Forums

Upper limit on games playing concurrently

Sort:
Avatar of Ray_Brooks
Ray_Brooks
May 26, 2008
0
#21
GamesForLife wrote: On other chess sites I have personally had 500-600 games going at once and found it enjoyable.  Everybody has their thing.

Yes! I agree! I am not seeking to cap anyone's freedom or enjoyment. I am just a little concerned when it infringes mine. As I said above, I was happy to put the experience behind me and play in tournament where this guy wasn't going to play, but this proved to be practically impossible.... he has entered everything, condemning all of us to his particular brand of fun. If you want to play a 1000 games that's fine, why not play them against individuals (not tournaments) where slow play has no repercussions?


Avatar of Vance917
Vance917
May 26, 2008
0
#22
Ray_Brooks wrote:

Listen Quaff, I don't wish to get involved in a wrangling match with you (especially as you are not in full possession of any facts), but I will say the following:

 

1. The statement needs no proof because a) it's my opinion b) common sense dictates that this will be the case.

 

2. No hypocisy has taken part, I have not asked my slow opponent to hurry up, nor would I do so.

 

3. I have no problem with an opponent taking the allotted time, but when they time out and hence vacation every day, this seems a different matter to me.

 

In the two games I have against Mr. 600+  the following has occured:

i) In one game he resigned a very nearly level position after a handful of moves, when I asked him why, I was informed:

 

From: ????????
To: Ray_Brooks
Date: May 23, 2008 @ 7:52pm
Subject: Re: Our Game


im very sorry about that, i had to keep my rating down for a tournament i wanted to enter, so i thought i would resign a game i woulf probably lose anyways

it was very unsportsmanlike and im sorry


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Message by Ray_Brooks on 5/23/2008 @ 11:51am:

Hi ??????,

was wondering why you resigned our Smith Morra Gambit game, I am truly mystified.

Regards Ray.

 

ii) In the other game he has played a total of six moves, although the section will shortly be concluded apart from his games.

 

So please don't start firing at me, because I had the temerity to mention that I don't want to play against/ or play in tournaments with these high game total players. If you can't see that a player with 600+ games is going to slow the whole tournament then I think you need to extend your "horizon".

You may have some recourse here.  If this player resigned just to get a lower score to qualify for a tournament, then that might constitute a fake game, and get this player banned.  You might want to talk to the staff about this.  Whether or not it violates the letter of the law, it certainly violates the spirit of the law.


Avatar of Quaff
Quaff
May 26, 2008
0
#23
Lizard87 wrote:

I'm gonna have to agree with Ray here.

Quaff, there's a big difference in what you're saying and what Ray is saying.

 You say people are free to take all the time they want or need within the time limit. True. Note the "within the time limit". If you get 3 days per move, it's not designed to let you go into vacation every day because you're not able to move in time. He automatically goes into vacation when his time is nearly up because of his premium membership. This means he would've had a LOT of time-outs without this protection. Which means he takes MORE time than allowed. Thus, he is slowing down the tournament.

 You're allowed to formulate an opinion based on what you read. True again. But base that opinion what is written, and not what you think that's written.

I take your point on the use of the vacation (but as I don't think that this is necessarily an issue) and is yet to be proved if it significantly delays the Tournament, again I don't see this as a massive issue. Time allowed, is time (all time given before you do actually timeout) if you don't time out then you are using time you are allowed, so I do know what I read.


Avatar of Evil_Homer
Evil_Homer
May 26, 2008
0
#24
Quaff wrote: Lizard87 wrote:

I'm gonna have to agree with Ray here.

Quaff, there's a big difference in what you're saying and what Ray is saying.

 You say people are free to take all the time they want or need within the time limit. True. Note the "within the time limit". If you get 3 days per move, it's not designed to let you go into vacation every day because you're not able to move in time. He automatically goes into vacation when his time is nearly up because of his premium membership. This means he would've had a LOT of time-outs without this protection. Which means he takes MORE time than allowed. Thus, he is slowing down the tournament.

 You're allowed to formulate an opinion based on what you read. True again. But base that opinion what is written, and not what you think that's written.

I know what I read and am quite happy the opinion I came to.

There is no sin except stupidity.


Avatar of Evil_Homer
Evil_Homer
May 26, 2008
0
#25

Nope, not required.

Thanks anyway.


Avatar of Quaff
Quaff
May 26, 2008
0
#26
Then your comment is of little substance.
Avatar of Evil_Homer
Evil_Homer
May 26, 2008
0
#27

Ah,

You prove my point, merci beaucoups mon ami!!!


Avatar of Quaff
Quaff
May 26, 2008
0
#28

Your comment, not my post, doesn't work like that I'm afraid.


Avatar of erik
erik
May 26, 2008
0
#29

oh kids :) sit on the stairs until you can hug and smile together.

(it works on my kids, hoping it will work here... fingers crossed...) 


Avatar of Ray_Brooks
Ray_Brooks
May 26, 2008
0
#30

Erik,

any chance you venture an opinion or address some of the problems raised in this forum? How about a new restriction for TD's that caps the no. of games an entrant to a tournament may have running concurrently? Undecided


Avatar of fuze22
fuze22
May 26, 2008
0
#31
i dont know if someone made this point yet, but i think if i was playing 500 or more games it would be similar to playing blitz games. if you want to say they should not play that many then i think it is the same as saying no one should play a 3 min game.
Avatar of Pistoleer
Pistoleer
May 26, 2008
0
#32

Time per move is already a good option fer TD's to use to set the tone fer what speed of tourney is wanted. More TD's should use it if they wish.

