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?