Upper limit on games playing concurrently

I personally don't see the point in commenting about other people's 20+ games. Obviously you won't change their minds, so how could you possibly benefit from posting in the thread?

Joking aside, Tony - here's the thing. A) there are tons of casual players for whom chess is a game, ie. fun diversion and not at all anything that they'll want to study to improve at (happy with just the education of playing). B) when I first joined the site I was doing 50+ games. It was such a rush. Even though my rating was like 1050 or something, it was like a high speed blitz simul (this was well before live chess was an option). I absolutely hated when, while cycling through my games, that I would ever end up being without one. If this ever happened, I'd grab another. Eventually you get a nice rolling cycle going.

It was fun. Play. Like a game, right?

Eventually I got frustrated with the enormous amount of blunders I was making and the fact my rating never really improved (I'd lose/win roughly equally playing other 1000's) and when 2008 rolled around I eventually began to cut down the number of games I play, and began to go back and look them over.

If I only played one game at a time, and then only made one move a day, I'm sure my rating would climb higher than it is now. But that's no fun at all, is it? Everyone settles in where they like to be. Isn't it nice that Erik et all that they made their site so it is customizable the way the users like?

I recently got my fellow Calgary friend Springs420 into the game. He's like me of old - 50+ games. Feel free to go ask him why he does it.

Fewer games for me means that I can concentrate more than having to feel rushed because of time.

Of course, not all share that view, but it suits me.

Addenda:

Concerning the player that I alluded to in earlier posts.

1. After gaining a winning advantage in our game, I offered the fellow a draw (accepted), just to get him "off my books".

2. I noticed this evening that after building his games up to 1000+, he ran out of vacation. He has in the last couple of days defaulted nearly 70 games. If he doesn't log on tonight the default number will rise to more than 100. 

3. After a quick trawl of the upcoming tournaments I discovered that this player is still entering new tournaments, lots of them!

So I say again that this constitutes a selfish and uncaring approach to other members on this site. Anyone care to defend this joker now?

Thought so.

How about this:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/singificance-of-timeout--diluted

 I still don't see the issue, if he times out, he times out. If he resigns early, take the free ratings boost, what is the problem? Personally, I think the guy is perhaps a bit crazy for even attempting so many games, but... that's what he wants to do, and ultimately, he's only hurting himself.

The trouble comes into paradise when you're playing a game with a preset time-limit and your opponent is perpetually on vacation because he's got time-out protection.

I typically play three-day-per-move games, and if my opponent takes every second of his three days for every move that's fine.  In fact, if my opponent goes into time-out protection a couple of times during the game and pushes that up to four days for one or two moves I'm OK with that as well.  It's when every response takes four or five days because they're constantly burning vacation that I take issue.  I know eventually their vacation will run out, but it's a question of having some consideration for your opponent's desire to play a particular time setting.  If you're constantly requiring five or six days to make a move, then don't play three day games, choose a seven day limit.

It's for this reason that I disagree that he's "only hurting himself".  It's inconsiderate to your opponent when you enter into a game on what amounts to false pretenses (i.e. that you will make your moves within the allotted, and agreed upon, time limit).

Update:

It seems that I underestimated how many timeouts were due for our greedy friend, 284 have occured so-far with many more due, his rating dropping from 1750+ to a little over 1000. I rather suspect that his game of "being the first to play 1000+ games" is over and hopefully this has the following repercussions:

1. He is unable to play any more tournaments (I shall be informing relevent TD's of any tournament I wish to play in, and that he has entered).

2. Individuals also refuse to play the "Time-Out King".

3. So disheartened TOK leaves chess.com forever to plague some other poor unsuspecting chess players on another site (this time the game could be "first to 2000+ games").

Now I realise that some people will say "That Ray's a nasty so and so... something might have occured in TOK's life that meant he couln't play his games". I say "Balderdash and fiddle-faddle!". The fellow was struggling with 500 game and plenty of vacation and continued to start many new games each day. He must have seen his eventual fate and just didn't care one jot, not about any of us anyway. Good riddance and never darken my score-sheet again!

