#2 Suggestion: Change Fair Play Policy

Ok, we want fair play. But the current policy just cripples the chess in live.

Let's start with the abort button. I say get rid of it. Why do we have an abort button?

If you sought a game, you should play it. If someone knocks on your door, bad luck. If you clicked the wrong button on the graph, bad luck. Do a search instead. It's just part of life when little mistakes happen. Do not make an abort button to compensate for one little hiccup. It opens the possibility of MORE abuse by unfair players.

So lets say we have no abort button. Have a countdown to the game (say 10 or 15 seconds like on the russian server) and then the game begins immediately. This way a person cannot just sit there, they must go through with their intention to play a game, but still have a reasonable time to be ready for the game. We are here to play chess, not fiddle the system.

With those 2 things in place you can delete the abort system, and some warnings.

Now lets talk about warnings.

If someone says something bad to you, there is the option to block them if you are not tough enough to handle some banter. Running back to mommy (sending in a report) is a waste of time for staff members.

But this is a kids site? Yes it is. But only to those that are 13 and over right? 13 and over are old enough to know how to handle banter and rudeness. For those that are not mature enough, they can play at chesskid.com. Perhaps the block button can be in large letters up the top of the screen for easier access?

And speaking about blocking: when you block someone you should see NOTHING more from them: they cannot play you, their names are not visible in the live chess room, you cannot see their ratings on the site. At the moment rude members can still seek for games and get paired with you. This is not acceptable. Blocking is in extreme cases and therefore should be in all areas. 

The current situation:

At present we have stupid random warnings, people abusing the abort system by just sitting until 20 seconds has come up (and yes i know there is some punishment for this but it is lax so they keep doing it), people getting around the robotic censorship by inserting different symbols. I've seen cases where a player was in a game and then was lagging and when they returned all of their time was gone and they had lost on time! And even worse, it said that they were reported for unfair play!

You cannot have a system to stop these people altogether. But you can have a smart system where you create less opportunity for idiots and more time for what we are all here for : chess!

Now before you comment on this: THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO TYPE. I don't want to see idiot jokes, or slings. This is a serious suggestion, because i'm sick of stupid policies interfering with chess.

sup

 I completely agree with you and you forgot to mention about disabling chat.

You are quite right! One can just disable chat if someone is abusive.

I don't play Live Chess here, but I have played on ICS's ever since they existed, and abort has always been a standard command (except on certain ICC pools), free to use without consequence.  I don't understand why chess.com has a problem with people using it.

If you are annoyed your opponent is aborting 20 seconds before he runs out of time, maybe you should have aborted the game yourself sooner.  I give the opponent 30 seconds to make the first move, and then abort if they have not.  It's hard to argue that a chess game should count for ratings if both players have not made at least 1 move; it's not that way in real life.  The only argument would be if they are trying to create a hardcore experience something like the ICC pools where, if you click the button to enter the pool, you MUST play the player you are paired with, or lose rating points.  This is to eliminate cherry-picking of opponents in an attempt to purify the rating system in said pools.  Keep in mind, these pools are seperate from the main playing system on the server, wherein you can both place seeks and challenge anyone you want.

When a player has a seek out there, and is waiting for a game, and someone just accepts the challenge just to spite them, it gets very annoying. And this happens a lot of the time. Let's say that this player does not like you, and blocks you... you may both still get paired. Hence the request that if you block someone, they should be blocked COMPLETELY and unable to play each other. I've had this situation happen three times in a row, when the other player logged off. Apparently there are sanctions for that behaviour, but it continues to happen.

But if you think about it, there is no real need to abort at all. Why are you accepting a challenge, or clicking a dot on the graph, or making a seek if you don't wish to play a game? Sure the odd emergency may happen like someone knocks at your front door, but those are rare and if you lost because of it, UNLUCKY. It's part of life to have some random events happen once in a while. Aborting is simply anti-chess.

The situation of players sitting there before the first move waiting for something to happen and then the opponent just aborts to spite you, should not even be created.

I do think the pools idea should be created on this site also. It would bring the real chess players out to play. I'm sick of all these idiots sitting on their ratings, or just sitting there aborting, or waiting for the server to abort. Plus it takes me about 20 minutes or more just to get a single game!

The purpose of a chess rating is to measure chess skill, not measure life. I could just as easily say that having someone click your seek by accident who doesn't want to play you is "part of life" - just put out your seek again, and censor repeat offenders so they can't accept.  No need for litigation.

Nothing that happens before both players make a move should matter, because by only by making a move you are consenting that you are playing a game of chess with this opponent.  In the pools you lose the ability to consent to your opponent, but guess what? People who just sit there and forfeit games will get bad ratings and you won't be paired with them very often if you keep playing and winning.

There is nothing to be done about "idiots" "sitting on their ratings" - if they want to do this it is their right.  On ICS's there is a stat called RD (rating deviation) that goes down the more frequently you play, and slowly climbs up over time.  It makes it easy to tell whose ratings are more legit than others at a glance.

