SURVEY EXPLANATION

The problem with deadkings: There is no way out of this one:  if deadkings are worth less points than mated kings,  people can affect the game via resigning   ( ie: you piss me off because you hurt my game so I resign and you dont get the full points for your mate haha)    This will make the player more hesitant to launch a mating attack on a player since the end result will not be of as much benefit  ( 10 points ve 20 points)

In my opinion, this kind of situation is even more unfair than the one we already have with deadkings being worth 20 points,

Huh. That's a problem.

There are other variants of the same theme:
1) You piss me off because you hurt my game, so I'll offer my original queen to your stronger competitor. He'll get +9 before you'll get your +20 (never happened to me).
2) You piss me off because you hurt my game, so I'll play King of the Hill and good luck securing your checkmate with my king in the center of the board (has happened to me once).
Moral lesson: don't piss your opponents off too much!

@skeftomilos  Yeah lol.  But at least this is done through play and there isnt anything to do about that,  Self destructing its part of the game sadly.   But when its particualrly unfair when it's done through resigning.

I totally agree.

It would be a solution if we could distinguish two kinds of deadkings:
1. so called "no reason resign" (ie. connection is lost, or simply exit);
2. resign due to a disadvantageous situation (ie. checkmate threat or significant disadvantage).

In the first case dead kings should be removed (bacuse of the luck factor), in the second case the deadkings should be worth 20 points (beacuse of the above), I think.

The question is whether these cases can be objectively defined.

hard one this.

cant find selution

@vengaboly   Exactly. 

Although there would need to be a distinction between a disconnection caused by the player closing his browser, and an actual internet problem. In the former case the deadking  should be worth 20 points, but in the latter it shouldnt be worth anything.   But I dont know if the server can  know what '' type'' of disconnection happens?

Ideally, the resign option could be removed entirely. and in case of a disconnection,  a very basic AI could take over the gameplay.

i made a rule survey with 5 quick questions: https://goo.gl/Ena3iC please participate! will publish result in forum.

There is a horrible solution to some of this: A 'rule aborted' game.
There could be a rule (along the lines of the 'fifty moves without taking a piece' kind of thing where the computer determines that a player left the game 'too early'. If he lost connection then the game would simply be aborted, if he resigned he would get a 'loss' against everyone still in the game, but the other players would only get a win against him.

Not sure how to define the rule exactly, but something like >50% of the forces by point of the lowest living player?
Ergo if:
A trades B's queen like the third move. B is ticked and resigned. B is down only nine points (his queen) and has the same points as A, who is the lowest pointed player. The game is then 'aborted':
B loses to A
B loses to C
B Loses to D
A,C. and D get a 'win' against B for the ratings but the game is otherwise 'aborted'.

@VAOhlman

Those are good ideas!   Let's see, lets not make this too complicated,   that wouldnt be good.

Here is an easy starting point:  the game is aborted when a player resigns or disconnects while he is in possession of all is original material.   That one is a gimme,  it would easily resolve the most unfair situations that arise.

That certainly would be a good start. I don't think it would affect 98.2% of the cases, though.

Please people, let's not remove the luck factor.  It's the only way I win!!!!