Number of games limitation


Back to forum

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-11)
Number of games limitation

Hello all.

The current number of running games limitation before the program blocks the access to new standard or rapid tournaments is 60 (which doesn't mean the number of running games is limited to 60)

After having experienced myself the "too many games" effects (more than 80 games, quite stressful and time consuming), and after a few general forfeits by players who probably reached the overdose, I decided to change some parameters to prevent such consequences. In a previous discussion, it had been concluded that it was up to each player to manage this and eventually to take the risk, but definitely too many correspondence games is not the same than playing chess all day.

The number of running games limitation before the program blocks the access to new standard or rapid tournaments (but world championships cycles) will be 30, once more it doesn't mean the number of running games will be limited to 30... Of course faster tournaments will remain unlimited. It should accelerate running games, prevent general forfeits, and help us not to become chess machines, at least "correspondence chess machines" :)

Best wishes, Thibault

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-11 15:46:30)
30, 40, 50... ?

One player (only) said to me that the 30 running games limitation before the program prevents to enter new standard or rapid tournaments [but wch cycles] was probably not enough. I think 60 is definitely too much...

Poll : What do you think about a reasonable number ?

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2007-11-11 16:04:50)
Number of games limitation

Hi Thibault,

I prefer: no limitations.
But if you think FICGS need it: 60 games.

Best wishes Heinz-Georg

Harry Ingersol    (2007-11-11 16:05:14)
Number of games limitation

I like the IECG Server practice of different levels based on number of games completed on the server. Beginners are limited to a few games while experienced players can have as many as 50 games in progress at a time. It is clear that players like Peter Schuster and Farit Balabaev play high-quality chess even when they have many games in progress. One limit does not fit everyone and experienced players can make an informed decision.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-11 16:44:30)
50 ..

50 games is a lot already but it could be a reasonable compromise. I like the levels feature at IECG server too, but I don't think it could be ok here with other games available, or there should be a limit for each game : Chess, Big Chess, Go...

William Taylor    (2007-11-11 16:59:49)
Total games or type?

Does the limit refer to total games or games of each type? For example, if you have 20 chess games and 20 go games running, will you be blocked from entering both new chess tournaments and new go tournaments, or will you be blocked from neither?

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-11 17:46:15)
Total games

Yes, it refers to total games at the moment.

Philip Roe    (2007-11-11 19:16:42)
cui bono?


I'm not at all clear what your proposal is intended to achieve.

Are you trying to save us from ourselves? Ruined careers, failed marriages, social withdrawal, vitamin deficiency...? If so I can't imagine a one-size-fits-all solution.

Or are you protecting other players from the phenomenon of a player who takes on a large number of games and then, for whatever reason, forfeits many of them? This seems to happen regrettably often and for that purpose it seems perfectly reasonable to ask people to qualify before managing a large number of games. Can you pull any statistics that might be revealing?

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-11 19:33:21)
Save our souls :)

Hi Philip... No, the aim is not exactly to save carriers, marriages or whatever, but it may help in some cases :)

The main problem is to see general forfeits from serious players who were playing 60, 80 or more games.. I have no statistics but I see every game result, so it is quite obvious to me when a player forfeits all his ongoing games. So in a way, I'd like to protect everyone, players and their opponents, from this.

Wayne Lowrance    (2007-11-11 22:49:54)
I like 30

Hello Thibault. I like it. I think it should help in reducing the number of mass forfeits. You know, 30 running games is still an awful lot of games anynow. I go for 30. Wayne

Wayne Lowrance    (2007-11-11 22:51:30)
And you know what ?

The quality of chess should improve. I have seen some preety bad chess here Wayne

Lincoln Tomlin    (2007-11-12 00:06:07)
How about...

Hi Thibault and all, I'd agree that 30 games at a time seems reasonable and should be fairer for all with regard forfeiting games. But how about setting the ceiling to, say, 30 games max and then if a player achieves, say, 1.5X their ceiling in unforfeited games then the ceiling rises, say, another 10 games? 30 games to start with and when 45 games have been finished they may play 40 games at one time. The when 60 games have been played.. etc etc. Just a thought. Some responsibility seems reasonable. Regards, Link

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-12 00:51:23)
Number of games limitation

Hello Lincoln and welcome to the forum :)

Of course you're right, there may be better rules and an optimized system to reduce the effects of this problem in both directions... My philosophy so far for this server is "make it simple" and to keep the rules as short as possible (well, the rules & conditions page size is quite huge already), moreover it is not obvious to detect forfeits automatically but I'll try to think about such improvements later.

Lincoln Tomlin    (2007-11-12 01:01:40)
Number of games limitation

That's fair enough Thibault, I agree. Keeping things simple seems a good policy to stick with. I'm glad that I didn't mention my idea of basing the number of games on what star-sign we are born under now. ;) Link

Dan Rotaru    (2007-11-12 01:14:40)
Number of games limitation

I think that limiting the number of games is a good idea, and I have a feeling reading the posts that the issue is not if to do it but the number of games. 40 seems to be a reasonable number. FICGS is still free for corr chess and people are tempted to play too many games at once which not only dilute the quality of the games but leads to too many forfeits. I was horrified some time ago when one of my opponent confessed that he had about 230 games in progress on various sites including FICGS. I believe that even for very strong players too many games will reduce the quality of some games and I am not talking about chess knowledge but about the possibility to do a mistake as the good move in the wrong game.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-12 01:42:12)
230 running games ?!

...... when the fun turns into a nightmare !

Dan Rotaru    (2007-11-12 02:18:35)
230 running games ?!

Well, about two weeks or so later he was quite happy to confess that he has dropped to about 170 game in progress :-) Is this some kind of blitz corr chess!?

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-12 04:59:04)
Limitation is now 50 running games

I just changed the number of running games limitation to 50. We'll see if it helps to decrease the number of forfeits.

Thanks all for your responses :)

Wayne Lowrance    (2007-11-12 06:20:35)
okey dokie with me


Mladen Jankovic    (2007-11-12 15:41:17)
In my experience...

Anything above 40 games is too much.I peaked at about 60 games (IIRC), for me, that is too much, and, IMO, anything above 40 games is too much. Others might be able to play more with no problem, but still...

I think 40 games might be ok, 50 maybe, but no more.

You might consider giving players some control of the limits.

Don Groves    (2007-11-13 22:59:04)
Number of games limitation

Hi, Thibault -- I agree with a limit but not for the reason of protecting a player from himself (or herself) because that cannot be done ;-) But to protect the rest of us from long waits between moves, unnecessary forfeits, poor quality games, etc., it is a good idea.