Until someone more knowledgeable about the workings of chess.com can chime in, I can say that many servers are designed so that a closed account can't log back in. So in order to ban a user, you first close the account and then force them to log off. Maybe he just was never kicked off or never logged off voluntarily after the account was closed. Also, I'm not sure if chess.com works this way at all.
Bug Bug: Closed Accounts Playing Live Chess (Bughouse)
Sort:
happytoad wrote:
Until someone more knowledgeable about the workings of chess.com can chime in, I can say that many servers are designed so that a closed account can't log back in. So in order to ban a user, you first close the account and then force them to log off. Maybe he just was never kicked off or never logged off voluntarily after the account was closed. Also, I'm not sure if chess.com works this way at all.
What you describe is pretty standard (not unknown; if you hadn't caught-on, I'm a developer and understand such trivial matters). Technically speaking, cookies, tokens, or whatever mechanism should be required to refresh (renew, replace) at certain intervals. Client seeks a refresh, or server pushes a refresh to client ... automatic re-direct should happen if something smells even remotely fishy, or requires log-in again (i.e. account breach and other basic security considerations such as logging in from an unknown source, you kill all logged-in instances; require the client log-in again, etc). I naturally assume this is implemented automatically. But I can also say I don't know how it's done or managed with secondary account logins (such as through other major online properties and services); nor do I understand the semantics of mobile paradigms (mobile tending to be more persistent and less handled than typical or traditional desktop web apps, etc).
Yes, Yes, Yes ... I get it, I know, I understand. (Thanks.)
I was just "airing dirty laundry" in that there's an issue if someone can be playing under a closed account. The technical details and semantics ... beyond my control or concern. When I saw the username, I expected to get crushed. I was just interested in the rating being so low for a known username I expected to get crushed by. Thus the interest and how I took notice and wondered why this was happening. (I could care less about the loss or getting crushed. But, something smells fishy.)
Dec 23, 2016
0
#4
Could the account have been closed just after the game? As near as I can tell, the closure is quite recent.
Dec 23, 2016
0
#5
I have heard of people being banned in the middle of a live chess game that they were winning. Although that was closed for cheating, not abuse.
Dec 23, 2016
0
#6
If I created a bughouse simul account, I would probably call it knighttour.
Dec 23, 2016
0
#7
That name is already taken, although the guy hasn't logged in since 2008.
If this rooroibear is from fics he is pretty strong player indeed. I played few bug games with him and resigned on move 1 for seceral times trying to sandbagg. He is probably like many of us frustrated that he can't get a decent partner particulary if you are a bit higher rated...
MGleason wrote:
Could the account have been closed just after the game? As near as I can tell, the closure is quite recent.
Users can't see when an account was closed. The question was kind of rhetorical to begin with.
Support Says (final answer): Session was still logged in. (Not a big deal.)
The way I'd handle this (in the future) ... any administrative account change requires a push-to-client response (on next contact with the server) forcing logout to log in again. Say, after a live game finishes. It's minor. That's just how I'd handle or design things. Then again, session time-out is generally adequate and I possibly caught things mid-stream.
That kinda sucks ... that a (known?) highly rated player has account closed. (I mean, we're trying to build-up the variants, not chase-off major players.) I was just happy to play someone like that (if even crushed). The player's rating was confusing. Thus is why I even looked in the first place. (Like: Double-take ... wait ... I know that name ... that's a very strong player, what's with the rating.)
Anyway, here and gone. (And this, too, shall pass away.)
Uh, so, I'm a little confused on something ... and I thought I'd just air the dirty laundry here ...
=====
I'm a little confused.
User: rooroobear
URL: https://www.chess.com/member/rooroobear
I was just playing against this user in live chess ...
Game: https://www.chess.com/live/game/1866502664?username=rooroobear
Team Member's Game: https://www.chess.com/live/game/1866502665
I'm familiar with @rooroobear from the Crazyhouse Championship tournament. The impression I had is that @rooroobear is a user from FICS or lichess, or some other Crazyhouse forum. So, I opened the user's profile to see why this user was rated 585 in our Bughouse game.
Most Bughouse and Crazyhouse players are reasonably good at both variants. It didn't make sense. (And, @rooroobear was playing with @DrunkenMushy, another good Bug/ZH player.)
When I opened the user's profile, it says: "Closed: Abuse" with an (X) next to the user.
Okay, whatever, I don't have a problem with this person, but, ... if the account is closed for whatever reason ...
Why is this person playing under a closed account???
That does not make any sense what-so-ever.
=====
I don't really have a problem playing @rooroobear, no matter whatever circumstances I'm unaware of. It just doesn't make much sense that the user is actively playing on live chess despite a closed account. It was a Bug game, though I'm familiar with @rooroobear playing ZH ...
Anybody got a clue or a hint or an explanation of why this is allowed or happening?
I'd hesitate to call this a "bug," so much as ... well ... I dunno what it is, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.