record 1-15-14 he needs to quit about 20 tp 40 is enough for anybody 800 games is silly
Propsed Rules Changes
Sort:
I really think they are taking advantage of the system.I agree there must be some changes made 
Personaly i think 100 game,s would be 2 many 4 me.
Did you know that when a premium member is in danger of losing on time and s/he has vacation time available, the system automatically puts herm on vacation and sends herm an alert?
I'm not defending those who play so many games, although it is frustrating to those of us who "have a life" outside of chess.com. But there may be those who are invalid or bed-ridden who have no other form of entertainment who do live online playing. I don't have any problem with that, but it would be nice to keep the number of games down so you can make and receive moves in a timely manner. If they are premium members and support the site, I guess they can play as they wish.
Hi mike, what you say makes sense. As ususl.
@ jamalov -Premium members' vacation time does NOT, however, kick in if a TOURNAMENT is 'no vacation.' All I'm saying is that admins who arrange MATCHES should have the same option available.
@mike- good point. Neither of my examples fits that category, however; in fact, one talks of being a doctor with a very busy practice! (Yet he can manage over 800 games here,,,)
I'm sure there are people who take unfair advantage of every situation. I'm just saying we need to judge them on an individual basis. Sounds like the doctor is in over his head.
Hey BallCrusher! I hope your misinformed insults are just the result of getting up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. I frankly doubt if you'd have the gumption to make them in person.
As to specifics: (1) that I am jealous of faster players is just gratuitous speculation on your part; I'm not. (2) I am higher-rated than any of the players I mention, not lower. (3) The changes I'm looking for are spelled out - that match organizers/admins have the same options that are available to tournament organizers, regarding 'no vacation' especially. These are OPTIONS: no one is suggesting interfering with people who want to do otherwise. Limiting the number of online games per player is hardly unreasonable, hardly "makes them not play chess anymore."
I encourage you to challenge me to a game: you should be willing to test your claim that I "DO NOT PLAY CHESS."
Finally, I realize you're new to this group; insults and misrepresentations are not the way members of this group conduct their discussions.
Sorry, I should have told you: the language I speak is English. Awaiting your challenge. . .
0
#12
I have a question. HTF can you start 800 games? I've been over 100 on some occasions but never go to bed...well that's past tense. I never have any games that I haven't played to its maximum for the day. By that I mean that I keep up to date on my games throughout the day. Then again, I don't have a life (apart from walking to the coffee shop a couple of times per day).
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.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
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?