Upper limit on games playing concurrently
Sort:
Is he moving within his time-limit? I rest my case.
eternal21 wrote: Is he moving within his time-limit? I rest my case.
yes, he can't not as he is a platinum member and he goes on auto vacation frequently. However, that is not the point. I don't mind slow play in general and a win by default due to a time out would suit me just fine in the competition! I just wondered why anybody could, or would want to play so many games.
It's a newly discovered illness called chess.comitis (inflammation of the chess.com), given time the victim usually self cures, when they want their life back. 
May 22, 2008
0
#5
one of my current opponents is playing someone who has 900 games on. I worked out that at one min per move, allowing for click on game,make move and minimal thought, on a 3 day time per move that's 300 games he has to move in per day. 300 mins is 5 hours, and he can't possibly remember or enjoy any of it. My top was 35 or so at one time. Too many by far. particularly as the opposition gets better
MM78 wrote: one of my current opponents is playing someone who has 900 games on. I worked out that at one min per move, allowing for click on game,make move and minimal thought, on a 3 day time per move that's 300 games he has to move in per day. 300 mins is 5 hours, and he can't possibly remember or enjoy any of it. My top was 35 or so at one time. Too many by far. particularly as the opposition gets better
Good calculating, and exactly my point! THe only way you could do it and win would be using a chess engine, unless you were rainman-like in your chess.
May 22, 2008
0
#7
marshall_42 wrote: MM78 wrote: one of my current opponents is playing someone who has 900 games on. I worked out that at one min per move, allowing for click on game,make move and minimal thought, on a 3 day time per move that's 300 games he has to move in per day. 300 mins is 5 hours, and he can't possibly remember or enjoy any of it. My top was 35 or so at one time. Too many by far. particularly as the opposition gets better
Good calculating, and exactly my point! THe only way you could do it and win would be using a chess engine, unless you were rainman-like in your chess.
I doubt you could set up the position in your engine that quick and I can beat Fritz if i only give it 1 min per move and I take my time....it's just plain nuts, but each to his own
I know the opponent you speak of with more than 500 games, as I am playing him as well. But I say, if he wants to play that many games, why shouldn't we let him? Maybe YOU don't think it's fun (and I would tend to agree with you), but that doesn't mean HE feels the same way. Some people find skiing fun, I don't, does that mean we should limit the amount of skiing someone else does?
Speaking of all this, wouldn't it be kinda cool if they had a "members by # of current games" view? I don't think that exists....yet.
This is one of those issues that seems funny until it affects you personally:
I am playing in a tournament and noticed one of my premium membership opponents was moving slowly, and making full use of the "timeout fail-safe" everyday. I take a look at his profile to discover the fellow has over 600 games and increasing daily.
"No matter!" I say to myself... just make sure that you don't play in any tournaments he is in. Well, easier said than done! after an examination of "Upcoming Tournaments", I find that the fellow is registered in almost every tournament I might even consider joining.
The consequences of this behaviour is that, in each tournament he enters, the whole 2nd round field is slowed by weeks or months for this one individual!
Now I think it's okay to play as many games as you choose, but not when it affects me or my choices. I think it's about time a new restriction were possible for Tournament Directors: Max # of games. This might help to alleviate this SELFISH & UNCARING modus operandi.
Ray, the Tournamant started on the 11 May 08 and is only 34% complete yet it seems you have already judged your opponent to be the unltimate cause of needlessly delaying the entire Tournament;
"The consequences of this behaviour is that, in each tournament he enters, the whole 2nd round field is slowed by weeks or months for this one individual!"
This statement seems premature and without prove, and in any case unjust.
It also appears hypocritical as your own profile states;
*** A SPECIAL NOTE FOR THE "HURRY UP" GANG *** If you push me to hurry up or play more quickly than I desire, I shall immediately disable the "chat-box" and slow to the exact time limit i.e. 1 move every 3 days. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!"
So appears you are comfortable in taking the amount of time you are allowed to make your moves, but your opponents are not necessarily afforded this luxury.
Listen Quaff, I don't wish to get involved in a wrangling match with you (especially as you are not in full possession of any facts), but I will say the following:
1. The statement needs no proof because a) it's my opinion b) common sense dictates that this will be the case.
2. No hypocisy has taken part, I have not asked my slow opponent to hurry up, nor would I do so.
3. I have no problem with an opponent taking the allotted time, but when they time out and hence vacation every day, this seems a different matter to me.
In the two games I have against Mr. 600+ the following has occured:
i) In one game he resigned a very nearly level position after a handful of moves, when I asked him why, I was informed:
From: ????????
To: Ray_Brooks
Date: May 23, 2008 @ 7:52pm
Subject: Re: Our Game
im very sorry about that, i had to keep my rating down for a tournament i wanted to enter, so i thought i would resign a game i woulf probably lose anyways
it was very unsportsmanlike and im sorry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Message by 
Ray_Brooks on 5/23/2008 @ 11:51am:
Hi ??????,
was wondering why you resigned our Smith Morra Gambit game, I am truly mystified.
Regards Ray.
ii) In the other game he has played a total of six moves, although the section will shortly be concluded apart from his games.
So please don't start firing at me, because I had the temerity to mention that I don't want to play against/ or play in tournaments with these high game total players. If you can't see that a player with 600+ games is going to slow the whole tournament then I think you need to extend your "horizon".
I am in possesion of enough facts I have read in this forum and on your profile to make a judgement. You seem to let yourself get involved to much in scenario's you don't need to. If my opponent resigns they resign, that's it. Don't let yourself get so worked up would be my advice then. I am playing in a Tournament with the same player he is free to take as long as he is allowed per move. I have, and am playing in Tournaments at other sites with players with over 500 games in my group, they are also free take as long as they are allowed per move, simple as.
I say shoot them
Quaff wrote: You seem to let yourself get involved to much in scenario's you don't need to. If my opponent resigns they resign, that's it. Don't let yourself get so worked up would be my advice then. I am playing in a Tournamanet with the same player he is free to take as long as he wishes per move, simple as.
Well aren't you the little saint? Well done! Bravo! I don't feel that way about the matter. I am still alowed to express an opinion different to yours, am I? Good! Now get off my back and concentrate on your own life and games.
As I am allowed to formulate an opinion based on what I read. You come across very aggresive in your writing, it serves little purpose.
shoot them
To each their own...
... and to my understanding we only have a limited amount of vacation, so they can't keep it up forever (correct me if I'm wrong).
The operating principle here seems to be somewhat similar to the one that allows a bank to lend out most of its money, keeping just enough in reserve for what it anticipates it will need for depositors seeking to withdraw money. Yes, the bank would be unable to handle a situation in which all depositors came in at the same time seeking to close their accounts. Apparently this is what happened in the Great Depression. But it usually does not happen. Likewise, a player might be in trouble if all opponents moved at the same time, but this does not happen. One might need to begin a large number of games just to ensure an ongoing number of games being ready when the player is. Just a thought.
Hi,
I am currenyl playing a guy in a tournament who is pretty slow at returning his moves. I checked his 'online games' and he is playing over 500 games at once! How is this even possible? This is way too much for anyone to handle and/or enjoy playing. Shouldn't there be an upper limit of games playing at once 20,30 or even 50?