The game I've got against the fellow with 470+ games is the first of 2 we'll play in the first round of a tournament. I don't expect to last very many moves against this guy in either game (he out-rates me by about 900 points!), but even so, it may be a long time before he finishes his games against myself and the rest of the group and advances to Round 2. I'm looking forward to the almost guaranteed whining to come from those who get impatient with slower players. 
--Cystem
I'm playing nine games but my stats show eight. It isn't just the big numbers that the computer stumbles over!
Yes, and I hope that helps! It doesn't seem to have helped many of his opponents thus far, though-- he's won 96% of his games. 
He's probably one of these people who can just glance at the position and evaluate it, like when a good player is playing a simul. No need to remember or rebuild strategies from one move to the next, like we mere mortals have to do, so the number of games he's playing doesn't make any difference in his ability unless it makes him take too long to get back for his next move and he times out. He's only lost 7 games, and all of the ones I saw were lost on time.
over 60 games is a stretch
I know of one player at another site with +2000 games, so what? To each his own. The subjects that constitute worthiness here is mind boggling. If more people concentrated on their own games instead of worrying about what others are doing the ratings would skyrocket here! Maybe they are handicapped, maybe unemployed, maybe a genius, maybe maybe maybe!
I feel that just 15-20 games is too many for me!!
Actually I am pretty amazed with those who can carry that off. I have a lot of free time that I use on Chess.com and my brain threatens to implode if I go over 50 games at a time.
I had AWARDCHESS in two games and he played pretty fast...as fast as anyone else in the tournament, if not faster.
I know of one player at another site with +2000 games, so what? To each his own. The subjects that constitute worthiness here is mind boggling. If more people concentrated on their own games instead of worrying about what others are doing the ratings would skyrocket here! Maybe they are handicapped, maybe unemployed, maybe a genius, maybe maybe maybe!
do you need a biscuit?
The subjects that constitute worthiness here is mind boggling. If more people concentrated on their own games instead of worrying about what others are doing the ratings would skyrocket here!
Some people are more easily boggled than others.
Like Afaf, I don't find these super-high games numbers to be worrisome, but impressive!
Before I became a premium member, there was an occasion when I tried to send a blank new game challenge and got an error message that said it was my move in 13 games and that I needed to make some moves before I could start new games.
I had (still have) 0 time outs and have never taken on too many games.
When I was active postally I averaged 120-160 games for 10+ years, so I find it very strange that I can't start new games when I'm playing less than 30 at a time on this site.
13 is nothing. Takes 1 minute to play. But I now have 451 to play (I couldn't log in for 1 day 4 hours)!
Post cards were fun too...those little rubber stamps with the red and black ink...
Postcard chess is the Romantic era of chess and in my opinion the high watermark of the genre. Playing 100-200 games was not rare but the norm given the postal medium of the late 70's thru to the 90's. Now with the instantaneous response time of the internet carrying that amount of games is a seperate set of circumstances. If one wishes to carry 100-200-2000 games is a personal decision no one can be derisive or speculative about.
13 is nothing. Takes 1 minute to play. But I now have 451 to play (I couldn't log in for 1 day 4 hours)!
451 is a lot of games, when your opponent's moves are transmitted more or less at the speed of light rather than on a postcard like in the old days.
Very impressive.
40 minutes passed, I have 212 games to play. Gives over 8 games per minute, excluding some breaks.
I have 0 timeouts, and my max number of games in progress was about 135. It's not THAT bad, but it becomes a bit of a chore. If you login once in the morning, and once in the evening, then you probably have about 30 moves to make both times. The hard part is actually later on. Because some of those 135 games will be against slow players. And then you're down to like 20 games, but every ... opponent ... moves ... so ... slowly ...
And then you realize that those 20 games will take another 4-6 months to finish. I know that some people have proposed alternate time control structures, which would then get rid of this problem. But of course some people don't see it as a problem at all.
Meh.
I wonder how many simultaneous games people play now by snail mail? The current postcard rate in the U.S. is $0.28 . Playing 400 simultaneous games by mail now would cost $112.00 per collective move, assuming none of your opponents lived out of the country and required additional postage. If the games lasted an average of 30 moves each, that works out to $3360 to finish the whole set. Too rich for my blood-- I have a hard enough time paying for my DSL as it is!
--Cystem
i'm in a tournament with 2 guys with over 800 (yes one is AWARDCHESS) and another guy with over 400 games. would you believe we started 2 days ago and none of these 3 have yet to make a move?