Limitations on participation

I think that chess.com should have limitations on the amount of involvement, meaning number of games, number of Clubs, and number of tournaments that a player can join. Most players are quite reasonable, but some have taken this to a new level. Seriously, playing a thousand games, being in over 200 clubs, that doesn't seem very productive.

No one complains when you're winning. But there is a limit for me. I've been slowly cutting back on the clubs I'm in. But new clubs keep inviting me.

I am in 400+ clubs, because some members keep demanding that i join, even if i tell them i will be inactive. So, i join their club, turn alerts off, and they are happy, and i do not care. I am only active in a few clubs.

I suppose if one is playing within the rules, then there's no recourse of action. It is a little frustrating when a few players on a continual basis, delay tournament progression due to them waiting till the very last hour to make their move. Hundreds of players are waiting for the tournament to advance but yet one player is holding them up. Not against the rules, I concur, but it is kind of a drag.

Chess.com has considered introducing a game limit.  I don't know if it will happen, but I'm not sure it's the right answer.  Some people can stay on top of hundreds of games without a single timeout.  Others struggle to keep up with 25.

On clubs, I simply decline invites I'm not interested in, but some people do what @SorryNotToday does and join but turn off notifications.  Others join and ignore all notifications.  I don't see any reason for a club limit, but if you want to exclude members who don't participate in any way, you're free to do that, and you might want to avoid inviting people who are in too many clubs.

We are not likely to limit clubs, but may one day put a limit on daily games. If we did that it would be a limit that would only affect very few members. The limit would certainly be more than 100 games. 

Playing a very large number of daily games seems to be a form of training for a small number of titled players here. Or maybe, rather than training, it's the thrill of giving some sort of huge simultaneous display? Whatever its purpose for these players, outlawing it would be a strange thing for the site to do given that it would alienate these coveted "star" players, wouldn't it?

What is wrong with someone wanting to play hundreds of daily games simultaneously? The only thing I can think of is if it results in a large number of timeouts which is annoying for the opponents and disruptive of the rating system. That problem, if it is indeed occurring, could be tackled by imposing a game limit only on anyone with a large number of timeouts, and for this purpose the timeout history should be referred to a lot further than 90 days back. But are there any other serious problems associated with people playing many daily games simultaneously?

No, you said it. It's not serious, just annoying. I don't like to have a good match against someone and then they time out for some reason. I can understand many reasons but there's some players who are actually 1900 rated, and then they time out in 45 matches, and they're back to 1400. Then they're playing in tournaments against other 1400's and essentially they're 500 points above them. Just seems a little odd to me.

Yes, it seems odd to me too, but I guess we also need to be conscious that some people do things which we can't relate to from our own perspective. Outlawing those things is a draconian measure.

Losing numerous games by timing out certainly causes annoyance, and that is a problem which might need tackling more than it currently is. But not, I think, at the expense of those players who are quite capable of playing hundreds of games simultaneously without timing out.

I think the people using the Daily format to put on a Blitz exposition break the rating system.  They have super low Glicko RD, yet their ratings can fluctuate over a hundred points in a week.  

Also, many of them have very fast move times even with a ton of games.  This makes me suspicious.  I try not to play anyone who has a move time of less than 6 minutes per game-in-progress.  If you have 50 games going, I want to see at least a 300 minute move time (5 hours), unless you're playing a lot of 7-14 day games, which don't appear to be too common.  Then again, I'm probably a little paranoid.

This bothers me too.  I win or lose points based on an opponent rated 1400; but before he timed out on a bunch of games last week, he was 1600.  This is another way they break the rating system.

How about restricting number of games with strict time-out requirements as per @BrianE 's suggestion AND setting some Minimum move time per game requirement.  You want to play 100 Daily games?  That's fine if you have <3% time-outs in the last six months AND your current move time is NOT below some minimum.  

Time-outs are a problem; but these super fast movers bother me too.  Why would a person choose to play hundreds of games at the 1400 level (not much time to think), when they could probably play 20 games at the 2100 level?  Why would a person choose to play under self-imposed Blitz time controls while their opponents have virtually unlimited time...all the while maintaining only a mediocre rating?  Think about that for a minute.

Play 3 games against an opponent near your rating with less than 20 games and a 4 hour move time.  Then play 3 games against a guy near your rating with 80 games and a 4 hour move time.  I think you'll find the tougher games seem to come from the guy with the 80 games.  Same rating...but something is different.  I'm just paranoid. 

I'm not concerned about people playing under their ability when they play so many games.  Many people who play a small number of games are also playing below their abilities, and while we can crack down on sandbagging, there's no way to enforce a minimum level of effort.

As I see it, people playing huge numbers of games are disruptive in two ways:

1. Lots of timeouts.  In some cases a bunch of timeouts will deflate their rating by several hundred points, really hammering the rating of anyone they beat in the immediate aftermath of the timeouts.

2. They move slowly and hold up tournaments.

As I see it, on #2, while I have sympathy with those who don't like tournaments being delayed, people do have the right to use all their time, so if you don't like it you can play a faster time control.

#1 is more of a problem, but if someone is really capable of playing 1000 games without a timeout, I don't see why they can't be allowed to do so.

So I think @Brian-E's suggestion of a timeout-based limit is better.

I agree #1 is the biggest issue.  Are there any members with 1,000 games who don't time out?  Also, a 5% timeout percentage on 1,000 games is A LOT of time-outs, which depress a rating significantly.  The time-out restriction should be very....well, restrictive....say <3% over 6 months.  Better yet, 2% over one year.

Let the member decide.

You timed-out 18 times so far this month, 2/3 of one month.  That would come to over 300 time-outs per year.  This seriously warps the rating system for the rest of us.  That's why we want a time-out restriction.  I'd bet there is not a single player who maintains 1,000 games who does not time out at least 100 times per year.

Your time-out percentage means little.  It's the sheer NUMBER of time-outs that matter.  You lost at least 90 rating points in the last 18 days because of time-outs.  It's not fair to your opponents.

There are only 1440 minutes in one day.  How do you play 2,000 games at the 1400 level?  Are you a grand master?

The main problem is timeouts.  I've seen someone who was rated about 2000 who had about a thousand games going.  He then timed out in a whole bunch and his rating dropped to 1200ish, if I remember right.

Then he won some games - and the ratings of his opponents were adjusted as if they'd lost to a 1200 player.  That's hardly fair.  He wasn't a 1200-strength player, he was, even with all those games, a 2000-strength player.

Timeouts also hurt your club in team matches, skew tournaments, and end interesting games prematurely.

If you can play a large number of games without timing out, I don't think anyone will have a problem with it.

Yes, everything is according to chess.com policy.  That is why I would like to see the policy changed.

I agree with MGleason.  A member can have 10,000 games IF they don't time-out.