I think that vacation abuse, verbal abuse or poor sportsmanship could be self monitored by using a system similar to ebay for bad merchants. Basically, at the end of each game you are asked to rate your opponents behaviour. Like Ebay if you consistantly are getting a poor rating then it is reflected in your averaged score and others steer clear of you. Those with consistantly poor ratings would find themselves unable to get into tournaments, get a game with high peer rated opponents. Thus, if it is important to you for your opposition to behave in a certain way you can screen for it.

 Any thoughts?

Sounds like a good plan to me. However, eBay is changing its rating system this month (in the UK and Ireland at least!), so only buyers can leave feedback (I think, though I may have completely mis-interpreted the e-mail, I did read it late last night, lol). Anyway, this is all to protect buyers from receiving revenge feedback from sellers who for whatever reason didn't provide the service which they'd promised (in the buyer's opinion at least).

Anyway, with this in mind, I'd recommend that if an idea like this was implemented, perhaps only game winners (or in the event of a draw, both players) should be able to leave ratings on these areas, as for the majority of time, these abusers only tend carry out these actions when heading to defeat. I'm not trying to discriminate against those people who lose fair and square (hell, I've lost twice as many games as I've won, so I'd be shooting myself in the foot if that was the case!), but I think the winners are normally those less inclined to any type of abuse, and as such would be in a better position to rate players. Anyone who wins very consistently, like the higher rated people on this site, I personally wouldn't expect to need rating anyway, as their high level would be enough evidence for me that they're good sportsmen (if not, perhaps I'm just too trusting, lol).

bobfrombarum,

I have to disagree with you.  While I haven't played this type on chess.com, there are people who will taunt the losing player incessantly. 

I agree with the previous sentiments, in particular King William. Two things to say....

1. I wouldn't play a player again who in my opinion acted badly however I propose a system of evaluation so as to not choose to play them in the first place. Rating alone is insufficient as some are bad winners.

2. The point of poor or inappropriate ratings would I would expect mathematically be irrelevent to an average rating which the majority would give.

 

 

With respect to the topic has been done before. I haven't seen this particular way of solving the issue presented before but I stand corrected if someone can point me to the forum.

bobfrombarum wrote:

If not, perhaps I'm just too trusting, lol.

---

This is obviously clear, as I never considered there being any players like you describe silentfilmstar13.

Generally, I'd say that the odd poor rating wouldn't really make a difference in an average rating scenario, and perhaps like eBay, anyone subjected to a low rating could be able to provide a response, though obviously the number of possible responses would have to be limited, otherwise it'd render the entire concept defunct. I think I've made it too complicated now...

BONJOUR! UNFORTUNATELY, CHESS IS A GAME FOCUSED ON INDIVIDUAL EGO. UNLIKE MANY SPORTING EVENTS, A CHESS PLAYER CAN NOT BLAME A MATE FOR THEIR LOSS. THE MOMENT ONE IS DEFEATED IN A CHESS MATCH....IS THE MOMENT ONE FINDS GRATITUDE FOR HAVING SOMEONE TO SPAR WITH! CHEERS! RIEZ

 

riez1974 wrote: BONJOUR! UNFORTUNATELY, CHESS IS A GAME FOCUSED ON INDIVIDUAL EGO. UNLIKE MANY SPORTING EVENTS, A CHESS PLAYER CAN NOT BLAME A MATE FOR THEIR LOSS. THE MOMENT ONE IS DEFEATED IN A CHESS MATCH....IS THE MOMENT ONE FINDS GRATITUDE FOR HAVING SOMEONE TO SPAR WITH! CHEERS! RIEZ

 

---

 Really?  Mate is to blame for every loss I have.

Difficult one really. As there are so many people from difficult cultures and levels of chess (un)expertise how do you determine what is the correct behaviour? Some people get annoyed if you just chat in a friendly manner.

I agree with King William - don't play someone again who is disrespectful to you. And the best way to deal with people like this is to beat them!

I like the idea, but if someone is rude and aggressive and you beat them, they are likely to give you a bad rating no? It's open to too much exploitation. I deal with such players by simply disabling the chat option. They can't do any worse than beat you on the actual board. :-)

I think implementing something like the ebay rating system is inherently a bad thing for one simple reason:

At ebay the end goal is to reach a win-win situation for both buyer and seller (one person gets money, the other a product or service). In chess the goal is to have a win-lose situation (after all we do play to win don't we?).

I don't like the idea of getting a bad rating because someone doesn't like to lose and I have no doubt this will happen more often than not with a system like that.

Maximus_Minimus wrote:

I think that vacation abuse, verbal abuse or poor sportsmanship could be self monitored by using a system similar to ebay for bad merchants. Basically, at the end of each game you are asked to rate your opponents behaviour. Like Ebay if you consistantly are getting a poor rating then it is reflected in your averaged score and others steer clear of you. Those with consistantly poor ratings would find themselves unable to get into tournaments, get a game with high peer rated opponents. Thus, if it is important to you for your opposition to behave in a certain way you can screen for it.

 Any thoughts?

---

 try checking ur potential opponents trophy case. players exuding good sportsmanship should have lots of trophies..like me. this system has a couple flaws i know but i just wanted to point out the fact that i have lotsa trophies.