I know players who have 50+ games and who are very careful to play quickly, because that is what they want to do.I have also seen someone else with 400 or so games and he was waiting on all of them to move heh.

The example player you have used is over 5 hours per move. In the TD setup it mentions 10 hours being the average or default time per move... so clearly even this player is well under that limit suggested by staff.

I have felt frustration once about this, but no longer. Create some tournies yerself and setup time per move limits under 5 hours... sorted :)  (or look fer other tournies setup in this way) 

ps. vacation time is also going to run out soon fer the person ye are talking about.. so there is even already a "limit" if ye look at it that way.
Avatar of Shruikon
Shruikon
May 26, 2008
0
#33
Baseballfan wrote: I know the opponent you speak of with more than 500 games, as I am playing him as well. But I say, if he wants to play that many games, why shouldn't we let him? Maybe YOU don't think it's fun (and I would tend to agree with you), but that doesn't mean HE feels the same way. Some people find skiing fun, I don't, does that mean we should limit the amount of skiing someone else does?

 Completely agree. Fun is subjective, something that a lot of people seem to forget.


Avatar of Ray_Brooks
Ray_Brooks
May 26, 2008
0
#34

Pistoleer,

you make some good points, however, I think you overlook the truth hidden in the stats. This player has recently taken on many more games... so his 5 hour turnaround is historical and bears little resemblance to what I am experiencing.

 

fuze22, Shruikon,

I say once again (did you guys read the whole forum?), I don't seek to chasten anyone else's experience, I just think these players could stay out of the tournaments, where their slow play will affect many. Freedom and liberties are great, except (it seems to me) when they affect others adversely. Sure! have 600+ game fun, just don't make me pay for your fun. PLEASE.


Avatar of lecycliste
lecycliste
May 26, 2008
0
#35

I think it's actually a rule abuse to repeatedly use the premium vacation protection ...

When one selects "vacation" they must check a box that says something like 'I confirm this is legitimate vacation...."

 

This seems to suggest that "continal and intentional" use of the Premium  protection is an abuse.

 I pretty much always side with the "relax, take your time" crowd.

But this does seem like an extreme case that slows every single tournament down .... and leads to waterdowned games.

I did recently play a guy with about 250 games.  He was slightly higher ranked and resigned both games to me the instant he was down a pawn or so. 

I asked why.  He said he only continues games he is winning.

A psychologist might have a field day with that answer.

It's his right of course.  But I won't play him again.  

 

 

 

 


Avatar of Quaff
Quaff
May 26, 2008
0
#36

I suppose I have never been of the opinion 'vacation abuse' exists and therefore always class my opponents move as 'x' days per move + any vacation, but appreciate some people use it in a less standard manner.

For me if my opponent persistantly wants to put themself on 'vacation' until it runs out (which won't be too long in the scheme of things) then I 'm not really concerned, however it seems in some cases it is considered 'vacation abuse'.


Avatar of Azoth
Azoth
May 26, 2008
0
#37
Isn't this problem solved with the "Time per move" option when you create a tournament?
Avatar of Shruikon
Shruikon
May 26, 2008
0
#38
 Ray_Brooks wrote:

fuze22, Shruikon,

I say once again (did you guys read the whole forum?), I don't seek to chasten anyone else's experience, I just think these players could stay out of the tournaments, where their slow play will affect many. Freedom and liberties are great, except (it seems to me) when they affect others adversely. Sure! have 600+ game fun, just don't make me pay for your fun. PLEASE.

 Yes, I did read the whole forum, and my post wasn't meant to be directed at you, sorry I didn't make that clear enough.

Actually, I do agree with you. Fun is subjective, but it shouldn't be at the expense of others. 


Avatar of marshall_42
marshall_42
Jun 5, 2008
0
#39
lecycliste wrote:

I think it's actually a rule abuse to repeatedly use the premium vacation protection ...

When one selects "vacation" they must check a box that says something like 'I confirm this is legitimate vacation...."

 

This seems to suggest that "continal and intentional" use of the Premium  protection is an abuse.

 I pretty much always side with the "relax, take your time" crowd.

But this does seem like an extreme case that slows every single tournament down .... and leads to waterdowned games.

I did recently play a guy with about 250 games.  He was slightly higher ranked and resigned both games to me the instant he was down a pawn or so. 

I asked why.  He said he only continues games he is winning.

A psychologist might have a field day with that answer.

It's his right of course.  But I won't play him again.  

 

 

 

 

 in direct opposition to this: I am playing against one of these 500+gamers and am being beaten. He has helpfully told me that my position was lost a long time ago. I suspect he would like me to resign, and perhaps I should, but I don't feel like it and would rather make a nuisance of myself for as long as possible.


Avatar of Evil_Homer
Evil_Homer
Jun 5, 2008
0
#40
AnthonyCG wrote: I personally don't see the point in 20+ games. Obviously you won't have time to go over them, so how could you possibly learn from them?

That is subjective rather than objective opinion. Your limitations may not be those of another.

Until their opinion is expressed yours is moot.