Ethical rating for live chess

Disclaimer:

Dear all, this is my first post, so please be gentle if it does not fit the forum guidelines:

Problem:

I play a lot of live chess, and roughly 1 in 10 players turns out to be a sore loser, who would either abandon/disconnect the match or even worse, just let the time run out when the defeat is inevitable. It is only later that I usually remember to check out the person's profile only to find fellow chess players as disgruntled as me and venting it out on the said person's profile.

Idea:

I think it would be of great help, if we can rate players on the merit of sportmanship, either during or after a match. [A simple 'like/dislike' or 'upvote/downvote' would suffice]. Hence, before starting a match against a random opponent, such a rating can be displayed alongside the 'Chess Rating', so that unethical players can be screened off by aborting the match.

Thank You for reading, please feel free to suggest alternative ideas.

I like this idea.  So simple, and less error prone than the current auto enforcement system, however it would not have any effect on those with new accounts, and so it's not best.  Maybe keep the current system but add your idea into it.

Great idea.  I think the idea is one of reputation.  

I have never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever ever ever let a game timeout because I was losing!  But I'd say that it now happens 1 in 3 times that I win a game, that my opponent disconnects!

I should have a good reputation on here; they should have a poor reputation.

And then maybe I could choose to only play players with a certain reputation -- like, "this person won't disconnect if they happen to lose."  Etc.

1).  I agree that people should be allowed to resign at any point and it should not hurt their reputation.

2).  I disagree that in a 4 minute game you should only have one minute to make a move.  What if someone needs 90 seconds to really see the position?  If it's a four minute game, it's just that: four minutes.  It's a player's choice how to use the alloted time.  (For instance, once they see a position, they may be able to make a series of moves in under five seconds each.)

3).  The real complaint is with people who disconnect instead of just clicking "resign."  Making your opponent wait around for 5 minutes on a 15|10 game is just obnoxious.  And it's epidemic on this site.

-$.02

Yeah, I would like a system like this, too.  Saying 1 of 10 disconnect is pretty generous in my opinion...for me it's closer to 50% of the games that I win end up as a disconnect.  In fact, my last 4 wins (in standard 15/10 live chess) have all ended in a disconnect. 

The worst is when you get a sore loser who disconnects for 4 minutes and 30 seconds, then reconnects to make a move to try catch you sleeping.

And to jadarite: We aren't complaining about people who resign early--It's people who disconnect right before losing *instead* of resigning, forcing us to wait 5 minutes for the game to end.

    "for me it's closer to 50% of the games that I win end up as a disconnect."

Me too.  It's like, every other game I win, I get a sore loser.

    "The worst is when you get a sore loser who disconnects for 4 minutes and 30 seconds, then reconnects to make a move to try catch you sleeping."

Yes -- I've had the exact same experience a couple of times.

It's really truly unbelievable, what a bunch of babies play chess.  Click resign -- man up and click resign.  Sheesh.

-$.02

I agree -- 10% is a generous cut-off.  If a user disconnects more than 10% of the time, ban that user.

^^Yeah, I could definitely see that happening.  But doesn't the website warn people after they disconnect instead of resigning? 

I always see "random_guy1337 may have violated our fair play policy and will be warned" or something like that.  After the first time they disconnect shouldn't the message they get be enough to inform them of the "resign" button?  Maybe it is still unclear, I dunno.  I've never seen the "warning" myself so I can't really judge.

Maybe they should do more to educate people who just click "x" to close the window of a game they wish to end.  Like send an email to their account saying "hey if you do this the other person is forced to wait a long time for the game to end."

And also saying "if you continue to do this your account will be restricted."

The way it comes across: sore loser.  I lost, now I'm going to make you wait five minutes for the game to end, instead of simply clicking "resign."

@jadarite That maybe the case with a small percentage of people, but most of them seem to do it intentionally. The message from browser on closing the window seems like a good option, and will be able to seperate the genuine disconnectors from losers. So, now we have only one type of losers to take care of, the ones who let the time run out.  And, I think a rating system seems to fill that gap.

