The policy and rules playing at live chess

Hi, Chess.com. 

Please revise your rules of play that you attempt to impose on members of your site. Members will have several accounts at their disposal in the event that you attempt to enforce stalling and resigning rules. While you may think that a player of more than two-hundred points difference is a good match, unfortunately this does not comply with my rules and regulations for fair play. If you are unhappy with my rules and regulations regarding stalling and resignation, then you are invited to change your rules. 

Thank you for your comprehension.

As to those players who will think to reply that I myself can use another site, unfortunately this can just as easily be said of chess.com: they can change their settings. Multiple accounts can be opened and therefore the "rule" that people always play no matter what doesn't work. As well, the notion that I would leave because I don't like something is like my telling you to leave the site because you don't like what is said on it. 

While the response may come "this is our way to ensure that players don't constantly resign" and further, "even though some players may not respect the rules and instead opt to open several accounts, statistically, most players abide by the rules" this sadly doesn't address the problem that a player who loses is frequently made to play much lower rated players than his or her rating. Again, I emphasize frequently, not necessarily. The system does such by design, so there's no point saying that it doesn't. That being said, if you're going to enfore fair play, why not enforce a minimum number of games between any two players who decide to play one another? Forcing players to play only one game whne chess is meant to be played in a series also makes little sense when you claim to enforce rules for the benefit of the players here. All too often one player with a far lower rating will play and because of luck win and then refuse to play further. In a hundred or so games, that one game becomes relative however for the person who lost the points (perhaps due to a technical issue or outside distractions etc) they simply can't get their points back from that player and the player knows such and tries to keep them at a disadvantage. Hence, if your perogative were really to ensure fairness, that too would be a measure. Of course though it is not. It's like trying to tell peole that they cannot use profanity (in English and a few other languages) but in countless other languages, they can and you don't care. Again, this is a gross inconsistency on your part, and of course, you don't care.

At the same time, your site does not provide a free service. It provides a service with advertising and is in return paid via premium accounts. Hence while it's easy enough for you to delete some specific account, the lot of free accounts is what makes you the most money and makes the site a possibility to begin with. And, with that conclusion in mind, it should follow that if you're really out to ensure fair play for everyone that you do just that. Trying to force people to play when they don't want to doesn't seem fair and, if it does, then you should at least carry it out fully. Look at it like poker. The game simply isn't made for a single hand and then off one goes. If it were the game wouldn't be around. Perhaps the suggestion for you to consider is adding a rating to the user's account where it is seen how often they play one time and leave. That kind of play can result in other players seeing that they have no star where the more often they play series (the way the game is meant to be played) they have five stars. Anywhere in between such could be still be a reflection of how often they play an opponent several times versus one time only. No one wants to play one time because you force them to, get beaten by someone two hundred points under them, and then not have a chance at making their points back because the player is no longer forced to play their opponent by your site. 

I'm happy I could put into perspective the limits of your rules such that you understand that they need changed, even if you refuse to do such out of apathy. 

What are you trying to say?

Sorry, English is my native language. Best of luck though. 

I got through the first paragraph... from there...ugh.

sorry WAY too wordy.

basically, your not Supposed to have more than one account.  No matter what.

Better luck in the future with paying attention, thegreatpatzer. English is a tough language, I agree. I think what you mean to say is more than a few paragraphs is hard because you're not used to reading that much? I don't know. Where I come from, a few paragraphs really isn't "wordy." It's just a few paragraphs. But hey, what do I know. 

I think he's talking about rematches, but I can't tell if it's for or against.

ok, but First I Am a work and that wasn't an Easy read.

so far as I understand your problem is that you feel its not fair that a player can play live chess, win against a guy, then without giving the Losing side a chance to "get back his rating point"

this issue has been discussed here 786,334,211 (courtesy of Diakona) on chess.com.

but First how would having multiple accounts help.

if that IS your problem I don't understand what you want chess.com to do about it.

this time I will try to make time to read. spill the beans...

I read that and still dont understand it...

