Multiple games

Sometimes I play correspondence games and then I check their profile and see they have 20, 30, or ,40 other games going on at the same time just makes me feel icky like they don't care about my game or they are playing me off similar games like Derren Brown.Just makes me wanna quit that game. Does anyone else feel like this , should there be a limit on how many games someone has going on at once? doesn't sit quite right with me. I generally play one game at a time and put my time and effort into that game xxx

You complain about 40? I used to know people playing hundreds of correspondence games at a time. It is a completely different approach to correspondence chess online, essentially turning your correspondence games into a gigantic simul of blitz/rapid games played asynchronously. I never understood why people do it, but they do. I get that playing a single game can be a bit tedious at times, especially when your game plan is clear and you think it can go fast but your opponent takes a long time for her moves. That's why I usually play a few games simultaneously (somewhere between 2 and 5). More than that becomes too overwhelming, because I too like to put time and effort into my games.

But you can't force people to play the game your way. Everyone has a right to enjoy it the way they like it.

What I see as a bit of a problem on lichess is that there are too many timeouts (I don't mean stalling lost positions, but genuine timeouts in an equal position). More than there were on chess.com when I played there.

Well it's very impersonal, like I'm part of their personal experiment and in my view shouldn't be allowed but like you say each to their own,making me wanna quit correspondence chess unless I've spoken to the person beforehand and arranged a game thanks for your response xxx

Methinks thou doth worry too much about trivial things.

Although that's far away from every time-control I'd prefer, I think it is just a question of what someone expects a game to be. A long match, where every little decision has to be put wisely, or just one other game, because that's what we do, we play games. So it should not be considered a big deal, when there are some type of players, who just like to get it done, and some, who instead like to lay back and enjoy. Likewise you should not be put-off by such people, in the end they play with you, and it is your chance to prove them wrong, thinking your moves can be handled easily whilst having dozen of other games.

Cheers!

I generally play one game at a time and put my time and effort into that game

I used to play correspondence chess via snail mail. It could take a week or more for mail to arrive from Bulgaria or wherever. And you'd be allowed 5 days to choose a move on top of that. Not being able to play any corr. chess while waiting for your one opponent to move wouldn't make sense.

I've also played on ChessWorld, a web site dedicated to online correspondence chess. Some folks replied super fast, others took several days. Playing multiple games at once was part of the experience. Absolutely nobody played one game at a time.

Maybe the Lichess correspondence chess experience is different. Or maybe correspondence chess is not for you. But don't go looking for reasons to be annoyed. Life's too short. :)

@SOJB said in #1:

Sometimes I play correspondence games and then I check their profile and see they have 20, 30, or ,40 other games going on at the same time just makes me feel icky like they don't care about my game or they are playing me off similar games like Derren Brown.Just makes me wanna quit that game. Does anyone else feel like this , should there be a limit on how many games someone has going on at once? doesn't sit quite right with me. I generally play one game at a time and put my time and effort into that game xxx

I used to play at a site with many games (chess, dozens of chess variants, and many other games and variants) and all games were essentially correspondence games -- a time control of 1 day/move was considered fast. I typically had a few hundred games going on at all times.

I don't understand why it bothers you what people do with the time they aren't spending on your game. Would you feel happier if they spend more time gardening than playing chess with people other than you? Isn't that very selfish of you?

@Abigail-III said in #7:

I used to play at a site with many games (chess, dozens of chess variants, and many other games and variants) and all games were essentially correspondence games -- a time control of 1 day/move was considered fast. I typically had a few hundred games going on at all times.

I don't understand why it bothers you what people do with the time they aren't spending on your game. Would you feel happier if they spend more time gardening than playing chess with people other than you? Isn't that very selfish of you?
Hhmmmm as I already accepted people's reply and said each to their own, I don't know why you are suggesting I'm selfish, I had a bad experience with a correspondence game where they had multiple games going on and then let the time run out totally wasting my time and thinking over the three days that I had put into the game ,the one correspondence game I had going on and it upset me ,so I thought I'd see what other people thought about multiple games xxx