P.S. I hope that someone from chess.com is listening

@jadarite

Not all cases of clock rundown is due to disconnects.   Other sore losers just abandon the winning player by doing something else, neither shutting their browser, nor shutting the game's tab.  The only point I agree with you is to allow players to play multiple live games simultaneously, but it seems chess.com has reserved that capability only for premium members.  Timed moves don't make sense because chess should not punish those for thinking, when it should be up to the player how they manage what's left of their game clock.

For the holisitic fix, we need:

1) a prompt that shows up that if you shut this window or tab, the game is still running for the other player, and so if you're leaving the game, just resign instead.

2) because of this prompt, we automatically rule out the excuse that "they did not know", and so the reputation system should be added in that respect.

@jadarite.

whatever the cause, it's still a fact that about 1/3 to 1/2 of the time that I win a 15|10 game, I have to sit around waiting for five minutes when my opponent disconnects.

That is really annoying, and it's not because I lust after a "quick win."  It's because I want to spend my precious free time actually playing chess, not waiting around for some zombie timer to time out.

@jadarite

I really like your idea, have it say "Are you sure you want to leave?" when someone tries to disconnect.  If the person clicks again, have it function as a resign.

Great idea.  Moderators -- what do you all think of this idea?

Oh, never mind.

I agree with samir_notgonnaworkhere: people should be able to use their time however they see fit.  If I take 8 minutes to see a position on a 15|10, maybe I can make a succession of 15 moves in 5 seconds each.  That's my business, not anybody else's.

The problem is just people who would rather walk away and make coffee, so that their clock runs out, rather than click "resign."  That's a bad practice.

Samir's "holistic fix" is a relative of jadarite's idea: have a second confirmation if they try to shut the window.

It's not the instant disconnection that I dislike.  In fact, that often actually makes me smile.  What bothers me even more are the insults and comments that I'm sometimes subjected to.

I was playing a tournament yesterday and tilly123 was shouting (in all caps) YOU SHOULD RESIGN NOW.  This was before the game had even started!  Afterwards I had to put up with even more of it.  NEXT TIME WHY DON'T YOU RESIGN ON MOVE ONE.

So yes, for players like this asshole, I'd love a Reputation Button.  He would have gotten a thumb-down from me as fast as I could have clicked it.  The problem is, players like this will vote everyone down.  tilly123 would have voted ME down, because... well, for no reason, other than he's a jerk and he hasn't learned any manners yet.

@MrEdCollins

The rating system should also keep a count of how many thumbs downs a player makes over a period of time, and use a reasonable cut off where it determines the player is suspected of abusing the system. 

Also, by an out of my arse estimate, the good players vastly outnumber the "bad apples", and so I don't expect the abusers of the proposed system to make a dent, when it's they who will get rated down the most. Players should then be able to decide based on proportionality of their down votes compared to the rest of chess.com members whether they want to start a game with this person or not.

It's sort of like how search engines work.  They determine what they call "authorities," based in part on how many sites link to them.  If that "authority" then links to another site, that's like a vote for that other site.

The point is, if an "authority" links to your website, that's worth more than if a nobody website links to you.  If a site that no one references links to you, who cares.  But if a site which is linked often links to you, that's got to count for more.

In the same way, if someone with a bad reputation flags you, that won't count so much.  What would happen, naturally in the course of things, is that the bad actors' reputations would suffer.

i agree, if someone has bad internet so he might desconnect then he can say so, this new tool would be great.

I completely understand your point of view.  However, I believe that most players on this site are not like that.  As a general policy, I would give all of my opponents a thumbs up whether I won or lost.  Unless of course they were compeletly disrespectful or "disconnected" in a losing position.  And I feel that most people on this site feel the same way I do.  Or..... I could be extremely naive. 

@grinMaster

I'd give a thumbs "up" to people who beat me too.  Otherwise I'd just be another sore loser.  (I mean, I do get sore, sometimes, when I lose.  But I never blame my opponent.  That would be lame.)

I just had someone disconnect on me -- again.  As soon as they lost their queen.

But now I discover that some of these people don't know?  They just click "x" to close their browser window?

See for example, comments on this thread by @jadarite.

So the question is:

Can chess.com do a better job of educating their users, that diconnecting is really, really annoying for their opponents?