Abort game facility

I think there should be an abort game facilty in addition to agree draw and resign.

Someone has 30 games on the go, contracts a serious illness and has to go into hospital for an unknown length of time. They have more serious things to worry about than chess.com, but want to wrap things up before they go into hospital. They are ahead in 15 of their games, drawing in 10 and losing in 5. They resign the 5 and agree draws in the 10, but what of the 15 they were ahead? Their opponents realise they were ahead in the game, take compassion and agree to abort the game. Maybe 2 or 3 thought the game was drawn, so refuse to abort, but agree to a draw.

The aborted games mean there is no ratings change.

Someone abuses the system by feeding a sob-story to their opponent when they are clearly losing. Opponent can refuse to abort, accepting only a resignation or draw.

IMO, this circumstance is sufficiently covered by the vacation facility.  If you have a serious health problem that's going to take longer than a month or two to resolve, then you have bigger things to worry about than having to lose some games by timeout.  Ratings can always be made up after you recover.

In the meantime, as you point out later (contradicting your own point?), the abuse would be ridiculous.  I would not enjoy having my opponents beg for an abort after I've spent months achieving a winning position against them.

I couldn't agree more.

Even the humble DRAW button can be abused  http://www.chess.com/forum/view/livechess/the-lengths-people-will-go-toto-save-a-game).

The Takeback (undo move) facility raised the similar spectre of "wolf crying" misuse (http://www.chess.com/forum/view/help-support/what-is-a-take-back-game)

The problem for the wider community is the ratings inflation that occurs when people timeout lots of games in a row. It's not just those that go on long-term sick, it's those who take on far too many games, burnout and leave for a few months.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/losing-on-time

The gist of this thread is that after 5 games losing on timeouts the unavailable party stops losing points, but the opponents continue to gain points, so lots more points make it into the system, leading to ratings inflation.

I included the last paragraph as a discussion of what could be done if someone did try to abuse the system - if you feel the position is won or drawn then just refuse the abort and suggest they offer a draw or resign.

With the current system, if Aniko decided not to play any more she would introduce tens of thousands of extra points into the system.

I only use the takeback game for coaching purposes, so wolf-crying is irrelevant. I really couldn't care less about the outcome since the purpose of the game is to teach a specific point. My winning, losing or drawing is of no consequence, so I'd imagine that if someone cries wolf I'd abort and not play any more takeback games with them.

We wouldn't suggest that the draw button should be withdrawn because people sell sob-stories.

An aborted game would have no reflection on stats and if it happened in a tournament one would expect they would be withdrawn from the tournament.

If someone gets seriously ill he will have other things on his mind than his chess rating? Btw in hospital you have all the time in the world to play chess.

The point I was intending to make about TAKEBACK was that there were extensive discussions about the consequences of introducing it - before it eventually arrived. Erik made it clear that it had to be within a special coaching, UNRATED mode,  otherwise, human nature being what it is - some people would try to pressurise their opponents using sob stories.

The ABORT GAME / (EMERGENCY STOP) feature you propose would suffer from precisely the same drawbacks (as takeback within a normal game): what to one person might seem a crisis justifying its use, would seem to another person as special pleading.

True. Which is why it needs to be agreed by both parties. If you don't agree then don't accept.

I've agreed to draws with a few players who were having 'special circumstances' in the past, although to be fair, all the positions were fairly even. It would have been better to have aborted the game and annulled the result somehow.

Interestingly, the players didn't ask me for the draw, I felt that I should offer one to relieve undue pressure on them. I've never had anyone 'cry wolf' on me so far, but I might just be very lucky.

I'm not convinced it's that easy to be totally objective. Consider the following scenarios:

1. Opponent has had a 'mental block' and has made an obviously crazy move e.g. giving his queen away for no reason. He blames it on his mouse.

2. Opponent has made an ill-advised, game-losing move - has immediately spotted his blunder and asks if you'll forgo the capture so that he can repair his mistake.

3. Opponent has accidentally offered you a draw - in a game in which he is clearly winning.

4. Opponent is much weaker than you, and has hung a major piece.

Would you be tempted to 'go soft' on your opponent in any of these circumstances - and perhaps offer to annul the game?

1) Too bad. Buy a new mouse. That's why there is a submit move button. Losing will teach them a harsh lesson in mouse control.

2) Too bad. Check your position before pressing submit move. Losing will teach them a harsh lesson in double checking before submitting.

3) Not sure. Might consider it. Depends how nice my kids have been that day. Probably not though.

4) Too bad. Losing will teach them a harsh lesson in not hanging major pieces. Losing quickly will be a mercy anyway.

Cute avatar? I might be nice to a cat.

I abort my games

I have a few 'games' where my opponents have not moved once and have had 'a few minutes' left for over a month. They just clog up my page. Surely one should be able to abort those!