14205 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
What is the most games that anyone has had going at once? Do you believe having so many games open at one time helps improve your game or slows down your way of thinking?
Having so many games going at once is not good for your chess game. How much time can you spend looking at each game. On turn based games opening moves are important so you should do some reasearch. Moving too quickly one misses tactics and alos subltiies. I am amazed that people can play 50 or more games at once--and there are people who play much more.
I currently have a game going against an Hungarian player named ANIKO, when I first checked out her stats she was then playing over 3000 games simultaneously, now it is a mere 890.
ANIKO had 3556.
It's whatever your time and inclination allow. If you are really wanting to study your positions in detail, fewer games would lend to that style. If you love the speed of blitz chess but want the ability walk away from the computer from time to time, playing a huge number of games is one way to keep the action going. I basically load up with the number that feels comfortable to my recreational interests.
As for Aniko, I'm well aware of her/his stats & have this individual in some of the groups I'm involved with. I have played this person I think twice and have lost both games.
When looking through my groups I notice many people vary in game structure between small amounts (10-12) games and others between (20-35) games, but there are some who enjoy the competetion and have seen their numbers (100 or above)games.
I'm still interested to find out if the majority of individuals think that increasing your number of games actually helps develop your game structure by obtaining game experience through numerous practices. On the other hand, do you feel it necessary to slown down the gameplay and analysis more detailed games to get the most out of each game.
i think the most games i've had going was about... 30ish?
i like running between 20 - 25 games
going through more games gives me more experience
i'm not looking to run a perfect game ~ i'm interested in practicing defensive / aggressive strategies
i don't care if i lose as long as i understand why i lost
developing effective strategies through lots of practice is what i enjoy
i don't feel it takes away from my thought process (most of my games are 13+ days)
i'd like to work up to 50 games comfortably... i think it's a great mental workout
(btw - how can ANIKO run so may games..? i've thought about this and i think it's a group of people who play this account in shifts... there is no way it's a single person... it's either a group of people or some form of computer programming... curious nonetheless)
I prefer running 20 to 30 games at a time. Aside from a move in most games when i first log on, I still am usually only playing around 5 at a time consistently.
As far as ANIKO. I was curious if that was a real person at first also. In my first game she(?) was only playin about 300 at the time. I said Hi she responded with hello. Then i asked why so many games and never got another response. It made me curious if i was playing a real person or a machine. The 2nd game i was playing with her she timed out and last i looked she had timed out of close to 800. I thought maybe some1 turned off the machine lol.
maybe ANIKO is an acronym for a pet project run by chess.com to test real time games? oh the conspiracies
I was playing around 50 games and now have kicked it down to about 15 only for detailed wins within the groups I'm involved with.
When I get down to 40, I make new games back up to 50. But I play fast, my avereage time per move is about 12 minutes, and I completed over 700 games in my 1st month. I find it useful for learning new opening lines, so you get the maximum variation in the lines you want to play. It also improves sight of the board, it is a good mental execise to try to reconstruct a game you have not seen for maybe a day or more, and figure out the dynamics.
if you want to play a lot of games i think it is better to play "live" chess rather than stack a pile of correspondence games. when you play live you focus on one game for a short period of time, and your opponent is under the same time restrictions making it even. correspondence games properly played require a deal of analysis. 30 is best for me, though i've played around 50 to disaster. reason being is i have to totally refocus every time i click to a new game and i can scarcely walk and chew gum at the same time, let alone sleep and breath at the same time without considerable concentration.
I'm always advised to study tactical puzzles, beit on-line or books or whatever. Having a lot of games going is similar: look at the screen, make your move, move on to the next screen. But somehow lots of games is critisized when lots of tactical training is praised.
I thinking it improves your way of thinking but the only problem on having lots of games is can you avoid to run out of time?
there is no one big thing the taticks sharpens your attacking if u can understand the moves and why in that positon you broke thrugh then u can use memory and similar positions will be guarenteed to have simalar solutions playing lots of gsmes need analysis but the same thing eventually you will play similar games all the time you then are able to work out good from bad
I'm getting old, so 20 games is max for me, though I never reach tt many......!
i can make a record of 5000 games at once.. that is if i put 14 days per move, and have 0% timeout but it would be way to hard and over months of work just to complete them.
I find it pointless and you learn nothing from it.
The other day I had about 120 games going, now it's down to 40. I just get bored if I don't have games to move in when I'm logged on. I find that my toughest opponents are those who keep 10 or less games going at once because they obviously spend a lot more time on the game than I do.
The top people at this site are not necessarily great, they just spend a lot more time on each of their games and care a lot more about their rating than others.
I think experience is key in chess, once you have a fundamental understanding of the game and of the style you like to play, the more games the better. If you are sitting around on a couple of games a month, analyzing each one forever, I don't think it's as effective in improving your overall game. There are billions upon billions of positions out there. Finishing a small amount of games a month/year, even if exhaustively analyzed, won't cut it in my opinion.
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
by Tatzelwurm a few minutes ago
What opening or two should I focus on first as a new player?
by Garrus_Vakarian a few minutes ago
5/30/2015 - Full Out Assault
by xray a few minutes ago
Post your favorite plastic chess sets(not for snobists)
by kenardi a few minutes ago
by HorsesGalore 2 minutes ago
Post your best miniatures here
by Ziryab 2 minutes ago
Best instructive book
by PolarChess 3 minutes ago
Unlawful to write chess notation
by Knightly_News 7 minutes ago
Halp me I am a chess noob
by Tatzelwurm 9 minutes ago
Sick and tired of playing low rated players.
by Garrus_Vakarian 10 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!