Upper limit on games playing concurrently

NM Reb, I respectfully disagree - I think that one should never punish timeouts directly. To continue the stock analogy above, the market will correct. Either active TMs will remove He Who Must Not Be Named from the roster of yet-to-begin events, or HWMNBN will violate the "days per move" rule (for him it must be going through the roof).

I am still against a punishment of any sort. I just don't see the logic.

The logic behind any punishment is always to discourage similar behavior from the one punished as well as others. What he is doing isnt fair to hundreds of opponents. When we have to pay speeding tickets for example, the logic is to discourage us from speeding.

I still think that the time-out protection has undermined the integrity of the timeout percentage statistic: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/singificance-of-timeout--diluted

The "market" needs the proper information in order to correct.

From where I sit (in the Antipodes, of course, so we may see things differently down here) the problem has already solved itself.

We're probably looking at a rather bad case of obsessive-compulsive disorder and HWMNBN got himself caught up looking for that elusive 1000 game simul. While this was happening his vacation time was dwindling and when it ran out (as predicted earlier) he imploded.

The biggest problem he created for others was the way he slowed down tournaments to a point where everybody was held up waiting for him. That can't happen again because his >20% timeout rate will prevent him entering any more.

After that it comes down to individual games.  I never accept challenges from people with a time-out rate above 10% unless I know there was a good reason for them failing to complete their games.

So, from down here in Oz, it looks as though the problem will be history in the next few days.

Let's remember that he is a platinum member and is entitled to play here. Whether he can actually find the kind of play he wants after this fiasco is another matter.  

BTW, I've played quite a few games with HWMNBN and found him pleasant and reasonably quick (sometimes rapid) to play.  It was only when his games level passed about 500 that it all became too much for him. 

I believe the person at issue is not intentionally losing his games.  I am pretty sure there must be some reason going on in his life which has caused him to be away, not play his games, and start timing out.  I just hope and pray he and his family are ok.

WOW, THAT IS FUNNIEST THING I'VE READ IN A LONG WHILE!  Had me in tears.

Yes it is possible for a human to remember all the games that they are playing and enjoy them and win a lot. Some are even called GrandMaster's at Chess.

I'd say that this instance of the problem has resolved itself, but that the problem itself still exists and will continue to until a proactive way of preventing someone with this compulsion from entering your tournaments is made available.  (Akin to the current timeout % restrictions).

I also think that the same restrictions that are available for tournaments, including anything that might get implemented to address this, should also be made available for seeks.

He won one on time and jumped up over 600 rating points.

There are times when I've noticed that something is probably up with an opponent because they have timed out in several consecutive games. I feel a little bad taking the victory because maybe something bad happened and I should give them time to get back to chess.com. But I realize if I let them off the hook by not claiming the time victory the next several players on their list will claim victories and then I'm the one losing out because if I win later it's against a lower rated opponent.

So far, I've just shrugged and let it go because ratings tend to take care of themselves (as of now, I'm well aware I am over rated), but I figure it's worth a mention in this context. Always appreciate the staff thinking about these things. 

A number of perspectives have been voiced here already so I won't repeat them. Yes, Lord Voldemort ( damn! I named the one that must not be named ) may be entitled to sign up for whatever number of games he likes but question is whether he gives enough attention to them, to give everyone he plays with, a  honest and decent game. Obviously, with the number of games, he can't.

Imagine the lack of satisfaction of all of us who endeavoured to do our best in our games with him, only to "win" by time-out. I think that if we accord someone enough respect by playing decently, I believe there should be some reciprocity. It's the same as if we are disappointed by someone who makes his moves willy-nilly.

I for one will resign in my future games with him if I come across him again - it's just a waste of time ( I still have 2 games with him which he hasn't started ( 2 tourneys ) - I wait to see if he cares to redeem himself ).

Along these lines, I had this one attack in a game, the imbalance was 3 pawns for a piece (but the 3 pawns were all in front of his king) and then, after I had calculated that it was a pretty good line for me, ......... he lost on time. It was not He Who Must Not Be Named, but it reflected well enough the sense of loss that one gets after a timeout in a game in which you have invested yourself.

That being said, until this post I had forgotten about it. So, it's really not a big deal. Now that chess.com adminship has solved the multiple consecutive timeout rating problem, and presumably they are looking into "sandbagging" via resignation, this is a non-problem now, in my view.