limit on a player's max. concurrent games?

Tournaments with no vacation and a certain time per move average are already available. Maybe there should also be tournies that only allow people to join the tourney if they dont have over a certain # of games in progress ? 

Well if a person has a low time per move, then their many games won't be an issue.

True. However, how many players with hundred(s) of games going do have low time per move ?  I am guessing its rare. What if a player with low time per move average got it though with a reasonable # of games going and only recently decided to add 100 more game to his "load" ?  I would shy away from tournies in which there are such players playing if I had the option. 

I would like to buy a checkmate...any offers?

I really hate how the meaning of the word liberal has changed to mean the exact opposite of liberal.

Ahh, you're just another liberal trying to control how everyone defines and uses words.

The word "liberal" used to mean someone who enjoys liberty or takes liberties.  Nowadays, it seems to be a pejorative for "anyone conservatives don't like."

I think we should leave the site the way it is.  I'd hate to see a limit on the number of games allowed at once.  Perhaps it's just the libertarian in me, but I don't like it when people want to limit other people's activity because they're doing something that they themselves wouldn't do.  It's not hurting you if they time out of 100 games at once, so why force a limit?  If they have the willingness and time to play 400 games at once, then good for them.

It does hurt you if they time out of 100s of games at once if you're playing against them or if it mucks up the tournament you're in. It really is a nuisance to have somebody drop out of a tournament like that, so much more if they drop out of multiple tournaments.

Sure, but the problem isn't how many games that person has in progress, the issue is that they've timed out on their games regardless of the count -- many people carry enourmous game loads here without ever timing out like that.

The status quo bias in full play here.

If the site in fact had an upper limit on number of games, people would be crowing about how bad it is for predicting user behavior, and how what you're REALLY interested is something like a "time per move" metric.

How hard would it be to implement?

I agree there are both players who can handle large numbers of games and those who can not. Perhaps we can compromise and when some one times out on 10 games in a 90 day period, he is limited to 50 games for the next 90 days. 

It totally ruins tournaments when someone plays half their games winning and drawing and then forfeits to the balance of the field. 

If a player has too many timeouts, they won't be able to join tournaments anyway.

Totally agree about tournaments being affected by timeouts. It sucks. Here's an example.

In this tournament

http://www.chess.com/tournaments/pairings.html?id=4231&round=1

I was forced to play my last game like this

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=10070806

because my opponent had won both of his games against the GM.

And darn it if the final round between me and chapo wasn't ruined in it's own way because he was later burned for cheating.

I do understand time-outs ruin tournaments. I've expirienced it myself. However, was it because the GM had too many games going? Even people with a reasonable amount of games time-out.

any limit would just make people go to other sites. thats not what chess.com want.

Like the free market figured out all the "advantages" of de-regulating the S&Ls? 

Of course conservatives never want to micro-manage any aspect of people's lives...besides abortion, gambling, prostitution, same-sex marriage, drugs, etc...

i am a conservative myself