Number of active games
Sort:
This is a valid comment, Kilgore, and I'm sure that more people would have fewer games on the go, if the screen didn't take so long to refresh between moves. I find that unless I have something else to do while I'm on the site, I am just wasting time waiting for the screen. Other players have expressed the same feeling to me. I'm sure that some people just check into the site, make a move and then leave for that reason. Those of us who like to stay awhile need multiple games on the go in order to make it worthwhile hanging around. Thanks for opening this topic. (Sorry if I have deviated.)
I disagree, it's not right to limit the number of games someone can have active , some people can handle more games then others. If you want to speed up the time it takes to finish a game then only play games with a time control of 1 day per move or play live chess. This is the online equivalent of correspondence chess, and you know it is going to take a while for games to finish.
I completely disagree. Lets say I've got ten games; Two are with newbies who decide never to log on again. Two are unrated for training purposes. Someone else goes on vacation. 3 of the remainder take their full time to move (say 5 days). I would hardly have anything to do. I know of a friend of mine who reckons he normally has 150 games on the go on another chess site. I think that's excessive. But I can easily cope with 20 - 30. Playing a lot of games is one of the main reasons I like this site, because it's speeding up my improvement. I used to play (until last October) about 25 OTB games per year.
Also, I dont think most players would move any quicker in individual games if they had less in total. I wouldnt, I just go through whatever games Ive got on in about 30 mins. If I have a particularly difficult move, I might leave it a day to check up some theory - and this only happens occassionally and only in the opening.
Set the time limit to what suits you; It may limit the number of games you are engaged in but at least you can better manage your time.
Mar 2, 2008
0
#6
Three days is three days. If the number of games an opponent plays is important to you, the best indication of how many games an opponent will play is the number ofgames that person isactually playing. If that person is perilously close to 10, don't challenge that person. If you are challenged by someone, click on the name, and you will be enlightened about the number of games the person is inclined to play.
I frequently have about 20 games on the go. I find that is the only way that I can always have a game to play. I think that if you get more games going then it does not matter how many people are using the so called "vacation abuse" (a laughable topic in my opinion).
I know that this is not exactly what you are talking about, but I believe it will fit in. When I start a new game I always check out my opponent's record and if they have vacation time I won't accept them as a player. This way I know or have a reasonable idea that they will play the game and not use vacation, no matter how many games they are playing. They will play my game because they don't want to lose or if in fact they don't come back to the game I win. I had one opponent that I set up a game and I saw he had vacation time. I turn him down for the game and explained my reason. He tried to justify that every thing would be fine. We never played the game. This doesn't work so well with new players, since they don't have a long enough track record to determine if they will use vacation time. You can also look at an opponent's record and see the number of games they are playing. Actually in some cases it will work to your advantage to play an opponent who has many games going because they will lose focus about their game plan and make a mistake that you can take advantage of. I hope this helps. Good luck.
Here's another thought that will help. You can look at how long it takes for them to make a move. Just click on your opponent and look at current games and scroll down to time for move. I think this has a correcting clock. By that I mean if the clock says 2 hours and 15 minutes to move. If they begin to make several moves on several games in just a few minutes it might change 1 hour and 45 minutes after a period of time doing this. Think about this also some opponents will not be in the same time zone or same country so when you make a move they may be sleeping or at work.
what if the person really had to go on vacation? i went to india, and i had little access to computers during the time i was there.
What if the person has vacation time because they haven't used it up (i.e. in order to not have vacation time you have to use it up by going on vacation).
prairie wrote: This is a valid comment, Kilgore, and I'm sure that more people would have fewer games on the go, if the screen didn't take so long to refresh between moves. I find that unless I have something else to do while I'm on the site, I am just wasting time waiting for the screen. Other players have expressed the same feeling to me. I'm sure that some people just check into the site, make a move and then leave for that reason. Those of us who like to stay awhile need multiple games on the go in order to make it worthwhile hanging around. Thanks for opening this topic. (Sorry if I have deviated.)
I have had over 100 games going at once at times and I don't experiece any of the problems you are describing.
This thread topic is pointless.
yeah I don't like having more than ten or so at once - and then by not reading carefully enough about tournament structure, I found myself playing 29 at a time. That was insane. The problem is that in a 5 person tourney you will automatically start 8 at a time, so if you limit the games to ten, that means you can only start a tourney with 2 or less games going. I think 20 would make more sense - but no need to police a situation unless it absolutely needs it. I think in this case, let the user decide what he/she wants to do. If they time out on a ton of games, the educated chess.com user will know it and not play with that person.
There should be no set limit. I was playing almost 30 games and found I was losing games I should have won because I was playing moves too fast, for example, trying to play all my waiting moves while I ate breakfast before work. So from a personal point of view I'm going to try to cut down to 10-15, but like others have said, someone spending more time online can handle more games at once, and it is frustrating to have an opponent who is meticulous about playing just one move every three days.
I think it might be the opposite. The less games you had the longer it would take to move. I log in often when I have many games going on because I assume that at least one of them has made some moves. But if I only have a few games simultaniously, i log in less often because there is less likely to a move for me to make, and since I finish all of my moves every log in, I make sure that I often play every game that i can.
Dec 6, 2008
0
#16
I struggle when I go above 30 games and generally play best between 10-20, but others seem to prefer to play up to 100 games with no seeming change in how fast they move. I do think there should be an upper limit at about 200 to stop things getting silly, but below that it should be up to the individual.
Dec 6, 2008
0
#17
Poor idea. If you want faster games, just play with a faster time control, or play Live Chess. Yet another post with someone trying to impose their playing style on other members.
Dec 6, 2008
0
#18
I agree with Spiffe. Correspondence chess = slow Live chess = fast
Here is another hole in this limiting of games logic. I used to play 200 games on another site but moved extremely fast. Now I play no more than 10 and I move extremely slow.
The bottom line is if your goal is to rush everyone's turn-based chess games you are missing the point of turn-based chess. It makes about as much sense as going into the Live Chess area and insisting everyone plays slower.
If this subject has been discussed before, my apologies as I haven't seen it. I feel that the number of games a member can have active at one time should be limited to ten. I realize that the time between moves often needs to be a few days due to the responsibilities in the rest of our lives (or more for some members), but I think by limiting the total number, games will get finished more quickly. Perhaps there is a way to identify members who would like to play faster?