I really like the feature that the game ends as abandoned after 15sec when in a losing position, so I hardly lose any time.
Is there another rule in tournaments? Once my opponent blundered a piece and had me waiting for like 7 minutes (was a 10+0 tournament).
@Igor_Vo, unfortunately your opponent is entitled to use their time in whatever way they want, including seven minutes of pointless wait after a mistake. I don't think this is always malicious. Sometimes, psychologically, after we've done something stupid, we just get stuck looking at the situation in disbelief and hoping that if we look at it long enough it will turn out not to be as bad as it obviously is.
It looks like the comment sections on chess sites are no better than anywhere else. So much for this noble game.
Guy I played today suddenly resigned after 23 moves, which surprised me. I had a better position, but the material was still even, and there was plenty of time left on the clock. Maybe he had something else to do. Too bad, as I would have liked to see how well I would have ended up playing the game out.
I think it would be great if those who showed poor sportsmanship were now forced to play others of their same ilk!
I've noticed that many of my opponents abandon the game when they suddenly get into a losing position (. they blundered their queen). My question is what do players gain from abandoning the game instead of resigning? For me it seems that the only difference is that I have to wait a few seconds before playing the next game. If there's no benefit to abandoning the game, why not just resign? I'm going to assume that this happens less among higher rated players...
I'm new to chess.com, and ran into that situation where a player in a losing position lets the time run out. I didn't get why, I didn't even assume it had any intention.
But something I also found confusing is that I've had two games in a row where it said the player "abandoned the game" only after a few moves and the game was still very even (no blunder, nothing special). In that case I assume it is due to their internet connection, but it's impossible to know if there's another motive. Maybe they try an opening and it doesn't pan out as they expected, and they want to move on (but don't wan't to resign as to not admit it). So far I enjoy the win regardless but it's still very new to me.
Most people that I play abandon games rather than resign, and it's what I've begun to call "the chess.com etiquette" these days. I wonder if the resign button wasn't hidden under a menu in the mobile client, would that make a difference?
Then there are the few, but still non-negligible number of people who just sit there after blundering, letting the time run out sulking like a kid who is refusing to eat their vegetables. Ultimately it is their time and they can do what they want with it, but I do also think it's kinda embarrassing to just sit there. Always reminds me of the time Hikaru just sat there crying after losing to Magnus. And no, I'm not tormenting them by promoting all my pawns to different pieces and trying to place them back to their opening positions or anything.
A game is also abandoned when two players use a different version of the app. We discovered this while playing against each other when sitting in the same room. My opponents chess.com app didn't update automatically and at first we thought it was a wifi, nternet connection or server problem.
So it's not always rage quiting.
My most recent opponent "abandoned" but I suspect his Internet connection went rather than it being a conscious choice to abandon the game, which was only in its eighth move or so. The same has happened to me, as recently as two weeks ago.
Just had another one. I had to resign because I wasn't sure the game was won for me, but in retrospect I should have won it if it had continued (the evaluation gave me +3.9 at the last move). It annoys me a bit when this happens, it doesn't seem fair.
Hello, this is my inaugural post on the forum! 👋
After a year of playing the chess.com bots for practice, I've finally bitten the bullet and started playing live chess games. I'm very disappointed with my opponents constantly resigning mid-game and I've just experienced my first "abandonment", which was strange. The person's internet may have disconnected, but I suspect this was a silly stunt because I had gotten into a pretty decent position.
I'm the kind of player who enjoys seeing chess games through to the bitter endgame, whether I'm winning or loosing. It's like watching the credits at the end of a good film at the cinema. Satisfying 😌
So, yes. It would be nice to see more maturity....
(Also, I accepted a draw last week, when I could have won. I need to be far less accommodating).
Well done SuperSuze on taking the plunge! I admit I rarely play the end-game if I've obviously lost. To be honest, I often don't play it if I've obviously won, because I'm a middle-game sort of person, and don't get much fun out of the bit at the end. Maybe there should be a way for people to advertise their style up front, and select players who want the same thing!? Maybe you will inspire me to keep going instead of just resigning or offering a draw when the interesting bit is over.
Yeah, endgames can be fun. Also, I love situations where you might be losing in the middle-game, but then snatch victory back from the jaws of defeat 😄
Imh50, thanks for the encouragement. I might see you on the board (just promise not to resign first!)
A game is also abandoned when two players use a different version of the app. We discovered this while playing against each other when sitting in the same room. My opponents chess.com app didn't update automatically and at first we thought it was a wifi, nternet connection or server problem.
So it's not always rage quiting.
That's a very strange. While I don't doubt what you are saying is true, the apps talk to chess.com servers over the server API and not directly each other, and I'd find it odd that if you can perfectly well start a game and play for a while, the differences in what is essentially a web application then cause an abandonment. I mean yeah, could be? Especially if you folks played on mobile.
For most of the time though it's oddly convenient that the WIFI drops or an unspecified client version issue causes a disconnect right after they blunder a queen or checkmate. 
