arti

I challenged atri when he peaked in number of games, and I started two games of (1/0)-times. One of them went soon into a time out.

The other one i didn't skull him out because I wanted to see where the game was going: Game 6334921. A short but interesting game with a bishop sac on f7 leading to his loss of queen. Regrettably it went into a time out as well.

I'm sure he would see the sac if he gave it some thought, but who has the time to do so when you have 2000+ games going?

Originally posted by GEOFFREY H
As a relative newcomer to the site, I am surprised by the number of games that some players attempt. 3000 is of course ridiculous, but anything over 100 seems overly ambitious. The problem is that there is no deterrent to taking on an unrealistic number of games, and a free resource will always be abused.
Here is a suggestion: amend the annual charg ...[text shortened]... gous to broadband where access is limited to a set amount of data transferred in a given period.

No the current system is fine. I dropped out of a couple of tournaments recently due to work commitments, this happens in OTB tournaments as well, people get sick or refuse to play on after a defeat. If you get an opponent who clearly has far too many games and doesn´t manage them properly then you are effectively in a short group. Since he´ll never get past the first round it only affects someone who couldn´t enter the tournament due to his presence and there are plenty of tournaments to enter.

It´s probably possible to construct a case for stopping people who persistently do this from entering small thematic tournaments, but really I don´t think it matters.

I can´t cope with more than about 50 games, my ideal gameload varies depending on what is going on in my life, but there are players on this site for whom having what I consider to be way too many games isn´t a problem, I´m currently playing Zenic (User 408178) in a tournament, and he has made moves regularly, but infrequently. He is organised about which games he moves in and has only lost >13< games to timeout - which is quite an achievement with 1,132 in progress games! caissad4 also has a very high game load and seems to cope, I do not think these players should be penalised for the inability of players like Atri to manage their game load.

Originally posted by DeepThought
No the current system is fine. I dropped out of a couple of tournaments recently due to work commitments, this happens in OTB tournaments as well, people get sick or refuse to play on after a defeat.

(I can't resist the opportunity to reason with someone again about this to see if they can think it thru and achieve understanding.)

The issue with atri was not that he took on too great a load in the normal course of play and learned a lesson or that he was indispose in some manner. He willfully entered every tournament he could regardless of the time limits (many of them while flying the vacation flag to avoid timeouts in games that he had already ceased playing) solely to accumulate as many active games as he could with no intention of playing those games. However you slice it, mate, it was purely disrespectful to every player that he committed to play. I personally don't care how many games someone plays and limits would be stupid but there is the possibility that this stunt will occur again and waste time for well-intentioned people again. Ten people doing this might well make the whole site a farce. Again - he didn't play too many games - he asked for games he knew he would never play.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
(I can't resist the opportunity to reason with someone again about this to see if they can think it thru and achieve understanding.)

The issue with atri was not that he took on too great a load in the normal course of play and learned a lesson or that he was indispose in some manner. He willfully entered every tournament he could regardless of the tim ...[text shortened]... arce. Again - he didn't play too many games - he asked for games he knew he would never play.

Agreed, what I was getting at is that one player cannot single handedly ruin a tournament just by playing the fool until his vacation allowance runs out. I don´t think that other players´ game numbers should be capped just to prevent a handful of people doing annoying things. Besides, now he´s presumably run out of holiday so he can´t do it any more.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Agreed, what I was getting at is that one player cannot single handedly ruin a tournament just by playing the fool until his vacation allowance runs out. I don´t think that other players´ game numbers should be capped just to prevent a handful of people doing annoying things. Besides, now he´s presumably run out of holiday so he can´t do it any more.

I agree about the cap - but my original and only suggestion (which I think will work to mitigate this problem) (and note I said mitigate not eliminate) is to prevent someone from entering a tourney while they fly the vacation flag. Anyone interested in maintaining their current games can easily drop the flag for a day to enter a tournament and re-instate it the next day to continue their vacation.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
I agree about the cap - but my original and only suggestion (which I think will work to mitigate this problem) (and note I said mitigate not eliminate) is to prevent someone from entering a tourney while they fly the vacation flag. Anyone interested in maintaining their current games can easily drop the flag for a day to enter a tournament and re-instate it the next day to continue their vacation.

I think that that´s a good idea, better than capping games, but again I think that will hit a few genuine players - I don´t use the vacation system much, is it possible to come off vacation instantly like that or do you have to take complete days? Maybe you should be stopped from entering tournaments if you have your vacation flag up and games waiting where you are out of time.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Sure - he can do that and I'll leave the site - there are others.
I'll just know better what kind of site to look for before I subscribe.

In about 1000 games I've played this character 8 times.I join a lot of tournaments and he has been in 4. All 8 t.o. wins. I dont let it bother me.I see his name i know its a sure win,thats easy on me.
My point is you can play a lot of games w/out running into him and if you do you can bet you will get the win.
In my opinion this is the best chess site on the web and to let his non-playing style run you off would be a shame.
Stick around and enjoy all the good things RHP has to offer.🙂

Originally posted by utherpendragon
In about 1000 games I've played this character 8 times.I join a lot of tournaments and he has been in 4. All 8 t.o. wins. I dont let it bother me.I see his name i know its a sure win,thats easy on me.
My point is you can play a lot of games w/out running into him and if you do you can bet you will get the win.
In my opinion this is the best chess si ...[text shortened]... e run you off would be a shame.
Stick around and enjoy all the good things RHP has to offer.🙂

Can't agree more! Pendragon has put his finger on it... you're sure to win when that name appears as your opponent in a tournament. Why leave a wonderful chess site when you get opportunity to up your rating without any effort?😏

Originally posted by granO2
Can't agree more! Pendragon has put his finger on it... you're sure to win when that name appears as your opponent in a tournament. Why leave a wonderful chess site when you get opportunity to up your rating without any effort?😏

He has a so a low rating, how does this little ranking grow up his own ranking - zero points 😛
By the way, you get only points, when the third move is done - not often the case by this player 😵

I thought it would be much easier, when players, which lost two games before the game reached the third move with such a timeout should get all game to lost automatically 😀 so it is easy for all other members.