Before accepting a challenge I would like to see how many of my challenger's games are won on "opponent time-outs" (percentage or number of games), as well as "own time-outs" as this would give players a more accurate assessment of your rating strength. For example, I may be rated say, 2000, but if 20% of those were won on my opponents "timing out", my rating is falsely inflated.

Would anyone else like to see this?

At only 20% timeout wins you would be underrated having failed to gain as many free points as everyone else on the site gets.

The rating system attempts to even out all the factors. Underrated players will spank the overrated ones, massive rating changes will occur and all will be well with the Universe.

Don't you mean "over-rated"? If the above hypothetical player is showing a rating of 2000 but in reality is 1600 to 1700 then he is over-rated at 2000. Perhaps less points should be awarded if a game is won by default (time-outs) as it hasn't been won on merit or playing skill as such.

makes sense to me

At only 20% timeout wins that hypothetical 2000 rated player missed out on a 2200 rating. He should line up at these troughs to get his timeout wins to 30%.

tournamentguy Timeouts: 81% (last 90 days)

laurat Timeouts: 83% (last 90 days)

Reneshin Timeouts: 74% (last 90 days)

__zugzwang Timeouts: 90% (last 90 days)

This was tongue in cheek.

The point is "The rating system attempts to even out all the factors. Underrated players will spank the overrated ones, massive rating changes will occur and all will be well with the Universe.".

The players who get extra timeout win points, making them temporarily overrated, lose them to the underrated players who missed out. Don't challenge the players above they are underrated, and you do not want timeout wins anyway. Challenge those they lost to. They are overrated and have points to give you.

Yes, it gets a bit complicated if you analyse it all. So are you saying my original idea of "showing" these time-out wins is not really helpful because the "system" evens things out?

This is often not true.  Some of my wins by timeout were due to the person being sick or having to abandon a game for some other reason.  But more than half have been when I had an extreme advantage or even a forced mate sequence remaining and the person just allowed the game to time out instead of resigning or finishing it.  That doesn't bother me if they do that, but my win in those situations is just as well earned as if they had not timed out.

Point taken, Cystem_Phailure, however all I'm asking is to be able to see these time-outs in the stats field as I think it would be helpful.

What might even be better is to show the differential of time-outs (in percentage or rating points), combining both own, and opposition time-outs, which would then give a "mean" time-out figure. E.g. if 30 rating points were lost due to "own time-outs" and 15 points gained due to "opposition time-outs" the figure would be "-15" meaning the player is under-rated by 15 points.   

I put my suggestion to Chess.com

Does anyone see any sense in what I am proposing here? There are players whose ratings are hugely inflated by continually playing lower ranked members - I think this "Time-out Differential" would help in assessing their true strength. 

I don't think you can inflate your rating by only playing lower rated opponents.

Quite the reverse, actually, you limit your top rating by playing down.

Say (for example) you obtain a 1500 rating by maintaining a 100% record against 1100's. That does say something about your strength, you can beat 1100's all the time. But it is possible that you could score 75% against fellow 1500's, which would put you at (say) 1700. If you see what I mean...

[edit] What I'm saying, is that Magnus Whatsisface can't get a 2830 rating by playing against the likes of me and you only :)

Where do timeouts come into it? 'Bunny-bashers' who beat baby-opponents will still be overrated - even if none of the games timed out.

I do understand that eventually you will get less and less points for wins against lower rated players. But it's the "time-out" wins I am trying to quantify, as well as winning against weaker players.

My apologies artfizz and Rooperi - I should have added ..." and time-out wins" to the above statement.

Cystem_Phailure has made the most telling point: to be useful, the statistics would need to differentiate between deserved timeout wins (where you would have won anyway) - and undeserved ones.

Noted. But there are players who are winning games on time with "0" moves or "1" move being made - surely this has to be taken into account as a "default" win; I mean, how can you win with zero moves being made? That surely has to be fixed by chess.com

There is no rating adjustment for games shorter than 4 moves

That's good to know, thanks Rooperi.

I should qualify that: There's no rating adjustment for the winner, the loser loses rating points