Emotional damage 🤣
Guy I played today suddenly resigned after 23 moves, which surprised me.
Replace the word "abandon" in your mind with "ragequit", it's more satisfying.
I've noticed that many of my opponents abandon the game when they suddenly get into a losing position (e.g. they blundered their queen). My question is what do players gain from abandoning the game instead of resigning? For me it seems that the only difference is that I have to wait a few seconds before playing the next game. If there's no benefit to abandoning the game, why not just resign? I'm going to assume that this happens less among higher rated players...
There would be a lot more resignations if Chess.com made the effort to make the resign button much easier to find.
killakeef23 wrote:
First suspects to be investigated here should be the rating system, and the fair play enforcement.
I've said this before.... People are fed up with being gaslit by a sandbagged matching algorithm and/or engine moves popping the exact same "openings" and mopping them with embarrassing ease, dragging the games out letting opponents feel they have a chance to gain advantage; just for every intensely calculated plan to crumble before it can even begin. You can blame the players all you want. "Git gud" isn't even a factor when talking about a system that *claims* to match players with other players of most similar skill level-- but it's really half engine users playing at twice their rating, or actual complete noobs that need to be treated with kid gloves, lest they think YOU'RE using engine moves.
Smh. This site is a complete clownshow and I eagerly await the inevitable scandals to be revealed behind the scenes here. Watching supposedly 2300 matches blunder harder than some 300's, watching 300's play better position and accuracy than 2300's?
....lmao there's definitely "levels" to this, and they want people to MOSTLY stay in the place they're put by the algo, period.
This isn't wild eyed conspiracy or nihilism, and everyone with any level of human intuition knows something stinks around here.
I get what you mean. A fair rating system is supposed to create balanced matches, but when patterns start repeating themselves in unnatural ways, it’s only normal for players to question whether the algorithm is really working as intended. Especially when you see ratings not matching the gameplay strength, it does raise doubts about sandbagging or outside assistance being involved.
The tricky part is that no platform openly admits flaws in their system, and players are left to “just deal with it.” But competitive games should have stronger fair play enforcement, transparent detection methods, and clear communication about how matchmaking works. Without that, even genuine matches start to feel suspicious, and players lose trust in the community as a whole.
While I can’t say if there’s an easy fix, I’ve been exploring other strategy-focused platforms where the challenge feels more straightforward and less manipulated. One that caught my attention recently is https://stickwarlgacy.com/ — it’s not chess, of course, but it does scratch that itch for fair tactical battles where your skill is what decides the outcome.
I was mostly wondering if there was any practical benefit from abandoning a game rather than resigning. My assumptions seem to be correct though, they both count as a loss and there's no difference in rating gain or loss. As for reasons why people abandon games in losing positions, I suppose it boils down to bad sportsmanship and the fact that there is minimal to no punishment for doing so when playing online. Imagine people simply walking away in an over-the-board game, they would probably no longer be welcome in any chess clubs or on tournaments. I have to disagree with you there sean893 about being patient when people are stalling. I wouldn't wish for you to have to stay put if someone you played OTB suddenly stood up from their chair and walked away. But then again, if you find it educational, you do you.
It doesn't really bother me that much if a game is abandoned and the auto-resign timer starts. It's mildly annoying at most. However, my opinion is that people who repeatedly stall games (by purposefully losing on time when in a losing position, . keeping the tab open but not making a move) should be punished a bit harsher than just "restricting them to playing other bad sports". A temporary ban would be appropriate. Seems like other online chess sites implement this.
People who keep playing rather than resigning in losing positions would be a different matter entirely. In lower levels (below 1200 or so, where I also belong), one should never resign in my opinion. A winning position doesn't mean anything for us because oftentimes we might blunder into a losing one, even if the material for window tint houston difference is several pieces. It's also good endgame practice.
Yes i see all the step
First suspects to be investigated here should be the rating system, and the fair play enforcement.
I've said this before.... People are fed up with being gaslit by a sandbagged matching algorithm and/or engine moves popping the exact same "openings" and mopping them with embarrassing ease, dragging the games out letting opponents feel they have a chance to gain advantage; just for every intensely calculated plan to crumble before it can even begin. You can blame the players all you want. "Git gud" isn't even a factor when talking about a system that *claims* to match players with other players of most similar skill level-- but it's really half engine users playing at twice their rating, or actual complete noobs that need to be treated with kid gloves, lest they think YOU'RE using engine moves.
Smh. This site is a complete clownshow and I eagerly await the inevitable scandals to be revealed behind the scenes here. Watching supposedly 2300 matches blunder harder than some 300's, watching 300's play better position and accuracy than 2300's?
....lmao there's definitely "levels" to this, and they want people to MOSTLY stay in the place they're put by the algo, period.
This isn't wild eyed conspiracy or nihilism, and everyone with any level of human intuition knows something stinks around here.