not fair for the player oppose to him.he is his natural ally and weaken his ally .weaken him too.
Suggestion: Make resignation less attractive
Sort:
Just make him wait for 5 minutes before he can start a new game. Advanced method: maintain an internal statistic for each player about how often he abandons his games early, and use this statistic during the matching process, to match him preferably with players sharing similar habits.
Skeftomilos wrote:
Just make him wait for 5 minutes before he can start a new game. Advanced method: maintain an internal statistic for each player about how often he abandons his games early, and use this statistic during the matching process, to match him preferably with players sharing similar habits.
Chess. com seems to keep a similar statistic on how fast people move. I have joined games based on how fast I move.
Skeftomilos wrote:
Just make him wait for 5 minutes before he can start a new game. Advanced method: maintain an internal statistic for each player about how often he abandons his games early, and use this statistic during the matching process, to match him preferably with players sharing similar habits.
I don't like it when player resigns just because they lost their queen right off the bat(or other important piece. Are those players ratings effected by this type of pay?
Also I just became aware that some players will abort a game because they are afraid to play lower ranked players. This is simply poor sportsmanship on their part, Since this is a "random seating" game, should their not be a penalty for those that are "ratings shopping"? maybe in the future (once most of the bugs are worked out we could have random and ratings based seating for the games. That way those afraid of losing to a lower ranked player won't have to worry about their "rating"
My rating is +1100 and some change. I play for love of the game not a rating.
Oct 25, 2017
0
#6
RG-2HI4U, it seems you do not understand the motivation of high rated players. You think it is all about the rating harvesting. But it is not. Magnus Carlsen does not play with us because it is a waste of time and boring to play with lower rated players. Some perverts (with inferiority complex) like to win lower rated players. Normal players like the challenge, playing with stronger players or with the similar rated players.
The 4 Player Chess games take lots of time. Why should a 1800+ rated player spend this time playing with 3 guys rated 1100-1200?
And yes, the rating side of this game is also important. If that 1800+ rated player spends 30-50 minutes for a game (against 3x1100 guys) wins, he gets +2 or +3 rating points. But if those lower rated guys win, he loses almost 100 points of rating.
Now summarize:
1. boring +
2. waste of time +
3. waste of rating +
4. high risk of playing a "3 vs 1" game.
In many ways I have to admit that makes sense. However when one chooses to participate in a Randomly seated game, the risk of playing against lower ranked players in head to head play, shouldn't be a problem for the higher ranked player in 4 player chess the 3 on 1 scenario does create a different set of concerns.
Hence the suggestion of using a "rating" based seating option for those that do not want to participate in random seated games.
(To address https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/resigning-1 and similar topics)
When the disconnection bug (aka "you can only connect once") is finally fixed. It may be a good idea to do this:
If there are 4 players and a player resigns (or "disconnects") during the first N moves (20? 30?) this player should have less time in the next game. When he starts the next game all other players will have 1 minute + whatever the increment is, but that player should have, let's say 30 seconds + increment.
Now it is unfair, but will be fine when we have a stable server.