Originally posted by z00t I for one would call for a limit as it is impossible to play so many games without compromising the TOS. When GMs lose to amateurs it is usually in a simul. So if Kasparov or Kramnik can't take on 600 humans and win them all how can an amateur do so against players rated close to his/her rating?
"...as it is impossible to play so many games without compromising the TOS."
Playing 4 mins per move as MCA suggests is much slower than blitz, so it is quite reasonable that a player can play hundreds of games if they so choose.
Considering they have little time to research databases etc (which I am sure a lot of players don't do anyway), it would be just like OTB play to them. Nothing wrong with that.
Infact, to cheat this way would actually be more tedious than if you had much fewer games. Think of what would be involved. Would have to go through every game, load it into some engine and make the move. Do this within 4 mins for EVERY game (as opposed to thinking about the move for a bit then just making a move). I can't see a player who plays lots of games wanting to get such a high rating that badly by cheating.
Originally posted by lausey Playing 4 mins per move as MCA suggests is much slower than blitz, so it is quite reasonable that a player can play hundreds of games if they so choose.
Considering they have little time to research databases etc (which I am sure a lot of players don't do anyway), it would be just like OTB play to them. Nothing wrong with that.
Infact, to cheat this way ...[text shortened]... see a player who plays lots of games wanting to get such a high rating that badly by cheating.
I have already had a person with over 500 games time out twice. It is very difficult to keep up, and I am quite sure a person who is an expert would be quite pressured, having all those games on the go at once...Not to say that none of them could do it!!!
Originally posted by Very Rusty I have already had a person with over 500 games time out twice. It is very difficult to keep up, and I am quite sure a person who is an expert would be quite pressured, having all those games on the go at once...Not to say that none of them could do it!!!
I say let them. Personally, I like around 20 games for myself because I'm still learning and it takes a while to think through each move. However, if other people can handle more and want to, let them. They paid for the service, they should be allowed to use it.
Originally posted by Very Rusty I believe that a limit should be put on amount of games for Subcribers. I have seen people with over 500 and 600 games!! This is just completely ridiculous!!
If you need such limits, there are other sites that will charge you more and give you less. PM me for the URL.
Originally posted by Very Rusty I have already had a person with over 500 games time out twice. It is very difficult to keep up, and I am quite sure a person who is an expert would be quite pressured, having all those games on the go at once...Not to say that none of them could do it!!!
In an interview on another site, WGM Yelena Dembo said that her coach encouraged her to play 200+ games on these sites as if they were blitz. With this frantic pace, she climbed near the top on more than one site.
Originally posted by Wulebgr If you need such limits, there are other sites that will charge you more and give you less. PM me for the URL.
How very kind of you, but thank you I believe I have been on them all. Perhaps you are missing the point entirely. It truly gets ridiculous when someone is trying to play over 500 games, infact I have seen over 700 games, it is quite impossible to keep up. I have three skulls to prove it.
Originally posted by Very Rusty How very kind of you, but thank you I believe I have been on them all. Perhaps you are missing the point entirely. It truly gets ridiculous when someone is trying to play over 500 games, infact I have seen over 700 games, it is quite impossible to keep up. I have three skulls to prove it.
Why does it matter to you?
The servers can handle the game loads and the number of games someone else is playing has no direct effect on you.
Originally posted by Daemon Sin Why does it matter to you?
The servers can handle the game loads and the number of games someone else is playing has no direct effect on you.
I would think being around so long most of you would know that this is for site ideas, not "Site Debates" !!! I am just a new guy and I already have that one figured out !!!
Originally posted by Very Rusty How very kind of you, but thank you I believe I have been on them all. Perhaps you are missing the point entirely. It truly gets ridiculous when someone is trying to play over 500 games, infact I have seen over 700 games, it is quite impossible to keep up. I have three skulls to prove it.
Subscribers should have the choice to behave in a ridiculous manner if they choose. For some blitz addicts, 700 RHP games may be the only way to avoid 3 0 chess. Far be it from me to judge a fellow addict.
Originally posted by Wulebgr Subscribers should have the choice to behave in a ridiculous manner if they choose. For some blitz addicts, 700 RHP games may be the only way to avoid 3 0 chess. Far be it from me to judge a fellow addict.
😕
LOL...Good Point!!! I wonder when you play an 1800 player who is around 1200-1300, because of too many games going, and getting timed out, will you still feel the same way?
Originally posted by Very Rusty LOL...Good Point!!! I wonder when you play an 1800 player who is around 1200-1300, because of too many games going, and getting timed out, will you still feel the same way?
Unless he behaves completely childishly in thinking that rating points mean everything, I don't think he'd be too bothered.
Originally posted by Ragnorak Unless he behaves completely childishly in thinking that rating points mean everything, I don't think he'd be too bothered.
D
Well, as a new subscriber, and looking through numberous threads, there have been many complaints about exactly what I have mentioned concerning the ratings. I don't want to mention names, as I don't think that is proper, but actually you have been in some of them, so you know some of the ones who in the past have complained.
Personally, I am not concerned about ratings, but fairness, if you are actually an 1800 player, playing in a tournament with 1200-1300, it is not very fair for them. The 100 day rule doesn't seem to have corrected this problem either from what I have been reading.
Limit Subscriber Games
03 Feb '07 01:212 edits
Back to Top