Proposed Rules Changes

I have one opponent right now (1-15-14) with 864 games underway.  He has been online anytime I have come on over the last two days, but my own game with him is several pages "away" on his list.  I'm sure he'll get to it later today, make a plausible move, and continue on.  But I'm also sure that this is not chess.

I have another opponent who currently has 605 games going.  Just yesterday, that number was about 365.  That means he has added some 240 games to his schedule in a single day!  I submit that this is also not chess.  

These are but two of five or six players on my current list of 16 games with 'playlists; well over 100.

Needing to play like an automaton (them) or against an automaton (me) is not chess.  I should have the right, I think, not to be forced to play this type of "chess."

Two of my opponents over the last 9 months - the time I have been playing online chess -- have had their accounts terminated.  They, too, had enormous numbers of games going.  But unlike the two examples mentioned above, their play was not "slow" by any means -- less than 1/2 hour per move, which in effect means they were moving almost instantaneously. Because they were cheating.

The players I cited above are certainly within the rules and time limits of our games, so I have no gripe there. Even when they take vacation!

But they do materially affect the pace of play of the entire event, whether it be a match or tournament.

In tournament play you can put a limit on this sort of thing to a certain extent.  As organizer, you can specify that players must move at a certain average speed or faster (players with huge playlists just can't keep to a pace of, say, 6 hours per move - without cheating).  You can specify 'no vacation' for the event.  You can put a limit on the number of timeouts a player can have if he/she is to play in your event.

These protections are not available in match play. I think they should be:  "No Vacation,"  a 'speed limit,' and a limit on a player's timeouts should be options for organizers of team matches.

Finally, I think there should be a limit on the number of games a player may have going at once.  100, to my mind, is plenty. 

What do you think?

It really does not matter to me.  I have between 10 and 40 games going all the time, I really do not notice how long it takes someone to play.  If I log in and I have no games ready, I play live chess.  If I set up a new game, I limit the responses to those that move in less than 12 hours and have a low number of time outs.  Have a drink and enjoy the games that are responding instead of wondering where the one is that isn't. :)

Why should one or two players be permitted to virtually grind a tournament or match to a halt?

There is always the live chess tournaments. Guess my only answer would be , because that is the way it is set up.

I agree more with apd.  600 games at a time is ridiculous.  When I first came to this site I unwisely got into a 10 day a move tournament.  3 yrs later, it's still going.  I play more attention now, and try not to play those with lots of time outs, etc.  I suppose they have a right to the games, so I have to check up on them before I take a game--hard to do in tournaments, though.

I also had over 400 games on hand but it happens because players take vacations, one has been on vacation since Nov. Also i made tournament comitments and couldn't cancell it so i had to ply that amount off games. At this stage i'm tappering it douwn. That is to many games. I't will show on the ratings

I'm playing in a tournament right now (not ours) where 4 of the 5 players in my section have finished BOTH games with the rest of the 4.  The 5th player has not completed even a single game with any other player. 

Who?  The guy I talked about with over 800 games. He's essentially holding up the whole !@#$% tournament, and at the rate he's going it'll take months to finish the round.

The same thing happens in matches, where all the pairs but one finish off both their games, while one pair (because of one player) cause the match to drag on and on.

I'm not saying the slowpokes are not within the rules.  They are.  But tournament and match organizers need OPTIONS (like no vacation, etc) if they want their events to 'move along.' 

But one important blanket change that would help would be limiting the number of games a player may have going at once.

Wat i can't understand is that games say no vacation but because it is 7 or more days they take that full time. The 24th .com tornament is still not past the first round because players are taking the full time to make a move. The 25th is past that already.

Guess what?  The guy with over 800 games I was bashing just before JJ's comment has ... taken vacation!!!!!

:), I will pour the burbon for you.

Seems like i don't now wat is vacation?

If there sould be changes it should be on the point sistem for TIME OUT. Players that see that thy are goning to lose and lose many points go for time out because they dont lose any points. 

In Online Chess, if a Premium member runs short of time, he is put automatically "on vacation" and notified.  'T'aint right. Gives players a time advantage based solely on their dues-paying level.  No different, really, than giving them a few extra seconds increment in live chess, which would be unthinkable.  

    One of my 700-plus- game guys got caught short of time in a few hundred games, and so got automatically put on vacation.  In our game he was down to 60 seconds, when suddenly 20 HOURS got put back on his clock!  

I agree.  I'v occasionally been down to 30 minutes on a game, only to find I've been automatically put on vacation in all my games.  I'd be happy with a no vacation rule, but if we're gonna have it, you ought to have to request the vacation time, not have it automatically applied.

What I can't figure out is that same guy got 20 hours put back on his clock last night - about 22 hours ago, and he STILL has 20 hours!  (Hasn't moved though; needs to get through about 350 games before he gets to mine!)

I keep a small notebook of persons I'll never play again.  It contains less than a dozen names, but....

Good idea.  But what can you do if one of these bozos ends up your opponent in a team match?  Really nothing.

If you like any one or all of these proposed rules changes -- click on the "Help and Support" item at the very bottom of the page; send on a 'ticket' with these suggestions (or any of your own) to the chess.com staff. Or use this link:   http://support.chess.com/Tickets/Submit 

I got this from the Admins Group, where a similar forum has generated some good response.  I'm told that the more people use that 'ticket' method, the more the staff is likely to pay heed.

I have one opponent who is an OTB IM and has over 500 games going and he beat me with black in under 30 moves. Very frustrating. I have 14 games going and some days that is too many. I just don't know how some of these folks can manage all those games. I guess they are all a lot smarter than I am.

I'f they are penshioners they have lots of time on hand and play all day they have lots of games and can make a move ervery 5 min. if there are 500 work thwt in a 18hr day and you will end up with 2min and 16 sec to make a move that is if every opponent has made a move in the 8hr he were sleeping