Upper limit on games playing concurrently

the logic is this:

#1, as their rating plummets, everyone who signed up to play them gets fewer and fewer points that they technically deserve. 

#2, if that player returns, they have a very very low rating with a high RD. so, as they try to climb back up and are severely underrated, they will be stealing tons and tons of points as they move back up. 

this limits their ability to destroy the points on the way down and the way up. 

additionally, their Timeout % will go sky high, so at least it keeps them out of tournaments. 

makes sense?

I've never played in a tournament here, so I haven't a clue how it all works  As I was reading though this entire thread, the one question the persisted was about how much control the tournament director (or whoever atcually creates the tournament) over all this.  
Can the TD set certain criteria about who may join?  For instance can he limit applicants to those with a time-out rate of <5%  or something similar?  Can he limit the applicants by number of games-in-progess; for instance no one with >50 unfinshed games can join?

In short, yes, the controls for TD's are pretty good, they just need to be used a little better, me thinks.

Not a bad idea.

I am reminded however about the old saying of leading horses to mountains, or was it Mohammed to water , as the website develops people will just have to figure it for themselves.

I also saw an article about age versus ability to use websites efficiently, which apparently diminshes by 10% for each year over 25 or something. Perhaps the demographic for this site is 75 or something?

by Evil_Homer

I am reminded however about the old saying of leading horses to mountains, or was it Mohammed to water ,

I also saw an article about age versus ability to use websites efficiently, which apparently diminshes by 10% for each year over 25 or something. Perhaps the demographic for this site is 75 or something?

YE GODS! EVIL HOMER -- WHERE'S YOUR POLITICAL CORRECTNESS?

I had a grin for Mohammed and the horses but when I read your decrepitude index of 10%/PA I rolled about the floor laughing.  It helps me to understand why, at age 71, I have trouble typing without getting my fingers stuck  between the keys.

Sorry, I'd like to write a bit more,  but I need to pop out and change my incontinence nappy.

(Honest, I loved it.  I'll show it to my wife when she gets home.  She's younger than me ... only 68 )

God forgot it when he made me unfortunately

Glad you enjoyed it, basically that was an almost verbatim quote from New scientist or some other such rag, so apologies, it just made me laugh too.

500 games at a time  seams more crazy than a midnight stroll down shankill or the bogside back along me and my friend relie on libray computers and have 30 mins use on it wen its open so 20 or30 games is really tough especally when it get to makeing critical moves in less than 2 minetes

 LOL ... subtle as a sherman tank

I think that the timeouts will even themselves out over the long run.

I don't think you need an upper limit.

I also don't think you need an upper limit. What is too much for one player is ok for another. Why not measure what you are interested in (timeout %, average time per move) instead of making assumptions that anybody who has more than 50 games going will be "unreliable".

Am I off base here?

I like chess a lot, always have done and expect that I always will. Last weekend I played one day-rapid play tournaments on both the Saturday and Sunday. On Saturday I travelled to Hastings (45 miles away) and on Sunday I travelled to Oye Plage (France) for a total of 14 competitive games. On each day I made moves on chess.com before and after my excursions. I play before and after work, everyday. I even play simultaneously whilst playing on-line poker for cash. I think you'll agree that I like chess a lot, however, I just cannot believe anyone can have any fun playing 1000+ games. It's beyond the realms of sense and reason. I think an upper limit is a requirement sooner or later, as too many ridiculous scenarios are now arising from TOK's over-zealous enthusiasm. I mean, if you were "only" allowed to play 500 games (exact number is arbitrary and a matter for site management), how would that lessen anyone's enjoyment? though it would limit the Membership's liability.TOK has now timed-out in 795 games.

 now i see the light;;;;

Facebook used to have a limit on number of friends but they lifted it.

I am not in favor of an actual limit. This is not a nanny site.

I still think a supplimentary statistic to timeout percentage indicating how frequently a particular premium user falls back on their time-out protection would do the trick provided it could be used in all the same ways as timeout percentage is (i.e. as a qualifying metric for tournament eligibility to be specific).

I'd also love to see the same controls afforded tournament directors be made available as qualifying criteria on open seeks.  Giving players this level of control might actually  lead to more seeks being created as players won't have to be wary of what kind of opponent might accept their seek and may be more likely to create one as a result.