To each his own
Players playing multiple games
Sort:
I agree that each game has its own personality, but I'd disagree that playing more than 30 games at once is not "getting it." Maybe they're able to appreciate the intricacies of each game they're playing, even if it is in the hundreds. Everybody's mind is different. And I'll play someone who's got a hundred games going, it doesn't matter to me. If they're too distracted to play well, then I guess it means I win and maybe they'll play fewer games at once in the future.
And I really disagree that someone playing 900 games isn't chess. That's a whole lot of chess.
What ivandh said, but with an exclamation mark.
In my own opinion, players playing more than 30 or 35 games are missing out on the real essence of the game.
In my opinion, each game has its own character, theme, personality. Every game has a unique challenge. To play 80, 400, even 700 and to top it off I have witnessed a player with over 900 games in play at the same time. My friends, this is NOT chess. To play that many games, at one time, is an insult to every player that is in competition with you. You are telling them that your game is so uninteresting, so bland, that I will not give you my important time to spend over a move. I don't think that your move warrants my time, so that I am going to play so many games as to just fill my very important time.
Bottom line, I feel that the number of games in progress should be limited by the success of each player. For example, If a player can win more than 70% of their games he should be allowed to have more games in play, let's say 40 as a number. I really don't know exactly. Then a player that is winning more than 80% is allowed 75 games. If you can win more than 90% then go for it play 200+. But all games should have a move time limit of 4 days. I realize there are members that have nothing else to do, but there should be some kind of qualifications.
Balgears