#2 Suggestion: Change Fair Play Policy

I do not report players unless I think they have cheated, annoying or not.

You will find that 2400s are sensible people and do not offer games to players that much lower than themselves. They also want a challenge! Plus if you get a game with a 2400, enjoy it, what's the difference? "Screwed" , just because you have a chess game against a 2400?? What an attitude!

Seeking a rating range avoids clicking on the wrong level of player.

Btw, cherry picking opponents is bad for your chess. If the site doesn't allow them to (i.e. introduces a pools section) the better!

Nononono, what I mean is that with the abort button only offering an abort if both players agree, it means that aborts can happen only if both players think it is justified. If one sits there and does not abort then it is game on! Players will be playing alright. But this gives the leeway to avoid any situations like if someone knocks at the front door, of course providing that your opponent is sporting, which most people are. If they are not sporting, they unlucky, take it on the chin. It's just one chess game!

I do not think that my proposed solution will create any problems whatsoever. An abort button that relies on both players aborting, or no abort button at all. I get the feeling that far too many patzers think about their rating too much. Who cares if you lose 1 game in 1000 because of some freak experience. It's better than having an annoying patzer just sitting there wasting your time, game after game.

I don't cherry pick opponents. I play opponents around my skill level. I pick people around 1400 rating, perhaps slightly higher if I feel like a bit of a challenge. When I play a player at my rating, I have a roughly fifty fifty chance of winning. THAT is why the game is fun. Because I have a good chance of winning.

Playing a game against a 2400 isn't fun. You get summarily destroyed and have no chance. I miss mates with Q/B on h7 as black quite often. When a 2400 sets up traps that are far more complex than that (if you can even call that a trap), it's not fun. I don't enjoy losing with no chance of winning. If the 2400 plays just a solid game of chess, and I try to play a solid game of chess, I'll make plenty of mistakes he can exploit - whether he plays traps or not. So what's the point? Sure, I can say "oh, I shouldn't do that again", but playing against a 2400 isn't fun. It's just losing before you start the game. Remember, I'm 1400, not 2000.

Edit, to clarify:

"oh, I shouldn't do that again" By this, I mean that I can see things such as the fishing pole - I can decide not to take the knight to open up the file. But I don't notice things otherwise. I wouldn't see the fishing pole being set up - I'd just know not to take the knight, because I lose immediately. I won't see traps being set up, I'll just know which moves not to make.

Using the age thing, maybe chess.com should use a pre-determined chat, so the options of 'GG' are already there, if you are playing/are a younger player, and you can't type anything of your own.

Two things.

First, if abort were removed as an option, it would make sense to add a confirmation step to all game selection flows in all browsers & apps, which basically allows the seek-accepting user to abort the potential game before the counterparty is notified of the game start.

Second, and also very important, would be a reworking of the entire auto-abort framework currently implemented at the beginning of each game. If you don't start the game in I think 15 seconds, it auto-aborts. (This means that you can no longer chat with opponents before the game, an unfortunate side effect.) But if there were no more abort, then it's not really reasonable to actually forfeit users who haven't moved within 15 seconds... you've got to give them all the time they signed up for. So this might actually end up a worse system. But I'm open to ideas there.

@Blackfang: A couple of things.

1) If you click far away from your rating level on the graph to get a 2400 player, then don't do it again if you are scared of facing them :) It is good that you play people around your skill level. So what is the problem with no abort button for you? You'd put a seek out for your own rating level and just play when the countdown begins. Or if you are clicking the graph (aiming in the right place) you again get someone around your level. You wouldn't face a 2400.

2) Try to think of the big picture. Firstly put yourself in the shoes of a 2400-rated player. They get pestered by many players for free coaching and games. Usually they put out a ratings range when they are seeking to get players on their skill level also! They would not click in the 1400 range unless they are drunk. In fact most of the top players that I know don't even use the graph (mostly because it is simply empty!!) . They go to the player's list to click an opponent at the top of the ratings list. Going back to point 1, I stated "If you click far away from your rating level on the graph to get a 2400 player,...", well trust me, that dot will not even be there on the graph.  

I see absolutely no problems for you here at all with my suggestion.

@ ozzie_c_cobblepot: First, there is no confirmation step. Abort is removed completely! Secondly, if you don't start the game in 15 seconds, you will come back to find your clock ticking! But hey, you were the one that put the seek out to start with, so you are responsible for playing the game. If you lost on time, and lost rating points, you will learn that fast if rating is important to you. Note: users throwing games in this fashion will still be punished for it. And users are not being forfeited after 15 seconds.

I think its a pretty simple system, and to be honest, if chess.com want to be professional, they should take the best ideas around from other sites or anyone suggesting them. 

