Ethics of sort

MGleason, taking risks is a part of the game. It is fine. I just do not like when someone takes some risk and then moans that other player(s) are not fair and ruined his game.

Which is the right thing to do in this case?
1) Two players are still in the game, and you are leading with more than 20 points.
2) You have a material advantage and you are in the mood of playing-on until checkmate.
3) If you claim victory your opponent will finish second.
4) If you continue playing your opponent will probably finish third.
5) Your opponent asks politely that you claim victory.

Scenario twist: Your opponent argues that you are a jerk if you don't claim victory. 

The right thing is to so whatever you want at that particular moment. And if the chat affects your mood (and/or decision) just use /stop-chat. It is not a kindergarten and not a charity. If you wish to play - play. If you wish to make a gift of +20 points - click "Claim win".

I claimed victory, even though my opponent asked for it not so nicely. His message in the chat certainly affected my decision. He was not going to resign, and the game was not fun after that, so why continue?

Maybe an option "hide the chat when less than three players remain" would solve this particular problem.

@_-__-__-___-

 Thanks!  and yes its a holdem reference

I suspect that if "auto-win upon sufficient point lead" had been the setting from the get-go, nobody would be complaining about it.  It simply wouldn't occur to players to bemoan their inability to toy with their (effectively) defeated opponent(s).  In the American baseball best-of-7 World Series championship format, 7 games are scheduled.  However, once a team has acquired enough wins that there are insufficient games left for the other team to catch up, the series simply ends.  To my knowledge there's never been a major case made to change this.

In contrast, it's easy to see how forcing (or even allowing) such pointless games could lead to ethical conundrums (inflating players' or teams' statistics, for instance) and grounds for animosity... not unlike those reported in this thread.

i made a rule survey with 5 quick questions

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/rule-survey-5-quick-questions

@kevinkirkpat when you say "auto-win upon sufficient point lead", you mean with or without +20 points for the finalist? Don't forget that it's a game of points, with multiple players, and rank matters.

I guess kevinkirkpat, proposes the following. The server must stop the game when all these conditions met:

1. Only 2 players left.
2. One of these 2 players is ranked 1st.
3. The player ranked 1st is 21 (or more) points ahead of the 2nd active player.

In this case the server can stop the game and add +20 to the 2nd active player. The 1st player will stay the 1st. The auto-stop should happen on the 1st ranked player's move (like now with "Claim win" button).

Looks good. But I'd make this an option. The option can be turned on by default. But if a player likes to fight till the end he can turn the option off.

But effectively this will make it to a last-two-men-standing-win game.

No, on the contrary.

I think kevinkirkpat is right. Although perosnally,  i prefer the game as it is now since sometimes people dont claim their win and it allows me to comeback and win games i shouldnt have

Another way to express this:

"gaining a sufficient lead that you can resign & win" vs "resigning & winning" is to 4 player chess what "checkmating opponent" vs "capturing opponent's king" is in regular chess.

Also, there are indirect benefits:  auto-completing games will reduce average game times.  This will benefit the players of auto-committed games (who may now be able to squeeze in one more game before work/class/whatever), but also the overall community: faster return of players to the game-seeking pool = shorter wait times and better matchups for new games to start.

@kevinkirkpat you didn't answer if your "auto-win upon sufficient point lead" suggestion implies +20 points for the finalist (the player who survived along with the winner).

Sorry, missed that.  I've been thinking of auto-win as functioning exactly like "claim win" (minus the optionality).

OK. But isn't it somewhat unfair for the third survivor? He didn't received any bonus for out-surviving the forth! And why the second survivor deserves the +20 bonus? Being behind the first by more than 20 points seems not an accomplishment worth to be rewarded!

Take "auto-win", "claim win" and "resign" out of the mix.  What is the fair way to handle the situation where the player in the lead, deliberately or not, runs out of time?  That may be a question open to debate... but it's a different question than whether or not auto-win should be instated.  

I'd say auto-win is the logical extension of two premises:

* If a player pulls far enough ahead of opponents, that player could choose to let their timer run out and still claim victory. 

* The ability to recognize this, and the ability to choose whether or not to act on it, are sources of game variance (shifting final finishing positions in a manner largely unrelated to skill level or game play) and ethical muddiness that - oftentimes - generates resentment between players and of the game itself.

Yet another way to look at this: if "auto-win" were enabled today, it would be an almost undetectable change.  From vantage point of losing players, it would appear as if the leader had simply claimed the win directly.  From vantage point of winning player, it would appear as if the loser had recognized the impossibility of catching up and simply resigned.  

I just made a suggestion that may provide a neat solution to this ethical problem!
Suggestion: The winner's rating is boosted by +25%, if he is the last man standing

I don't think I like the auto win option. I don't resign because of ratings. I like to play. I want to play. I'm not looking to artificially boost my rating by playing against lower rated players.

I'm not even sure what my rating is in 4 player chess. I prefer to claw it out until the end. I lose a lot but I've had a couple of amazing come backs as well. Lol, my rating in regular chess is 1188 (I just found it) so not real great. I guess that's a bit below average. The 4 player rating fluctuates so much that I don't really look at it.

It was a while before I found that I could "claim win" but if the other person/people still have the chance point wise to beat me then I say let them try. Maybe they don't get the points but still checkmate me. I've done that made the final checkmate but lost on points. It a win/lose situation but in one case your rating may suffer.

Maybe a persons rating shouldn't suffer if they lose on points but made the final checkmate...

I'm glad I don't have to make the final decisions on this stuff.

Bumping this, count me on team server automatically claims win for 1st player in all +20 situations.  At least it clarifies the strategic situation for 2nd/3rd place a little, although in some cases when the leader isn't threatened much by either player, there will be a perverse incentive for the players behind to trade with the leader and essentially help mate themselves to prevent more points going to the non-leader and mitigate against the non-leader and whatever 2nd place cushion bonus they get.