Trying to Win a Game in the Fewest Number of Moves

(Sebastian:) I just read this on Fast Company Advice: "Trying to win a game in the fewest number of moves means hoping that your opponent is incompetent."

This is probably true under the usual rules, and certainly part of go ethics. But since Teach Yourself Go advises to "Shake up your playing in different ways" I would be curious if it would be interesting to play such a game. The scoring would have to be changed as follows:

• By default, the stake is 1, which means a game counts one point. When one of the players thinks that he is winning he/she may propose incrementing the stake. A player who is offered an increment may refuse, in which case the game is counted (at the current stake) as resigned against him. Otherwise, he must accept the increment and play on at the new higher stake. Only the player who accepts an increment may propose the next increment. (Adapted from Backgammon)

This rule would also make sense in normal games, where it would avoid the headache of knowing when to resign.

It also means hoping that your opponent is not paying attention at the time. :-) (See HowToBeatAnyoneAtGo)

kokiri: In high handicap games white is, at first, trying to survive long enough to allow the black player's mistakes to swing the game in his favour. Therefore, good play by black - keeping the white stones separated and trying not to let them get settled early is tantamount to trying to force the game to an early end.

Complete Rules to Backgammon: http://gamerules.org/rules/backgammon-board-game

This is not directly related, but i didn't know where else to post. How long is the average go game? Has this number changed over the years? Obviously if you count resignations, the length becomes much shorter. Is it true that amateur games last longer on average than pro games? Any insight?

THN