Chess.com Proposal for Fixing Game Disconnects/Adjourned Games

no, i'm saying that 10% of games with a minimum of 5 games total played. so if you disconnect on your first game (which would be 100%), that wouldn't punish you. but if you disconnected 1 game in your first 5, that would be a problem. hrmm... i think it will have to be 10% after 10 games (so you can disconnect once in your first 10 games)...

I think that everybody has good ideas .... but why not chess.com put this to a votation?  All the items in this forum.

Good grief, it took me half an hour just to read all the replies since I last visited the site!

1. First of all, thank you Erik and staff for your tireless efforts to make chess.com even better. This proposal is exceptional, IMHO.

2. I'll spare you guys a flowchart (sorry, Babs) unless Erik specifically wants one. I don't wanna nerd you guys out too much (too late!). EDIT: Erik, if you want a flowchart, just msg me.

3. Since the 90-sec time limit seems to bother some people (but not all), how about 90 for free members and [very] slightly more for premium members? Even if it's just an extra 15 secs. Just a thought. I've only DC'd once but got back in <90s so I couldn't care less.

4. This is important: Only allow the "claim win" option if Player B has enough material to theoretically mate (i.e. lone King can't claim a win). I think this is fair.

Just because a flagged player can't accept open seeks posted by non-flagged players doesn't mean that non-flagged players can't accept open seeks posted by flagged-players. (Had to check my spelling very carefully in that sentence!)

Hmm... if you think about it, some of the *ahem* less-than-honorable players might actually PREFER to play these "disconnectors" because they may have a better chance of "claiming" a win. Geez, I guess nothing is truly abuse-proof. Whatever happened to things like honor, humility and honesty?

i think we will incorporate these points:

1. Limit disconnect-resumes to three per person per game (to avoid abuse and frustration if this happens a dozen times).  - likesforests. [might be a big engineering challenge, so may not happen right away]
   
2. Don't stop the clock for 90s. Instead, let the clock run then add 90s when the player reconnects (limits last-second disconnects to find wins) -ih8sens.

excelguru:

point 1 -> thanks :)

point 2 -> it actually might be really helpful :( would you mind?

point 3 -> probably won't do this. a lot of extra programming for that and not clear the benefit is there.

point 4 -> the game will just end like a timeout, so those rules will automatically apply.

"if player B decides to adjourn the game, then it is held as an adjourned game for up to 7 days. if it is not finished by then, then the original disconnector (player A) loses. if both players are online then the adjourned game will show up in the SEEKS list at the top. then either player can click on RESUME. then the other player gets a popup and they have to decide - CONTINUE, or DECLINE and lose! if they disconnect before an answer, then they choose to lose (to prevent people from just disconnecting when proposed with the decision)."

*  How does this section of the proposal behave if I am in a game already when faced with "CONTINUE" or "DECLINE?"

* What if I am just about to log off and someone challenges me to continue our 30 minute game?  I have to be at class in 5 minutes and my opponent (who might have been the one to cause this disconnection) suddenly forces me to resign because I no longer have the time for our long game?

I know you are busy with this Erik, and thank you for your work, but have you read my proposal (#155 in the old thread)?  I think it elegantly deals with this issue and others that stem from the asynchronous nature of the problem.

good questions rileyriley:

- you can't get a CONTINUE/DECLINE if you are already playing.

- as for the other scenario... not sure. maybe we make it so that only the original disconnector can lose like this and the other person can't (since he was the one to allow the adjourn in the first place)?

One problem: 90 seconds is not enough time to reboot and reconnect to Live Chess. I'd understand if it was a grace period but if it's the only time I get, then it is not really fair. Why is chess.com taking away my time form the game? I should be able to come back and simply continue from whatever time I have left by then (unless there is automatic adjournment). Moreover, it already sounds a bit too complicated.

Good start that needs to be refined and simplified further.

In my experience, it always takes longer than 90 seconds to reconnect.  This may improve as the servers are improved.

why do you need reboot after a disconnect? can we really expect other players to wait a long time while you reboot and reconnect? think about how this would be abused - you're winning a game and then suddenly your opponent disconnects, makes you wait 4 minutes, reconnects, plays a move, disconnects again...

i can't imagine a scenario where it takes more than 90 seconds to reconnect unless something really drastic happens, which should be a small % of the time. the potential for abuse is just so great if you extend that time and it is a hassle to have to wait...

I agree with Erik's post #1.  I just had a game adjourned by an abuser (and I had mate in 2)

:-(

I personally am disconnected by Live Chess. I am assuming it is because of my dialup. I should not be flagged because of my slow connection speed.