1. I was talking about about the ChessCube interface than anything (where it's easy to misclick a high rated game due to the way it's done). I know this isn't entirely relevant to Chess.com, but I believe my point still stands - mistakes can be made, especially if you're drunk or tired. Keep the option to rectify these mistakes without being totally embarassed. I played a game against ChessNetwork on ChessCube earlier today, in front of 450~ people. Don't know the sicilian, which he plays often, blundered a bishop early on (Bb5 to pin the knight was met by Qa5+ and I didn't respond properly after Nc3), and then blundered a rook later (after which I promply resigned). I went into the game knowing I was going to lose, and in general Jerry and his viewers are very nice (he gave me a few tips on the moves that I blundered early on, so I learned from it :D), so I wasn't utterly embarassed, but if it were just a random game against a NM, I'd be very self concious about how badly I'm doing. Not because I'm worried about them thinking I'm a bad player or anything, but just because I don't like wasting both our times, and I don't like losing badly like that. I prefer a game against a player my skill level, because I can possibly recover from a blunder like that - not likely, but possibly. Against a player like Jerry or some such, I know that as soon as I drop even a pawn he's going to force the win on me.

2. A player doesn't even have to be a 2.4k Elo player. They can be far lower and it will still be miserable. I believe the way the Elo system works is that if I play against someone who's a few hundred points above me, I'll draw 2 of 100 games, and lose the other 98. If a 1500 player puts out a +/- 300 seek, they can pull me as an opponent on some days when my Elo is higher. A 300 Elo gap is a large difference - I'll lose most, if not all, of the games.

Yes, mistakes can still be made, but they are of less importance than the constant aborting and time wasting. And because of the rating system, if people are genuinely playing chess, their rating returns to its proper level after a few more games.

"If a 1500 player puts out a +/- 300 seek, they can pull me as an opponent on some days when my Elo is higher."

Do you realise what you are saying here? You are momentarily overrated, and your rating will return to normal. Why try to protect a rating like it is money in the bank?

I quite enjoy playing players that are 200-300 points higher rated than myself. It's a nice challenge... you are not expected to win! However with all of the fakers out there, ratings are completely out of proportion right now. For example, all of the GMs on this site could smash Eilyisum in blitz most of the time, but his rating is being artificially guarded at a 2700 level (400-500 higher than some of the GMs) right now, LOL!

When you learn to forget about guarding your inflated ratings and just play to enjoy and understand, that is when you improve at chess.

abort button is absolutely needed.
Just imagine the scenario, one guy accepts the match and just sits there... clocks dont start until a move.

As for warnings, yes, there should be 300 rating points lost per warning. This would mean its not an empty threat.

Didn't you read the whole idea? The clock starts with a 15 second countdown! There is no sitting there!

The 15 second countdown is not good... what if the guy accepts the game and then diconnects (he's connection goes down, not his fault) what then?

Also what if I dont want to play a player (say we have the same rating, but I have beaten him in the last 6 games because my style is bad for him) If I dont feel like playing that guy (low motivation), I shouldnt have to.

For the first point, if a player disconnects due to the connection going down, what happens currently if you are in the middle of a game? What then? The same thing.

For the second point, don't choose that player! Challenge someone different. There is more than one way to get a game :)

These points don't have much to do with the initial suggestion. I suggest you go back and read the entire first post of this thread. I also made a suggestion about blocking. If that were accepted, then you could just make a seek and a player that you had blocked would not be able to accept the challenge.

There is a huge difference between losing connection before the game has begun and during the middle of the game. (btw if someone disconnects and Im losing badly, I will resign anyway)

"Dont choose that player" / block him
I dont want to block the guy forever, maybe a year down the line he has improved and I will play him then. With the auto pairings you dont choose..

Yes, there are lot of idiots on here, but not even of those there arent any real abusers of the abort button.

The abort button however is useful in certain cases. Its abusers are very very few. pros out weigh the cons.

No, I'm not talking about my rating being inflated. I don't sit down every day and play chess intensely - because of that, some days I'm tired, or some days I'm quite alert. Some days I play at 2 AM, others I play at 2 PM. My rating fluctuates with that, and so some days I move up to about 1200, some days I'm as low as 1050-1100 because of it.

Nope. No difference at all with being disconnected just before the game begins / during the game. Not if you read the entire first post.

I thought you meant that the person was worthy of blocking. Ok then, chess.com could introduce a no-playing filter if you don't wish to block them completely. Or just block them, and unblock them later on.

The abort button is not useful under this system, and removing it eliminates all of these tedious problems we currently have, for no loss of enjoyment.

I'm not focusing on if someone is under- or over-rated and I did say momentarily overrated. The point is that ratings will return to their proper level with more games played. Remove the abort button and this is what will happen.

Ok I've had my say on this matter. The arguments put against this seem trivial. However as expected, the majority think about their rating, rather than just play chess.

Cliff's Notes version: OP is prioritizing his time over his opponents' time, and wants to bend the rating system to be punitive. It would worsen my chess.com experience significantly, I do not support it or like it, and I think it's a poorly thought out idea which would be bad for the site as a whole.

I am having the problem that I am told a game is loading, then I am told 'game has been aborted by the server', after a few repeats of this i am on a 5 minute restriction.

Yes; I'm thinking about my rating because I don't enjoy playing when I have no chance to win. I'm thinking about my rating when I don't want to play against someone where I have a 2 in 100 chance to /draw/ a game with them. I'm thinking about my rating when I prefer to play against people who are my skill level, and we can have a decent game where I don't get utterly punished and destroyed for a small positional mistake.

That makes sense, don't worry.

Enough people submit reports for the site to get a statistically significant sample, so it is not necessary for everybody who is wronged to report. It is important for some to do this though.