15402 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
This is the one part of the fair play policy that I dislike. Aborting should be a legit option, the way it's set up now is annoying. I can abort on other sites like cc easily, but can't on the site I pay for without facing problems? And when I run into a guy with a 1300 blitz rating, 1100 bullet rating, and a 1890 standard rating and it docks me for aborting its frustrating...
I have suggested a live chess move time limit that could be agreed upon just as the length of games are agreed upon before the game starts. Chess.com refuses to implement this and therefore the game abortion problem and the game abandonment problem. Please tell everyone to write in to chess.com and ask them to implement a live chess move time limit that both players could agree on before the game starts. Also, this would eliminate the need to punish people for aborting the game. Everyone would play just who they wanted to play. If a player was not evenly matched, I'm sure his opponent would understand if he didn't want to play him to begin with. However, once the game is started then the live chess move time limit would come into effect and make things fair for everyone. Sincerely, Muzicman
I am frustrated with that feature too... game aborts are NOT always done on purpose... sometimes lag and connection problems simply happen... to misjudge someone for abandoning a game isn't fair.
The old system simply gave the win to the other player (Edit: I notice it still gives the win to the other player, but I mean now it has that ''unfair policy'' prompt). I have noticed sometimes (but not too often) cheaters / sore losers would try to flake out... but that's not always the case, sometimes connection problems and lag just happens.
There have been a few times where I would say the match was pretty even or even the individual with the better position (myself or my opponent) got booted because of the connection, it just happens.
Perhaps rather than acuse anyone of ''unfair play'' if an abandoned game happens... simply let it be. It wouldn't be right to ban anyone that didn't deserve it.
If someone purposely abandons all their games and the move list shows that their opponent was near a win each time... then yes, perhaps question that player if it seems more obvious and happens often.
Im not talking about abandoned games though, Im talking about aborting before a game starts. You can't choose who accepts a seek from you, and if you look at their profile before the game starts and see stats that indicate they are probably cheating (very high rating in long time control, novice or worse ratings in faster time controls), why shouldnt you be able to abort? Not to mention it's feature available on a number of other chess sites that don't punish you for it.
But you should set up the filter first and then make the seek..!
I've been on the otherside of these.. An X threw a seek and of course I was able to accept the game.. After that, this X aborted.
I mean, if you don't want to play with people who is out of the rating range you think is fair so you just have to set up the filter before and that's it!!
Filtering doesn't stop what I described.. Also having a game aborted isn't that big of a deal, you just move on to the next game almost immediately.
I really dislike that "feature", but I guess that it is supposed to work. I mean, if you start a game, and the other person doesn't move, and it's not aborted, then it takes forever to play. Contrary, if that person gets distracted (i.e. gets asked a question), then it could simply be a missunderstanding. Either way, the autoabort "feature" is curse. I'd lke it to be removed as well.
I don't get how filtering doesn't fix your problem... I thought you were talking about something else... I thought you were talking about getting acused of cheating if you abort.
If you don't want to play a high level player, the filter should work fine... set your rating range. If you abort on the first move (usually the site aborts automatically if you don't make a first move fast enough... which was another complaint of mine in another post) you won't get penalized.
I think you only get accused of cheating / penalized (which I was trying to talk about before) if you abort midway in the game, but not the first move if you don't want to play someone.
No Im saying you should be able to avoid likely cheaters by aborting games. Like if youre playing a standard game and there rating is something really high like 1800-1900 then you look at their blitz/bullet ratings and they are only 1100-1000 respectively. If you play live standard time control you know cheaters are more of a problem than in the other time controls. Also if youre selecting a challenge and you accidentally click on one that popped up in front of the one you wanted, or you just accidentally clicked a challenge you didn't mean to, why shouldn't you be able to abort? It's something you can do on other sites.
No, you still get penalized for aborting on the first move.
I prefer to not to sit there and spend 30 minutes trying to beat an engine personally ;). I think it's much simpler to spend what 3 seconds looking for a new game if your opponent aborts? I mean really how could you even be annoyed by that. Having an opponent abort on you is about the most harmless thing in internet chess.
@ryan ... you get penalized for aborting on the first move? Really? If that's true... then that sucks and is pretty unfair.
@Phelon... I don't think having a low blitz / bullet rating and having a higher standard rating means someone is a cheater... I myself prefer ''slow'' games (30 mins - 60 mins). I have around a 1300 for my standard, but I only got like a 600 something for blitz / bullet chess (only played maybe 5 blitz games on here because I don't like the fast games)... I'm terrible at moving fast.. but just because someone plays slow doesn't mean they are cheating, perhaps they are thinking... chess is a thinking game... I don't think fast is good, I'm sure even ''experts'' will make more blunders when being rushed and therefore have a lower blitz rating.
Yeah it makes sense really... I don't think phelon's argument has any weight... if anything, someone wouldn't be a cheater if they have a lower blitz rating. I would assume a ''cheater'' would have a more even (and near perfect) blitz and standard rating.
I am glad that they are enforcing aborts now. The moment they did that the rate of random aborts I encountered must have lowered from 50% to 5% (it was really bad having the minimum rating be +1 so that you always face higher opponents).
Also, I'm sure that if you get your account penalized for having too many aborts (from the automated system), that if you contact an admin and act reasonable that they would fix your status for you.
As far as the strong differential in ratings, ie., 1900 standard and 1100 bullet, I can imagine many legit players with those scores. Playing fast is a skill that some very good chess players have no interest in develeping.
Regarding people with high blitz ratings, they may seem suspicious but remember that blitz ratings are inflated on the beginner/intermediate levels. Although I can't explain why, a simple obversation of the relative ratings of Computer 1 and Computer 2 on the graph prove that.
Yea, I think so too, and, you loose points if you are higher rated. And, on top of the point deduction, you are considered "unfair" and get put on the 5-min wait from each game.
I'm not saying they are for sure cheaters, I'd just like to have the option to avoid someone I think looks suspicious, or if I misclick on a challenge.
So what you accept their challenge, they abort, and you find another challenge in 3 seconds alekhine? That doesn't sound particularly abusive. If they went around finding your challenges and aborting them to a point that it was actually a problem you could simply block them and they wouldnt be able to accept your challenges. Certainly less bad than being forced to play someone you strongly believe to be a cheater, and losing a bunch of ratings points and getting frustrated when they throw out a bunch of seemingly perfect moves. If youre saying I should be a good sport about wasting 30 minutes playing some engine that steals rating points, why can't you be a good sport about someone making you take 3 extra seconds to look for a new game without taking any of your points?
"Death Match 26! GM Irina Krush vs. GM Nadezhda Kosintseva! Hosted by IM Danny Rensch & GM Robert Hess!"
Common rating plateaus
by chessmaster102 a few minutes ago
beware of this member
by johnmusacha a few minutes ago
White versus Black Percentage of Wins
by ohpunky81 a few minutes ago
How to play the QGA?
by VULPES_VULPES 3 minutes ago
BCE Chessboards First Pro Batch
by ifekali 3 minutes ago
That was naughty
by Adilbala 5 minutes ago
I Don't See the Point of the Touch-Move Rule
by kaynight 6 minutes ago
Hey! what's this ...!?!
Bumping Old Threads
by Here_Is_Plenty 11 minutes ago
i have not found a chess teacher
by StormGiant58 13 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!