these forums, since I check this way more often). For each game, I’ll post this as my first message just to confirm with my opponent that they understand the ultra fast time setting. I might need to cancel some games and recreate challenges if some people join without realizing what they signed up for, so even if there are no open challenges when you check, I might post more later.

Hello, have a good game. Please note that this game has a very fast time setting, using a +4hr increment. If this does not work for you, or you joined by accident, please let me know so that we may immediately cancel and the game will be annulled. See this forum thread for more discussion about this format: ULTRA-FAST 🏃 Correspondence Games

EDIT: I’ve already found opponents and got five games started, but when some of those are done, I might post more open challenges and seek opponents here. If anyone is looking for similar ultra-fast games, feel free to use this thread to advertise to other forums dwellers. Also, feel free to provide comments and suggestions about this general format.


My fave time settings too!

1 Like


1 Like

29 mins and I’m too slow!? Wow! That really is ultra-fast! And ultra-fast on accepting the games too :flushed:


Fastest players play at more than 1 move per hour speed. However usually they aren’t consistent in this speed from month to month. The problem with +4h is that it’s still pretty lengthy if players aren’t from the same timezone.

Additionally, initial time should match max time so it’s more beautiful, more symmetric.

Maybe it’s my imagination but I feel Japanese rules is better to slightly shorten the endgame. Although I like the quirks too so don’t mind that element of Japanese rules

1 Like

It’s a common misconception that all of the dame need to be filled with Chinese rules.

Once there are only an even number of inconsequential (i.e., ones that don’t induce defensive plays) dame left, it is safe for both players to simply pass, leaving those unoccupied. Any further play does not change the score, since it is only evenly splitting the remaining points, regardless of who plays first.

On the other hand, if playing with Japanese rules, one should technically fill in all of the dame, in order to avoid technical sekis. Of course, people often omit dame filling and score pretending that they have been filled.

While strictly following both rulesets, Chinese rules will often lead to a shorter end game.


But they relies on both players knowing and understanding this.
If I pass with an even number of dame left in a Chinese game why wouldn’t my opponent play one of them and gain an extra point? No such danger in Japanese rules…

So my conclusion is that this might be true in a strict sense but the opposite is true in practice

Plus this relies on me actually being able to count the remaining Dame and since all my go career has confirmed my inability to count past 3 I still feel Japanese is easier/shorter


No, they won’t gain an extra point. However, since then you would face an odd number of dame left, you should fill another, and it is back to your opponent’s turn, where they should pass, since they should see an even number left.

Of course, it does require both players to understand that the some dame filling is unnecessary.

I think this is true, but I think it should motivate spreading better understanding of the consequences of the rules.

In some contexts, like professional play, dame filling is mandatory under Japanese rules, if the game goes to counting. At the other end of the spectrum, with beginners, I think it’s also good to encourage dame filling, since it can illustrate how certain dame filling moves create consequences for the surrounding stones (like forcing the opponent to playing inside their territory to fix a defect).

1 Like

Just fill the dame, you lazy bones.


Yes. The only time it’s actually annoying is when your opponent is one-move-a-dayer.

Plus I’m actually used to playing AGA rules in UK IRL tourneys and like NZ rules for integer Komi and cleanness so should really get with the dame filling.
Funny that old habits from learning under Japanese rules die hard though.

1 Like

Where Japanese rules become much harder is actually in figuring out life and death at the end of the game. Chinese rules makes it simpler to settle disputes by simply playing on. However, life and death under Japanese rules cannot always be correctly determined by playing on.


Indeed and would a headache to implement this properly for correspondance games! Good job OGS doesn’t do this…

1 Like

In practice, on OGS, if a life and death dispute occurs with Japanese rules, then one would need to try to convince their opponent about how the Japanese rules actually handles something. This might require sharing variations and referencing the rules with lengthy discussions. If that fails, one might need to get a moderator involved to help resolve the dispute.

However, it would be incorrect to resume the game to settle a life and death dispute by playing on, since that could produce results very different than what the Japanese rules would dictate. Unfortunately, due to misunderstanding of how the Japanese rules work, I think that sometimes people on OGS do try to settle disputes (under Japanese rules) by playing on, which may lead to an incorrect result.


Yes, the headache I had in mind was moving to a new board phase to play out situations and then reverting to the original board to mark groups as appropriate. I’ve no idea of this is complicated or not in programming terms (though I guess not a front end thing) but I mean that it might melt some minds if there was some jumping between a continuation board and a game board in a post game phase. Although it might add weight to my preference of not showing the score until after dead stones were agreed by both players in the scoring phase…

1 Like

Exists already - fork game :wink:

1 Like

Ideally, I would like to experiment with faster time increments. I think +2 or even +1 hour is feasible for some. However, it seems that +4 hr is the shortest correspondence increment available.

With live games, a +1hr increment is possible, but max time is also 1 hour, so that essentially forces no breaks. I don’t know of any workarounds to achieve lower increment while still keeping a much larger max time (at least 1 day).

I think that’s a bit subjective. I kind of like the 2-3-4 pattern, but maybe 3-3-4 seems like a classic/aggressive soccer formation. Really, it’s not too important, provided that the player is able to start the game, since they will likely just quickly max out their time anyways. Maybe the initial time should be lowered to just one day, in order cancel out the game faster in case a player accepts and never plays a move.

1 Like

Very aggressive - they’ve had a player sent off already!

1 Like

What do you mean? 3 + 3 + 4 = 10. Soccer formations describe just the ten outfield players and omit the goalie.


:man_facepalming: never try to out-pedant a pedant or you will end up looking a fool like me :rofl: