Do you think playing a high volume of games is better for you as it gives you more practice or do you think it harms your improvement because you tend not to offer as much concentration on so many games.

Im still trying to figure it out myself.

There's probably a big grey area in which different players are capable of playing a certain number of games, whilst still being able to concentrate on each enough to play well, in order to gain the most experience. I imagine this number changes from person to person, and depending on their state of mind at the time.

Ofcourse, in correspondence chess, the situaiton's confused further by different games going at different paces.

im playing 27 games at the moment i think the more the merrier though got to clear you head between games.

Thats the problem i have though so i think i will try and reduce my games as i tend to let slip as im still concentrating on the last one.

its the experiment of one. Different people different strokes.

 For me, anything thing above 14 simultanous games and my quality suffers. I miss blunders in 1 or 2.

More games means less time for me to train tactics and study.

I have a tendency to focus more on players I play w/ more frequently.  However, with those said players we've resolved to only playing unrated which usually means I have a great win percentage for games that "don't count" and make sloppy mistakes on rated games... go figure.

As for the total number of games, I've found anywhere from 5-10 games keeps me happy without feeling rushed. 

odd

i've looked at your profile Cianlloyd and you have 80 active games. I'm waiting on you to play so I can move on to another tournament... In another topic, you've brought up that point: That you could take all the time you want since that's what  online chess is all about. But when everybody else finished their games, and that we are all waiting on one player, it's a little sad. Maybe  if you would not take on so much games at once,  you would not expose yourself to so many critics.