RogerOT wrote:
The bottom line is that it is patently ridiculous to let anyone have 4000 games on the go.
Agreed, but until something is done it wont change, but it stil doesnt give someone the right to accuse people of stalling.
Lousy Admin
Sort:
Nov 25, 2015
0
#23
Why is it ridiculous to let anyone have 4000 games at a time? If he can not run out of time and he wants to play that many, than why shouldn't he be allowed to?
KassySC wrote:
Why is it ridiculous to let anyone have 4000 games at a time? If he can not run out of time and he wants to play that many, than why shouldn't he be allowed to?
Sure you can have that many games, but what benefit are you getting from them? You have no time to put into that many games, so there is no improvement. So what is the benefit besides having that many games going at once?
CedarsNH wrote:
http://www.chess.com/tournaments/games?id=114136. Here is a complaint I have about one player who is in hundreds of tournament and delays the tournaments for months because he only moves the minimum amount required. The link above is just one example, he is currently playing 4000 games. In the tournemanet referenced, the most recent non Mishra game ended 2 months ago. For 2 months everyone has been waiting for Mishra to finish his games. I do not understand how admin does not boot this kid. At the very least I just would like a response to the email I have sent. I have rarely sent admin any emails but on the few occassions I have there was no response. I would prefer a site where these types of inconsiderate players are not allowed.
He's playing within the rules.I've started putting a 12-6 hr.average move speed requirement in my tournaments.That seems to have solved the problem.People can't be punished for using their time as they see fit,though.
RogerOT wrote:
KassySC wrote:
Why is it ridiculous to let anyone have 4000 games at a time? If he can not run out of time and he wants to play that many, than why shouldn't he be allowed to?
Just think about it a little longer, take your time...
I have, I have taken a while to think about it. Please explain. Use your words and take your time.
Diakonia wrote:
KassySC wrote:
Why is it ridiculous to let anyone have 4000 games at a time? If he can not run out of time and he wants to play that many, than why shouldn't he be allowed to?
Sure you can have that many games, but what benefit are you getting from them? You have no time to put into that many games, so there is no improvement. So what is the benefit besides having that many games going at once?
Who are we to say the person with 4000 games wants to get anything out of them? Perhaps that person just wants to play the games, does not care about learning anything or gaining anything from them.
How about if we say that you aren't allowed to not play any games here, because you get nothing from the site. Is that ok?
RogerOT wrote:
...although after your last Post I think there's little hope left...
No seriously, grow up and use adult words and explain why you think why it is ridiculous. (Right now you just look ike a fifth grader. My high school son can post better than you. Are you a grown up???)
Are you afraid because you don't know how to think like an adult. Afraid that people know how to refute your arguments so you just use childish tactics to taunt people?
Nov 25, 2015
0
#29
Your time is your time. We offer so many different time controls, from 3 days/move to 1 minute bullet in Live Chess. I recommend that everyone find the speed of game that suits them. Personally I play almost exclusively 1|0 or 3|0 games, but I know plenty of people who exclusively play correspondence. 
There's no such thing as "spirit of rules". A rule is a rule, anything else is not a rule. If a rule is badly defined then it is badly defined and open to whatever interpretation people want.
I am well aware that certain tournaments I am in mine are the only games in the round not to be completed, but that is of no concern to me at all. I'm not going on vacation mode to extend games, I'm not playing on in a hopeless position just for the sake of it, I am simply making my moves towards the end of the time control available to me rather than at the beginning of it. A lot of people do the same.
There is no "intentionally delaying tournaments" at all. In most tournaments I have no idea what the current status is, I simply have games of chess to play and they are part of tournaments because it is the simplest way to start numerous purposeful games of chess.
Making my move in all games immediately just means my opponents will move again sooner in many of them and I'll be back needing to make my next move again maybe only a few minutes after I made my last one. I play live chess when I want that kind of speed. Playing moves only in the games where I have 24 hours or less left allows me to regulate the speed at which games keep coming at me with demands on me to move.
It is perfectly valid and I imagine similar reasoning applies to many other people and the logic is the exact mirror of moaning about people being slow - I do not wish to be dictated to that I must play faster, just like you don't wish to be slowed down.
Play live chess if you want fast action.
Its pretty obvious the OP is just impatient, and he doesnt like how he is being "inconvienced" Just another online chess player that has no patience for a game that requires patience.