Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 15 Mar '10 16:39
    I'm sure this question has been raised before but having not found the debate...
    In 2007 there are some 126 tournaments still in progress,and in 2006 some 20/25.The oldest still in progress started in 19 Nov 03, 6.5 years ago.Quite clearly this is due to some players having a lot of games and so using the full time limits and timebank.I'm playing someone with 280-odd games and I saw a Caissad4 who is playing 529 games.These are probably a minority but they are affecting the majority like me who would like to play more often but are forced to wait months to finish a game-unless I do the same and enter hundreds of games...I feel a limit should be put either on the number of games being played by anyone or the number of tournaments or both.
  2. 15 Mar '10 16:42
    play shorter time controls then? Whats the fuss all about?
  3. 15 Mar '10 16:47
    No time available to play faster games.Suggest you read it again to understand what the fuss is about...
  4. Subscriber Ponderableonline
    chemist
    15 Mar '10 16:55
    Originally posted by ptriple42
    I'm sure this question has been raised before but having not found the debate...
    In 2007 there are some 126 tournaments still in progress,and in 2006 some 20/25.The oldest still in progress started in 19 Nov 03, 6.5 years ago.Quite clearly this is due to some players having a lot of games and so using the full time limits and timebank.I'm playing someone ...[text shortened]... put either on the number of games being played by anyone or the number of tournaments or both.
    * there are tournaments who run for a long time. You suggest that this is due to people taking their time (no problem up to here) and that this is wrong. You further infer that these people play too many games and that this is the reason for their (feeled) slow velocity.

    * you suggest that people should have either a maximum number of games or a maximum number of tournaments to accelerate everything.

    This suggestion should be better placed at Site Ideas,

    but regardless:

    * it is not true that the people with the high game loads are the ones dragging tournaments. Mostly it's the people with the high gameloads who either are fast players or lose a lot to timeouts (excepting the Surtism 2000 game experiment which has been discussed elsewhere).

    * Timelimits are agreed, and may be taken to their limits. They are part of the rules.
  5. Standard member Traveling Again
    I'm 1/4 Ninja
    15 Mar '10 18:59
    Originally posted by ptriple42
    I'm sure this question has been raised before but having not found the debate...
    In 2007 there are some 126 tournaments still in progress,and in 2006 some 20/25.The oldest still in progress started in 19 Nov 03, 6.5 years ago.Quite clearly this is due to some players having a lot of games and so using the full time limits and timebank.I'm playing someone ...[text shortened]... put either on the number of games being played by anyone or the number of tournaments or both.
    This issue is raised often. The answer is always: enter tourneys with faster time controls. It's
    as simple as that.

    If you don't like waiting seven days for your opponent to make a move, then don't enter a
    tourney that allows seven days to move. A good rule of thumb is to expect that moves will
    take as long as the time controls allow.

    Many people enter 7/14/21-day control tourneys because they don't move often in a particular
    game - whether it's because they have 1,000 games in progress or because they can only get
    to an internet cafe every couple weeks.

    One of the great things about being a subscriber is that you can manage your own game load
    to match how much time you want to spend playing. If it bothers you that you log-on with no
    games to move in, then just start a new game (in open invites) or join a tourney with faster
    time controls.
  6. 15 Mar '10 19:13
    You're right that my suggestion should have been placed in Site Ideas.A pity if it dies a natural death here...
    You agree that it's the players with high game-loads that drag tournaments.Let me add a few points:
    1.OTB games last a few hours,postal games a few months. Apart from Banded Duels(64) and Long Hauls(by definition),all other internet tournaments should not last more than a few weeks or a couple months at most - otherwise they all become B.Duels & L.Hauls,obviously.In other words, RHP ceases to cater for all tastes and the majority of games are months-long games.
    2.This happens ONLY because a MINORITY of players are making it so to the detriment of the rest.
    3.I know those are the rules.I'm trying to improve them by restricting the number of games playable and tournaments entered so that everybody can have its pleasure.
  7. Standard member peacedog
    Highlander
    15 Mar '10 19:34
    As others have already said, if your gonna join a tourny with long time controls, your always gonna get some players who will use all their available time. As is their right.

