An opposing player entreated me with this lovely diatribe recently. "Did you join this tournament with any intention of actually playing, or is the plan to ride your time-out protection to victory" and "87 simultaneous games is downright ridiculous. Try to stick to a game load you're actually able to focus on for the sake of being fair to your opponents." I called him a wanker, told him to piss off. Then I explained that I average 60 hours a week at work and also raise two girls. Then I resigned after making my first move. This was tournament play. I believe I'm a solid player even though I loose more than win. By playing many games at once I feel that my skill is growing. That being said, does anyone think that it is bad form to play a lot of games at one time?

I feel as though playing more then 5 games at once is not good because it is impossible to keep track of your train of thought after each move,.

pawnsolo2 wrote:

An opposing player entreated me with this lovely diatribe recently. "Did you join this tournament with any intention of actually playing, or is the plan to ride your time-out protection to victory" and "87 simultaneous games is downright ridiculous. Try to stick to a game load you're actually able to focus on for the sake of being fair to your opponents." I called him a wanker, told him to piss off. Then I explained that I average 60 hours a week at work and also raise two girls. Then I resigned after making my first move. This was tournament play. I believe I'm a solid player even though I loose more than win. By playing many games at once I feel that my skill is growing. That being said, does anyone think that it is bad form to play a lot of games at one time?

---

 as long as you think you can handle it, i don't see why it would affect your opponents. It certainly wouldnt bother me. It's all up to the individual.

Ahhh, there's something oddly satisfying and, dare I say, nostalgic, about being harangued by a bombastic self-righteous blowhard who's worked himself into a lather over something that is clearly and completely none of his damn business.  Nostalgic, because it always reminds me of the pre-Microsoft internet era and the golden age of discussion groups where the ad-hominum attack was turned into an artform.  You just can't get flamed like you used to....

pawnsolo2> That being said, does anyone think that it is bad form to play a lot of games at one time?

Nah. I don't care how many games my opponent plays at once, I only care how they act in the game(s) we are playing. BTW, there's an option to turn the chat box off.

I had to pull out of one tournament TOOO many games!! what do these people do all day. I dont think it helps your game much.

When everyone signed up for the tournament they agreed to certain conditions such as the time allowed for each move. If they are in a hurry to get the game over with then they should join tournaments with shorter time controls. I'm a slow player. I think my opponents probably get restless waiting for me to move. But hey! Sometimes I just can't decide. Sometimes I just get distracted by my life for days on end. Sometimes I'm just not in the mood to look at chess positions.  That's why I usually choose tournaments with lengthy time controls. I don't want to be in a hurry. I want to enjoy it. But I know how you feel. I once resigned my games against an opponent because he sent move reminders relentlessly. I eventually quit playing at that site because they seemed to encourage sending move reminders when there was still plenty of time left. I don't play slow in order to gain any advantage. These games are simply not that important. We don't get anything for winning. We don't lose anything for losing. 

I love this game. My knowlege of it is as such that a win or a loss matters less than the lessons about how to win, or even how not to loose. I make at least one move a day on everygame in play. It takes me a little over an hour. And as much as I dig the politics of war that chess teaches,  I love my kids more, in fact I love doing my job and taking home fat paychecks every week; and hiking, dancing ect, and just living a well rounded life. Either play or drop out of the game, cause if you act like a b**ch, I'll treat you like one. Plus,theratings here are not concrete and if they were I'd be more conservative. If some fool acted the part  in a face to face game I'd light him without even saying a word back.

If you're comfortable with a lot of games then okay. I prefer a few games played in what could be called a leisurely manner.....suits me fine.

I use an independent arbiter to determine when I am playing too much.  I look at my wife.  If she is wearing the 'face like a slapped arse' then I put the laptop away.

I think your question had more to do with the number of games than with the time it takes. But then they are somewhat proportional. There was a time when I had more than 80 games in progress. That was way too many for me. I just got carried away. Right now I have 27 games going. I'm more comfortable with about 20 or fewer. I've encountered people who played 100 games or more at a time. As a general observation many of them seemed to play good but their rating remained low. I've also noticed that they usually don't play the endgame very well. Ultimately it's really up to you. But I think your opponent was out of line to say those things to you and I think I would have reported it to the site administrator.

SS Rabid_Dog wrote: I use an independent arbiter to determine when I am playing too much.  I look at my wife.  If she is wearing the 'face like a slapped arse' then I put the laptop away.

---

Bet that was one of your fastest moves.

pawnsolo2, did opponent put an "/ObFlame" before their diatribe?

Also, I haven't played tournaments here, but isn't there a "disable chat" option during tournaments - like there is in non-tournament games? I find the option quite useful.

 

I sometimes get frustrated when people do not make a move for awhile (my cynical side assumes they are using a computer to beat me, which frankly, is not really necassary for most of you!) - but it is my choice to accept or decline a game and its time parameters - if people are making their moves in the alloted time it is not my business - and if they take too long they lose.

sapblatt wrote:  it is my choice to accept or decline a game and its time parameters - if people are making their moves in the alloted time it is not my business - and if they take too long they lose.

---

 That's the bottom line here. As long as you make your moves within the allotted time, you're not doing anything wrong and your opponents should keep their mouth shut.

What people have complained about, though, is when people join tournaments and then take more than the allotted time to move (e.g., time control is 3 days per move, and you only make one move per week). As a premium member you go on "vacation" instead of timing out (or so I understand). I can understand how that would be frustrating - especially if the guy who does this has way too many games going on at the same time.

lanceuppercut_239 wrote:

What people have complained about, though, is when people join tournaments and then take more than the allotted time to move (e.g., time control is 3 days per move, and you only make one move per week). As a premium member you go on "vacation" instead of timing out (or so I understand). I can understand how that would be frustrating - especially if the guy who does this has way too many games going on at the same time.

---

pawnsolo2 has 0% time out and an average of 6 h 2min pr. move. He is a saint when it comes to moving quickly.

The other guy was a jerk and that is all there is to it.

I know that it stirs up a lot of debate but my view is that if they make their move in the alloted time then that's that. On a personal note I got carried away with the amount of games I was playing, up to over 50 which is a lot for me and found that my game was suffering, a lot of silly mistakes. Now down to about 40 and want to get it lower. Hope eventually just to have 10 games on the go at once.

I feel that I play better this way and learn more. But at the end of the day it is down to individual choice. What suit's one player may not suit another.

fluffy_rabbit wrote:

---

pawnsolo2 has 0% time out and an average of 6 h 2min pr. move. He is a saint when it comes to moving quickly.

The other guy was a jerk and that is all there is to it.

---

 I agree. I was just trying to see the other side of the coin here, since the guy isn't here to defend himself.

But yeah, he should have checked out the timeout stats before making up his mind. And he shouldn't complain as long as people follow the rules. That's the bottom line. 

I'm playing against pawnsolo2 now and I have not had any problem with the time it takes him to move. He moves much quicker than many I've played.

I agree with robert63, if you play 3 days per move than it maybe three days before they move. I'm confused as to why people get upset with others for taking the alotted time.

I personally start to miss moves or leave pieces hanging out there once I'm up around twenty + games. But I still try to keep it around twenty because that's where I feel comfortable. I say do what works for you!

Ilovegambits wrote: I feel as though playing more then 5 games at once is not good because it is impossible to keep track of your train of thought after each move,.

---

I believe this is exactly the sort of thing the 'Notes' box is for.