Why subscribe new MC if you don't even play your moves?

I am wondering (a bit annoyed) why some people sign in for monthly cups at a moment that they have 100+ games on going and it is their turn. I have almost always used the policy of only signing in when I have a empthy game status.

Why?

well generally I can agree with you, but your threshold of 100+ games going seems arbitrary. For different people, this is a different load.

There are surely players that come by every other day, and don't manage to keep up with 20 running games, and on the other extreme, you could have 400 running games and clear out the list three times a day.

I think most people will be aware of what they sign up for and do it responsibly, but there are always some...

My treshold was ofcourse arbitrary. My question is not about people with 100+ ongoing games, but 100+ games where it is theit move and will be next day because they don't have time to play them, but still take on 4 more.

Of course non-movinig players are much more bothering but I've been feeling unconfortable about players subscribing to every monthly cup group in a given game. Since monthly cup groups are small, one could see it as an oportunity to play different players, of variable playing strength. Maybe Richard should think on limiting just one group per month per game or that a player could not subscribe to a new group while he has an ongoing group in that game and month (in some games, eg, go19, that's actually the same...)

1 group per player would have a big impact on the MC's. I wouldn't want that to happen. It would reduce the first rounds so much that you could subscribe the January 15th and end up playing the MC of March. I rather would see the subscribtion limited to those players with less than 20 games where it their turn (20 arbritrary and might be a bit to high) so that a player would first move and only afterwards consider new MC's.

But the discomfort of having players in every single first round group of the MC is indeed the reason I posted this.

I see your point. And agree.

What about: if you have more than x games where it is your move of a certain game, you cannot enter the next MC?

So you would have to make (most) all your GO moves to subscribe to another GO MC.

I would separate it per game, for example, during the day/on the road I'll don't play OSKI or GWG because its too tedious on the iPhone.

@aganju - i agree on separating per game: I, for instance, take much longer to play Oski moves than EinStein's.

@all - Philosophically, I would tend to agree to a rule like Aganju's previous post. There might be some dificulties in putting it into a running code. For once, the number of games in which is your turn might be quite a volatile value. Supose that Aganju's x is 10. Supose then that I have 9 Oski games in my turn - therefore being able to subscribe to next MC's group. 10 seconds after my subscription I could have many more Oski game on my turn and could run 30 days without making a move in any of them.

right, it's a dynamic value. But it would be good enough, I think, and easy to code. I think a threshold of 5 or even three is fine. If it is my move in three or more games, I cannot sign up for a monthly tournament.

User Tournaments should not be affected, nor should Championships.

In your example, you get away with one more MC, but then you need to get the number down, which means you need to make moves. Thats all we want, right?

And it still does not really limit you from going into many many games, if you want. For example, typically I have over 400 games running, and typically I complete all my moves three times a day. Each time after that I could sign up for all MCs in the list.

And there is no problem with it I think - if I make all my moves three times a day, who can complain. By the way, you can see that in any tournament - 99% of tournaments I finish first (except when someone resigns all his games).

I would not like a harder limitation like other sites have - 'no more than 50 running games (unless you send us money)' - the idea there is clearly not to keep the games moving, but to keep the cash flowing. I'm playing in LG because I can play as much as I want, and that should not change.

That reminds me... I had signed up for a lot of the New Year's tournaments, and when I realized how many games they would entail, I wanted to remove myself from most of them. I missed a few, though, so now I'm playing in 170 games. Is there a way to see all the tournaments for which I'm signed up (on one page)?

No, there isn't.

Same as seeing all the ones you are not signed up for.

You gotta go through each one, one by one, open them up, and check if the button reads 'Register' or 'Remove me' (that's easier then checking for your name in the list, names are sorted by internal ID).

I seem to be in the minority, but I disagree with implementing any such restriction. I sometimes have a few difficult games of say, (for example) shogi, that I want to think about for awhile, but at the same time, I want to start more shogi games so that I have some complex middle-games later.

Now, on the other hand, if a player signs up for lots of tournaments and has the habit of timing out, that is another story. But such a bad apple should not spoil it for the rest of us!(I may be a very slow player, but I have NEVER lost on time). Maybe if a player has x number of time outs per year, then they would have a restriction put on them. But a player like myself, who never loses on time, should have every right to take as long as he wants to make a move....The system says I have 240 hours plus 36 hours per move. As long as I play within those guidelines, I should not be punished for being "too slow".

good point.

that gives me an idea: What about 'faster turnaround' tournaments - be it monthly or user tournaments or whatever?

For example, in a user tournament, there could be the option to select the 'speed':

classic - 240 + 36/move

faster - 120 + 18/move

lightning - 24 + 6/move

or something like that.

Whoever signs up for such faster tournaments knows what he is doing.

Those games can still show up in the normal 'your moves' list, and they would just happen to be farther atop all the time.

Oh, I'm sure that is not a new idea. But I was too lazy to browse through old forums.

"I seem to be in the minority, but I disagree with implementing any such restriction. I sometimes have a few difficult games of say, (for example) shogi, that I want to think about for awhile, but at the same time, I want to start more shogi games so that I have some complex middle-games later"

That is exactly the reason that I didn't want to restrict to 0 on-move-games: so I don't see your problem (in the sense that I do understand it and already implemented it :-) ). Secondly it would only affect MC's so if you have a lot of games you are thinking about you can still go to the waiting room.

Still disagree. The monthly cups is where I would normally want to join if I was looking for new games. Sometimes, if I see three or four players registered for a monthly cup and they are all strong players, then I am interested in joining that particular tournament, even if I have some complicated games that I won't be able to think about for a few days (say, due to work!)

I don't understand your disagreement. you speak about 'some complicated games' I set a broad margin of 20 games, so it seems you are saying that you would want to join while you have 21 complicated games to think about?

Why not? If Ray has never lost on time he has proved he can manage his time. I like the idea of limiting access to too many games for those who lose on time only. Or those who resign in the first moves (what are the first moves depends on the game).

I totally agree with ray. While we do not lose any game for time. If you want to play fast are pages that are not turn based

@ Hjalti, yes! lately, I have been trying to get my total number of games down. but a couple of years ago, I was playing more than 200 games (300??)at a time (in part, due to the monster). I also had at any given time possibly more than 30 complicated breakthrough games, but was often joining new tournaments. If I was in a busy work week and did not have time (or was too tired) to think through my 30 complicated positions until the weekend and wanted to join a monthly cup that had some good players registered, then I would do so. It might be a rare situation, but I would want to reserve the right to do that.

On the other hand, I would definitely vote "yes" for restrictions on players who forfeit too many games on time or purposely resign on move one.

Also, another idea, maybe paid members could be exempt from restrictions should restrictions actually be implemented.

@Ray: I understand your point. It still bothers me however that there are sign ups in MC's by people that are not in your situation.

@Diamante: Even if you are agreeing with Ray. What does your second comment has to do with that? I also agree with Ray's concerns, I also agree that turnbased should be turn based and the game rules state 240/36. But I still feel that subscribing for every single MC while you don't even care to answer games in which only 1 move is possible is bizar. You might as well first try to answer my original question, rather than jumping on Ray's train... you are certainly not in the same compartment.