    A game with a 7 day timeout can last a year or more.

    There are plenty tourns with fast time controls that are over in a few weeks. Join them.

    Problem solved.

    Next!
  8. 15 Mar '10 20:21
    I am a slow player. Do I hear any complains about that?

    My opponents can do their ultimate complain whenever they can, i.e. skull me out of here. They don't. Why? Because I always keep my promises. If we agree on a 3/7 game, then I play according to this agreement. I never push the limits, I most often plays faster than the agreed times.

    But I am a slow player. Complaints, anyone?
  9. 15 Mar '10 20:50 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FabianFnas

    But I am a slow player. Complaints, anyone?
    You win too many games. Let the little guy hold the trophy, for once.
  10. 15 Mar '10 22:34
    The reason I like this site is because I can play when I have time. In between work, family, eating, sleeping, and occasionally playing real-world chess, I don't have time to spend more than 1 hour a day on here. In a tough position against a good opponent, I might need to spend at least that on a single move. So yes, occasionally I play slowly .. I have one game that's 18 months old, but it's also one of the best games I've played.

    I'd much rather play slow, better quality games than fast sloppy ones. I don't mind at all if my opponent takes 14 days to move - if I'm bored I can easily join another tournament .. but YMMV, of course, and there are faster time controls available for those who want faster games.
  11. Standard member clandarkfire
    Grammar Nazi
    15 Mar '10 22:49
    Honestly, I usually find that people with a lot of games in progress generally play faster than people with fewer games in progress, so I feel such a rule would change nothing.

    Just out of curiosity, where do you suggest we put that limit? 50 games? 100? 200? 500? 1000?
  12. 16 Mar '10 02:35
    Originally posted by ptriple42
    You're right that my suggestion should have been placed in Site Ideas.A pity if it dies a natural death here...
    You agree that it's the players with high game-loads that drag tournaments.Let me add a few points:
    1.OTB games last a few hours,postal games a few months. Apart from Banded Duels(64) and Long Hauls(by definition),all other internet tournaments ...[text shortened]... the number of games playable and tournaments entered so that everybody can have its pleasure.
    1. this isn't otb or postal games.
    2. there's a wide range of rhp tournaments for you to enter. the most common 3/7, 1/0 all the way up to 28/28 and others with just a time-bank of 30 days. so no one has any excuse. you enter a 3/7 tournament you should assume that there's going to be people who only make 1 move per week. nothing wrong with this... you agreed to the time controls, live with them.
    3. a large number of games doesn't always mean slow play... i probably play slower than most people who have 100+ games on the go and i know of a lot of others like me.
    4. what harm are people doing who are playing a lot of games? the site is making money from them, do you really think they would pay to play here if they were only allowed to play a faction of the amount of games they wanted to? no. the owners of the business are trying to keep everyone happy and with the wide range of time controls i believe they do.. it's not their fault or the guys who are playing 100s of games that you entered into games with time controls that you consider too slow.

    in conclusion - stop whining, you're making yourself look bad.
  13. 16 Mar '10 03:56 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by ptriple42
    ...and I saw a Caissad4 who is playing 529 games..
    did you also check her track record, huh ??!?!? She's won the most on RHP, by a long mile... I'd suggest you apologise and send her choccies & flowers..
  14. Subscriber Kewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    16 Mar '10 06:47
    I think you're shooting at the wrong target. People with lots of games aren't the ones playing slowly.

    Why not start a thread in Site Ideas, asking if people want to see lots more tournaments available for frequent movers?

    Some people get all their games by creating Open Invites with only short time controls such as 1/0 and 1/3. There's a really effective option for you.
  15. 16 Mar '10 13:07
    Originally posted by ptriple42
    should have been placed in Site Ideas.A pity if it dies a natural death here...
    Don't worry, it would have died a natural death over there... 😵