Especially in tournaments one finds opponents lose on time. Its not a big problem when players do not show up and everyone gets the same advantage. Also your rating is not affected. I find it problematic when players do show up, make some moves, or maybe a lot but then somehow forget about the game and lose on time, sometimes even in a winning position. Great you'll think probably. But I am not at all pleased with the rating points awarded. My rating goes up but I really did not earn that in playing a strong game. You'll get overrated and as such sometimes get to play a tournament wich is way over your head. Whats the big deal here. Well I'd like to have the opportunity to decline rating points when its obvious I did not deserve them. This way my rating stays at a level where it should be. So whenever a game is won on time (so not if someone resigns on purpose) the winner is asked if a rating adjustment should take place. Would'nt that be a nice smart improvement for this site?

You can choose to not allow wins by timeout be claimed automatically (My Home -> Account -> Online Chess Settings), but it won't work for tournaments.

so play in tournaments where you are over your head.  Nothing wrong with playing stronger players, and you'll eventually get back to where you should be, rating-wise

Well rednblack this is true off course, but will stronger players be happy to play me, thats the next question

You're rated over 2000, you can play whoever you damn well please!

Well Prawn I can, but I'd like a figure thats a bit more accurate. Just a tiny bit. I mean for instance my best win as it is booked automaticaly is a win on time. I've looked at other people's best win and it often is a win on time. Its not something one can be proud of, is it? Nice if that one was gone too. One should be able to get rid of these games, they tell you nothing about your development. I know sometimes people refuse to resign when in a lost position an let the time slot do its work and therefore the winner should have a choice about what to do with it.

All ratings are temporary measures of performance. In the case of Chess.com, the ratings change with every game. It won't be long until your rating "normalizes" itself. The best win stat could be a little annoying but I suppose you could try to beat it, to your own satisfaction, of course.

As for allowing players to turn down points, that's a bad idea... all of a sudden an objective measure with defined parameters becomes a subjective measure with unknown parameters (maybe I don't take points from girls, for instance).

Also, the sand-baggers on this site would have a field day.

p.s. Sorry about font etc. .... I hit Ctrl something-or-other (in error) and I'm stuck with it for this post.

Well if the girl resigns; gives up her defense, you cannot deny her points. But when she does not show up, hey whats comforting in some rating points?

Now which way is it that you want to play this? I remind you:

"Especially in tournaments one finds opponents lose on time. Its not a big problem when players do not show up and everyone gets the same advantage. Also your rating is not affected."

Well, your rating is supposed to indicate performance, not chess skill. It makes perfect sense to factor in time outs because a person with lots of time outs is more likely to lose, and someone with less time outs is less likely to lose.

Prawn, if the girl does'nt return after a few dates

Puchiko, of course chess via the internet has its own rules. The no-show wins are often evened out by the losses to cheaters, at least I found a few people I lost too later to be removed as cheaters. Ideally those results are wiped off your record as well.

Losses to cheaters is not the same thing. In those cases you did lose to someone performing better than you. The fact that there was a misrepresentation about who you lost to is irrelevant to the rating system.

IMO, some people are way too hung up on ratings and points.   Unless there is money involved, why should it matter?   A rating is useful to help you match up to players at roughly the same playing strength, and to give you feedback on whether you are getting better or getting worse. 

The rating is never more than an approximation even under the best of circumstances.  And don't forget, a player having a good day may very well beat a player rated hundreds of points higher who's having a bad day.    So unless you are a pro and playing for money, just relax and have fun.

ichabod801,

>Losses to cheaters is not the same thing. In those cases you did lose to someone performing better than you. The fact that there was a misrepresentation about who you lost to is irrelevant to the rating system.

Rybka rated about 1800 makes you lose quite a bit more than at its actual strenght

OldchessMonster,

Its not a big thing, it might be a simple tool to clean up things you don't need. To me (and I think there will be others) it is a sport to try to reach a rating as high as possible. Getting a push upwards for free is no fun at all.

Rating points gained by time-outs are propably compensated by points lost when your phone or doorbell rings during the last minute of a stressfull game, or anything similar. Speaking for myself I'm pretty sure it balances out evenly.

I was talking about turn-based games ... I gather few games are that thight