Talk about trying to sound way to highbrow,instead of keeping it simple.

Also...When you joined, you agreed to the site TOS.  

Diakonia, you as well as your friend have to actually learn English to understand it. Sounding "highbrow"...? Yeah. Sorry, if you're not a native speaker or are not actually fluent in the langauge, of course you won't undrstand it. That's not the fault of the language but of you. You're merely asserting that I appeal to some formal register of English when obviously I am not. Better luck in the future. 

TheGreatPatzer, 

no no, such is not my problem nor was it even remotely suggested. Read it again and if you have a question about such, just quote the part in question and explain what about the wording you don't get. Thanks. 

Do not be afraid, we are with you.

I've got it, I've got it, I've so gooooot it. He's whining about the abort policy.

I took it as he signed up...agreed to the sites TOS...then decided he wants things his way...Now i want Burger King....

Yes Yes, there are some policies but why he is shouting ? 

ok. I AM trying.  Your issue is with what you call Fairness, supposedly in Live chess you are 'forced to play people hundreds of points lower than you' and then Chess.com does NOT enforce stalling- and they Win on technical grounds.

 somehow people game this by having multiple accounts or something- but chess.com (in your opinion) refuses to adknowledge this as a popular tactic.

am I warmer??

ok,

1. you haven't played people "Hundreds of points lower"  I looked
2. You dont' HAVE to play people Much lower than you, because you can set the rating of your Seek (in live chess)
3. if someone is being snarky and stalling, wait for them to run out of time.  YOUR A BLITZ PLAYER!  if you can't wait 3/5 minutes (AT the most)....
4. Openingly allowing multiple accounts woudl be disaster for chess.com and cause all kinds of problems.  trust me. chess.com isn't going to go for it
5. mm. "fair play".  if somone abandons game, they get warned about fair play and if they do so long enough, there are consequences
6. LASTLY, don't get mad at All of Us for not understanding.   IF we Can't understand it- how is Chess.com? the point is to state your problem succinctly and simply.  Once we get the problem figured out, we can rehash this (since there's been like 1,673,445,343 threads on FAIR play)
7. Good luck and if I STILL don't understand it, a least give me a hint; hey I'm a PATZER remember?

Yes, I think he's ranting about people letting their clock run down instead of playing

Lets see, joined in 2010, played almost 12,000 games, old as I am, conclusion: should know the rules. I'm done being nice and trying to help.

He's complaining about being forced to play opponents far lower-rated than himself and then not getting a rematch off them when he loses. Or at least that's the main basis of this rant after his first paragraph. There are two problems with this.

1. If you're losing to players much lower than yourself, you shouldn't be rated where you are. Just play for fun and stop worrying about silly imaginary rating points which have no impact on your life.

2. Your opponent may have a life and want to get on with it rather than spending more time than he has free giving someone he doesn't know a rematch. People don't always decline rematches because they're running away from you.

I usually say that four games is enough, three if I'm Black in the first one. The problem is, often people who offer rematches consistently don't give you one when they finally win. This doesn't bother me, but is more than a little rude.

And since when has the site 'forced' you to play opponents much lower than you? If you don't like it, just play unrated and have rating boundaries such as -50 +400 or similar. Then you can't lose rating points and you play higher-rated opponents.

Do you have the option to play a rematch against another player OTB if he beats you and "steals" your rating points?

No

Why should it be different here?

The Elo system is based on the expected score you should get against a player taking into account your ratings. Of course, if you only play once against that player, the expected score will never be equal to the score you get, and you can get surprising results. But, in the long run, after you play against a lot of people, you should get the rating you deserve.

If you don't want to play against people who are 200 points lower than you, you have an option in "settings" that allows you to choose the lowest and highest rating your opponents can have. Obviously, if those two figures are too near, you may not get an opponent at all. It's your decision

Also, you shouldn't worry so much about rating in this website.

Edit: the "5 stars" idea could be interesting, but some questions arise: How would you measure it? Would it be obligatory?