Wait a minute - its been so long since I've been to this thread or live chess - Is someone saying you can play multiple games in Live Chess now.
why all the computer players in Live Chess
Sort:
Eberulf wrote:
Wait a minute - its been so long since I've been to this thread or live chess - Is someone saying you can play multiple games in Live Chess now.
Yes.
Yes indeedy, feel the experience here:
However, I still prefer to stick to the single game. (Usually).
I guess I was looking at it more from the vantage point of the person dealing with the multi-game tasking thing instead of the person dealing with the blower-offer. Either way the common denomonator is waiting for a move. Either way I wouldn't want to have attention divided on games when I want to try my best to win each one I can. Stressing on time, times two games is going to have an effect. Why put yourself in that spot? I know some guys will just do it becasue they think they're so hot shit! But I wouldn't. I just wouldn't.
Maybe the disconnects aspect is the most important thing. While the rest is just fluff.
DMJ
Thanks for the reply, Baseball fan:
As far as my other comment in #3: An opponent of mine apparently just walked away three moves in. Why did you all decide to prevent playing more than one game in Live Chess at a time. With that rule, someone can just walk away from a game and hold you hostage or force you to resign if you want to play another opponent.
I think maybe the idea was that if someone is playing multiple live games (and of course everyone has that ability in postal style chess), the other guy would have to sit there and wait for much longer than he ought to have to since the first guy is out thinking about another game. It would waste someone's time. That would be unfair to him. Also, to me it doesn't make sense anyway to have someone be able to do that; He's not going to be able to play as well. Chess involves one's full attention at least if it's immediate. Just play the game you have and move on. What's the problem in that? I don't see the problem in that.
DMJ
Scenario: You're playing a 30 minute Live chess game. All of a sudden your opponent just stops playing. You wait and wait and wait. Its already too many moves in to abort. Can you play another live chess game while waiting - not any more; not since Live Chess 1 went away. Your opponent comes back with five minutes on his time and says, "Sorry, I'm playing at work and had to attend to something." Or perhaps you were soundly beating him, and he walked away to spite you, maybe hoping he could return with a minute left and make a move with you long gone. Don't you understand? You're held hostage to that game to just sit there and do nothing while your opponent is doing who knows what. In Live Chess 1.0, this was not an issue because you could just start another Live chess game while waiting.
And to answer your point, does it really bother you that you have a greater chance to win because your opponent has another game going.
But all this is moot. Live chess 2.0 was a step down in nearly every way with all sorts of useful features just jettisoned, because in response to complaints about one issue (the disconnects) chess.com decided to just completely trash 1.0 and start over from scratch. The deficiencies in 2.0 will never be addressed, because all those who were complaining about the disconnects in 1.0 feel like they've been catered to by being given a new version of Live Chess.
Chess.com didn't jettison multiple games out of some consideration for issues like you've brought up anyway. They just simplified everything in a misguided attempt to make Live Chess more reliable. Another useful feature from 1.0 that is gone forever - watching other people's live chess games in progress, so no longer any way to watch how a master level game is played (unless they agree to become "friends" with you, i.e. know whenever you're online and vice versa). But anyway, I don't play live chess any more.