Yes the purpose of a chess rating is to accurately represent skill. But these ratings are more accurate if people are playing!

You cannot censor repeat offenders so they cannot accept a seek. That is my point about blocking should be COMPLETE. It is not like other ICSes. This is why it happens a lot and is frustrating.

I would say that by accepting a challenge you are consenting to a game with an opponent. As soon as the board comes up it should be game on!

The pools are good because there is none of this non-chess behaviour. So yes, I encourage the pools idea.

It is true, there is not much to be done. But with this system in place, it will sort those people out quickly. Yes, the RD system should be used here also. Either to eliminate non active players from the best lists, or to introduce a small erosion in rating over time only for inactive players.

I would suggest that you try the live chess sometime for some experience on these matters.

I really want a larger consequence for such abusive players.... They say like "f&*k" and things like that. Not being fair, just so bad.

To the Original Posta:  Chill out, bro!  You seem like you're gonna have a stroke over this!

And the "Abort" button is quite a necessary fail-safe for live chess.  Face facts, brah, internet chess requires a major commitment of both physical and mental energy -- too much of a commitment to give just on a lark.

So the "abort" button offers something of a grace period where the player can ask himself: "Do I REALLY want to follow through with this?"  And yes, if his tea starts boiling or even if he decides to wise up and realize he can't possibly commit himself to the rigors of the chess, then the abort button plays an important safety valve.

Without it, we'd all be mere automatons, chained to our computers, mindlessly and slavishly chasing queens around a pixellated two-dimensional hell . . . mouths lolling around like the worst "World of Warcraft" addicts.

If the abort button were instead a resign button on move 1, they would have the same effect. So is this just a content issue? I would argue that since there should be no rating change anyway before the first move, leave it as is, for clarity.

@johnmusacha: "Do I REALLY want to follow through with this?" One should think about this before challenging another. In those other scenarios, I'm sure you wouldn't mind losing a game or two :) But if you wanted a safety valve there, don't challenge when those situations are approaching.

The point is: the abort button cause more problems than it solves.

@ ozzie_c_cobblepot: If the abort button were a resign button, there would be no punishment on the opponent for idiotic behaviour :)

And if people were resigning on move 1, I believe they should be sanctioned for unsporting play after losing their rating! Note: if two players were in collusion, both would be sanctioned. However I'm not sure what the current situation regarding resigning on move 1 is, but I'm sure there are some penalties for sandbagging or giving your rating to another account.

P.S. I trust that you learnt a lot from our little mini-series the other day :) 

I seem to have missed the #1 Suggestion.

Loss of rating points is not a punitive thing, so resigning before a game starts should not result in a rating change. Perhaps try something like the OTB analog of 1F-0F, which removes the forfeited player from the tournament.

Well under my system, it would result in a rating points loss. The clock ticks down with a 15 second countdown, and then the game begins. Like at the Russian server.

Say I'm playing (and this happens fairly often on another site) a game of chess, and I'm... 1,400 rating (roughly mine on CC). I'm not a very good player, and any competent player is going to absolutely crush me. I don't understand tactics well, and I still fumble in the openings - the only two I know past a two moves are the QGD and the King's Indian (I think? 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 etc.).

So if I accidentally click the seek of an 1,800 player, or a 2,400 player, why should I have to play against them? It was an accident; I'm almost 100% guaranteed to lose; why should I lose rating because I made a small mistake while attempting to find a player around my rating to play against? For the first move or two, I like the abort button. I can stop my game against the 2,400 player, not lose my rating, and go about my day happily, without being utterly crushed.

I mean, yeah, you may get a few people who abuse the abort command to annoy you, but just calmly report them and go about their day. I like the abort button as is.

@ Blackfang: I suggest removing the graph entirely and just seeking based on ratings paramaters. Or some combination of the two. Set a range of players, so that other dots cannot get onto the graph. Problem solved.

Another way to implement this is to have the abort button offer an abort to your opponent, and they can click theirs if they feel it is justified.

It just has to be better than the current system. 

"but just calmly report them" - this is a waste of time. Nothing is ever done about it, and the time spent writing the report is annoying. Kind of like submitting cheating reports... I only do it when either someone is an obvious case, or they were really annoying.

With this new system, the players are in control themselves, and there is no need to drag staff into it. 

"Kind of like submitting cheating reports... I only do it when either someone is an obvious case, or they were really annoying."

??? Man, that guy was good and he annoyed me. Better report him for cheating.

To the rest of your post: What if the guy just wants to be an idiot and force you to play the game? Well then, you're screwed! Now you have to play against a 2,400 player because of a slight mistake and his douchebaggery.

On CC, it's not a graph (though there is one you can use), it's a list that changes really really quickly, so it's difficult not to click on the wrong player.

No one will click it.  They will all simply sit there for 5 minutes and collect the free rating points.  Didn't you say you were in favor of a system that is more accurate because people are playing?

Look... there are problems with allowing an opponent to abort the game before move 1 at will.  But the problems are not as severe as the ones your proposed solution will create.