I am glad something is being done, except the flag.

Excellent idea.

Don't mind at all... gimme a few minutes here...

I see there are more things being added to the proposal with every decent idea that comes along. Not necessarily a bad thing although I fear it may revert to the previous, EXTREMELY OVER-DETAILED, debate.

As long as it stays SIMPLE. 90 seconds, 10%, 3 options. That's it. That's all it needs to benefit the greater majority (most players probably won't post in here because all they do is play, so therefore the assumption is to be made that the minority post here and trying to please every issue is thus not going to benefit the majority. Like the logic? :P ).

Erik, stick to the original proposal. The only extra addition you should be complementing is some extra time, say 3mins, for premium members so you could add that as an extra perk/benefit for becoming a member (I really gotta get this PayPal thing sorted, I'm so lazy).

So yeah, acknowledge everyone's issues but just go with the simplest and thus the best plan and dictate the play, Coach.

I got disconnected several times and tried to reconnect. But I was never able to reconnect due to server problems. Since that bug is not fixed we can not have those rules implemented. Chess.com has to fix there program!

thanks billy87. i know i need to make the call, but i want to hear everyone out.

also, we don't add additional reconnect time for premium. it just is too painful to make other people wait. i think 90 seconds is generous :)

Also all the window sizes are messed up once you log in. If usually lose my chat window if if I want a large size board. I guess it is still a beta version after all.

Erik, even 90 seconds has too much potential for abuse if it will be treated that way. Some moron could just disconnect and reconnect forever without even making a move. If there's nothing wrong with the connection, he can easily reconnect within 90 seconds each time (on the other hand, real problems usually required a reboot for me). A second disconnection during the same game should just count as a loss by your proposed system.

I know Erik is trying to balance out many factors and it's a difficult issue, but it seems too ambitious. I am against this proposal. It's too complicated and inconsistent. If I set a 10 minute time control that we both agreed to and suddenly I'm disconnected, I lose ALL my time and forfeit after 90 seconds (assuming opponent claims win after 90 seconds). This is not logical. I could have come back with still plenty of time left and finished my mate in 5. It shouldn't be up to the opponent, Chess.com or anyone else what happens to MY time. Whatever system is chosen, it should not interfere with the agreed upon rules of the game. If there are no mandatory adjournments (which would probably result in as many problems as they solve), the clock should keep ticking. This solves all the problems and does so fairly and elegantly.

- no time for the disconnector to study the position better or get any sort of playing advantage

- players know the game will produce a result in EXACTLY the time they set

- no special rules or extra considerations - SIMPLE

- players do not get extra time and do not lose extra time; it is exactly per the rules outlined

- no opportunity to use disconnection as a form of abuse (can't frustrate opponent with endless disconnects and reconnects)

- no playing advantage by paying more, or to put it reallly negatively: buying rating points (yes, twice the grace period is a playing advantage to either think about the position or avoid loss that may occur in a 90 second time scramble)

It's true that now those with disconnection problems may not be protected as much in blitz, but this is the cleanest and fairest way. Some might complain about waiting until their opponent's time expires etc., but a certain time control was agreed upon and this should be honored. Moreover, if you face a moron who wants to try to waste your time, they can just as easily do so in the previous system. They won't disconnect, they'll just leave and let their time expire. In both systems, the moron can't play any other games at chess.com and the result is the same.

BTW: Even adding optional adjournments might create more problems. It may harm the atmosphere for the community because of people complaining that a certain won game was not adjourned and the opponent got a  "cheap win" etc. Similarly, adding takebacks would lead to talks of how some game was just mouseslipped away but the opponent refused the takeback because he's a coward etc. From my experience with other services, these features have not helped and added more frustration.

exigentsky> Erik, even 90 seconds has too much potential for abuse if it will be treated that way. Some moron could just disconnect and reconnect forever without even making a move. If there's nothing wrong with the connection, he can easily reconnect within 90 seconds each time (on the other hand, real problems usually required a reboot for me). A second disconnection during the same game should just count as a loss by your proposed system.

exigentsky> - no opportunity to use disconnection as a form of abuse (can't frustrate opponent with endless disconnects and reconnects)

FYI, in post #34, Erik addresses this point.

Good, but even three seems too much. An opponent could stall almost 5 minutes past the allotted time control. I've sometimes play a 5 0 game (minimum for me to even call chess) in between classes and adding that much time would make me late or force me to abandon the game. Anyway, this is trivial compared to what I outlined.