L___B_______ (he who must not be named) has a goal of winning tourney points. I don't know why he has timed out so much, when I've spoken with him about his desire to be at the top of the leaderboard. I have 125 games right now, and I find it manageable. If I had as free a summer as he who must not be named, then I'm sure I could do 500 or more, but yes it would just turn into a blitz. The thing is, a small select number of games I end up doing analysis, bringing up the analysis board, and writing notes, but the other ones I just play. This is one reason that I'm looking forward to the game manager (or whatever it's called) so that I can make a list of "favorite" games, that I can later go over.

Given the desire this individual has to stay at the top of the leaderboard, it is certainly possible that there is a genuine emergency which has led to all the timeouts. I am not bothered by anything that has been posted, except for purposefully resigning games in the opening in order to qualify for a future tournament. I believe this happened to me one time as well.

More information for you to discuss.

-- Ozzie

There should be an limit. I know of a few members who are in the 100's range!!!

ADK

If someone is taking too long... you can go start a new game?

It's just chess!! 

Top 100 busiest chess players on Chess.com (number of in progress games):

"username","num_games"
"lordbobbetti",863
"syofyan",318
"AWARDCHESS",244
"willroya",199
"chess4david",165
"Templarknight_1",158
"JBAlman",145
"SeMastaa",142
"RathiDragon",131
"ozzie_c_cobblepot",124
"cheekychops0",104
"TheChessGym",101
"Oscar27",101
"johnglider22",93
"thegab03",91
"emerald",90
"vj1",86
"vampirelover",83
"ragaventhiran",83
"phoenixNf3",83
"angelor",82
"Hammers",80
"atlnlindsey",80
"dean_slo",80
"jjackson8",78
"camacho",78
"kwaymark",77
"tpo50030",77
"Ryuzaki_Lawliet",76
"jsk878",76
"chaleureux",75
"flying2828",75
"Presort",74
"fredster50",74
"Ellbert",73
"gramos9956",73
"oefoifvet",73
"tboner",72
"aoj025",71
"Harry07",70
"Fred1963",70
"saaket",69
"robert0978",69
"Nick_Chong",68
"O_Hawit",68
"Youdaman",67
"hatesE4",66
"alexy777",65
"zygnite",64
"kingrichard",63
"Ruperta11",63
"PinoEire",62
"norolah54",62
"purplenephilim",62
"phobias13",61
"chkm8t",61
"Queenie",61
"chessthebest",60
"Barben",59
"sasukekun",59
"rexknight",59
"JUDASGR",59
"jaller435718",59
"joaoporto",59
"shambo",57
"inspiredmind",57
"gjsgregskyplayer",56
"mehmetk",56
"KingBench",56
"Lextor",56
"Thotr2",56
"Knightly777",55
"ChicagoRE",55
"blacman",55
"ashiqmohammed",55
"RIZVI",54
"Manny-G",54
"Dutch_Defense",54
"Emanuel-57",54
"heisenbug",54
"ManUtdForever12",53
"imtheman",53
"saboegel",52
"munchkin",52
"ChekM8",52
"lostapiece",52
"vuttvutt",52
"Pelger",51
"vinzy33",51
"chess180",51
"jcamargos",51
"horsey",50
"Vance917",50
"ovERRot",50
"sassafrass",50
"Lizard87",50
"kaithgumbandva",50
"Buerk",50
"chess_leprechaun",49
"blitzberg",49

Ozzie,

thanks for your input, it certainly answers a few questions. We now know the name of his game. Entry to any tournament is more important than any outcome, it would seem.

Jay,

thanks for succinct information... a much smaller problem than I had guessed.

Claypot,

I wholeheartedly apologise to you and your family (and all members) for any offence I may have caused. I'm a little hot-headed sometimes, and in lieu of a decent vocabulary, resort to unsavoury expletives. I'll be more careful in future to maintain the very highest standards of decorum. I do hope that we can put this episode behind us and that you can forgive me.