Correspondence chess: Why do people play so many games at a time?

I have recently gotten into and I love playing correspondence chess, but one thing that struck my eye was that when I click on an opponent of mine's profile they always have about 15-30 games on at once. Why is this? I know it is their choice but to me it kind of looks like it defeats the purpose of correspondence. Do they fall into the trap of starting a game, it is completely winning, but their opponent will not resign? If you do this, please tell me why.

When I played on chessdotcom I came across peeps who simultaneously played over 100 correspondence games!

Seemed weird to me, as I could spend hours on a single move. However I suspect it just means the peeps don't like playing with a clock and/or are happy to chat during the games. When you think about it, it's not that bad an idea if you prefer more relaxed gameplay rather than the jungle of on-line blitz/bullet play and have the time to do so.

One thing for sure the quality of play would be higher and more likely to lead to overall improvement.

I have thought about doing something similar - maybe tops five games - as I am hopeless at short duration games. However the main drawback is that the game results tend to depend on how much time is spent on each move, which giving my practice you end up with rather bogus and suspiciously high rating - in my case approximately 400 above my OTB rating and 600+ above my blitz rating as there are many who play correspondence at blitz speeds. Bit of a shame really as correspondence is very enjoyable especially if you use a real board or many!

It allows me to play and practice different openings, sometimes by playing two games at time with one opponent, to play regularly (at a daily pace) without worrying for not playing for the whole day because of time running, and it's funny, with a bit of "simul" impression.

Playing many games at once allows people to always have a move to make. In this way they can play as much or as little chess as they desire.

@baberle said ^

Playing many games at once allows people to always have a move to make. In this way they can play as much or as little chess as they desire.

I guess that makes sense, although for me I feel like it kind of defeats the purpose of correspondence chess. In order to play a move In all the games, you have to spend less time on individual ones, and the positions become less interesting and more of a chore to play. I guess that could work if you did not care about winning or losing though, and more about just having fun.

It removes the clock.
It is similar to playing puzzles.
You get to play with your friends more often.

@CSKA_Moscou said ^

It allows me to play and practice different openings, sometimes by playing two games at time with one opponent, to play regularly (at a daily pace) without worrying for not playing for the whole day because of time running, and it's funny, with a bit of "simul" impression.

That could make some sense. I guess it could actually be a very good way of testing it openings and systems in games, and analysing the positions that come out of it. Although with 30+ games or so open, it becomes less of an analysis of the resulting position and more of a 'who spends more time looking at that position' sort of thing.

@Toscani said ^

It removes the clock.
It is similar to playing puzzles.
You get to play with your friends more often.

That is true, I guess it could be a sort of 'practical' puzzle test. But if you have 30 or so games open at one time, is there not some sort of time pressure on you? Surely it turns into a sort of make a move in a minute so you can get on with it sort of venture?

@AlexiHarvey said ^

When I played on chessdotcom I came across peeps who simultaneously played over 100 correspondence games!

Seemed weird to me, as I could spend hours on a single move. However I suspect it just means the peeps don't like playing with a clock and/or are happy to chat during the games. When you think about it, it's not that bad an idea if you prefer more relaxed gameplay rather than the jungle of on...

Yes I have found that rather interestingly, despite thinking that the play would be much higher quality in correspondence, it is not so much. Sure, opponents play more coherent openings, likely because of the masters database use, but while I am pretty happy with my play, opponents in correspondence sometimes make blunders I would not expect with so much time to move. I assume that this is probably from what I you were saying, with people playing moves as if they had 3 minutes to make it and not 24 hours.

Even if you though it was false it is true for me. I was not talking about others. There is no time pressure if you solve puzzles every day and have your settings set to play a move every 7 days. With 52 weeks in a year I'm sure the game will be over within a year.

I actually enjoying puzzle streak way more than playing chess with online 800 rated masters.
https://lichess.org/streak

It's not even the rating that make it fun, it's the fun of discovering master blundering move like i do.

Rating: 1011 (Derived form honest and cheaters solving the puzzle, so I do not trust that.)
Played 1,018 times
From game 10+5 • Rapid
White (1876)
Black (1964)

The puzzle rating to me is the average of both players.

I do not play correspondence like it was speed chess. I play it more like it was a simultaneous exhibition.
The only time I would play casual would be to take back moves.