LIMIT THE NUMBER OF GAMES

I would suggest that the number of games a player may "active" in be limited

I know from personal experience of players having games in the hundreds which means that they are allways up tight to their time control - even it would appear using vacation time to some degree

I agree on that terry

I do not agree. If someone wants to play hundreds of games that is their perogative. Likewise, a player has every right to use their time as they see fit.

I supppose you could choose not to play against someone who is playing what you consider too many games.

Problem there is when you are playing tornaments. - you have no control over the other entrants

What exactly is your issue?

I have 30 something now. I like to have 50. I've had up to almost 100.

Is that too much for you? Why?

If not, What number is OK, and Why?

What is too many games for one person may not be too many for another.

A workaround for the vacation problem might be to have vacation "cost" more depending on how many active games get put on hold.

For example: 50 games = 2x vacation time used, 100 games = 3x, etc.

30 is enough for me.50 is much but as long as you have plenty of time you can focus on your game.50+ or less.it's ok for me

I would say upto about 50 games at one time is acceptable - 80 at a pinch.

My problem is that I like to play at a reasonable rate - playing a game with long periods between moves makes the game more like problem solving.

Also it usually means that Tournaments can go on for a very long time.

I nly find it mildly irritating - no big deal

One of the many free benefits of this site is that members can play an unlimited amount of online (correspondance) games. I am aware of other sites that do limit basic members, asking that they upgrade if they want to play more games more frequently. I've seen members on the site play 1300 + games all current games. The number of timouts was very minimal and as a basic, vacation time was limited and some members rarely used it. It is personal preference how many games a person wants to play, the amount is afterall unlimited.

I can't imagine a time where (if we did limit) the 'current amount of games', it would please everyone.

It would either be too many or not enough. We can't just pick a random number and say "ok we'll limit to x amount of games" .. what happens to those who are basic or who are premium that still currently play alot of tournament and team match games that already have over 1000 games going and are managing their game play/time management quite well even without the use of vacation time.

The current set-up is good enough for me.

To avoid players playing hundreds of games in tournaments, you can join tournaments with an Max Avg Time/Move: 3 or 6 hours  

It's not a bad idea, but it's difficult to quantify.

You're drawing a correlation between speed of playing time and number of games. OK, well yeah there is a correlation, but it's just that. So why not take more direct action instead? If you're interested in working with what you've already got, then only join tournaments based on time per move.

But even that is imperfect - because it is a measure of the past and not of the future. Also, it's an aggregate value. Maybe the user moves super quickly, but in some very few games they really really stretch it out (just to annoy the counterparty, of course!)

Note that there are also the so-called "no vacation" tournaments.

If you're in the business of proposing something new, then I think you should stick with what you're really interested in (responsiveness of the opponent) instead of drawing a correlation between something else (# of games) and the value of interest.

Lastly, I'll give a personal example. Way back when, I had a high in number of games around 135 or so. I typically logged in 2x/day at least, in the morning and the evening, and I didn't spend a HUGE amount of time on each move. Really just a couple of games I would spend significant time on (but I still moved pretty fast in those). Fast forward to today, where I have only 2 games going, but I make all of my analysis notes in a laptop I keep at home, where I have to start up ChessBase to do the analysis. So my speed in moving is MUCH slower now, that I am a little more serious in those games.

Thanks for all the input

a lot of food for thought :)

You and I are on the same page regarding limiting the number on games going on at one time.Just thought I would give you my opinion.Also,my golf is about as bad as my chess...lol!

I would say that if someone is playing a hundred games at once and have trouble with time controls, then that's their problem.  And if you're afraid they'll take too much time in your game you can set the time controls or choose not to play them.

No matter if I had 10 games or 500, my used vacation time is the same, ie. when I'm on OTB tournaments.

I have about 400 games but the average number of days is something about 4.

I can't play faster time controls because I would lose more vacation time every time I'm out, easy.

I would like to see a limit on the number of active games allowed at one time by a player.  One person is playing over 1200 games at one time!  He is slowing every tournament down that he gets in.  It would be better to have a one hundred game limit with faster, more thought out moves vs. people letting their time run out and their average go down because of someone's ego believing they can mentally handle hundreds of games at one time.  A two hundred and fifty game limit would be better than one person slowing down a thousand games and multiple tournaments! 

Terry,

  nice to hear from you again, and trusting you are well. Looking forward to a challenge (one game/two ata time please!).

     Paul.