This continues to be a problem. I just finished a fifteen minute standard game. My opponent had nine minutes left on his clock but was one move away from checkmate. He technically didn't abandon the game but just let his clock run out. The official game score shows he lost on time. Was this a deliberate tactic to avoid checkmate or resignation and to say he just lost on time?
Abandoning a game
Sort:
Sep 20, 2011
0
#23
People repeatedly clamor for a button in Live Chess that they can use to report disconnection abuse. Such a button is not necessary. As kohai has said in this thread and many others, the server automatically detects abusers. A button would be redundant, and would most likely be abused itself.
Whirlwind2011, hate to rain on your parade; but the system does not work. I've followed a couple game abandoners and 1 has 104 abandons on lost boards,(no won or undecided games in the mix) didn't count his time outs, on 200some games over 1 month. Does that sound like the server is doing anything to you?
I am fairly confident that I could start a new account, play 50 games over 5 days, making sure I lost ATLEAST 25 and abandoning them to boot, and timing out on a few others and not have any action taken against me.
As a matter afact... I'd even be willing to bet on it.
Sep 20, 2011
0
#25
@Habarca: I have no parade for rain on which to fall. I am not a witness to the server's efficiency. I only help to further what is specifically told to us by the staff members themselves. I place my faith in them that they honor their word, and that they do all in their power to ensure that the system works as they say it does and that it improves its effectiveness. I have no data to back up any claims that the Fair Play Policy works; I have done no research on it. I do not need any such data. If the staff say that the server detects abusers and sanctions them, then that is good enough for me. Now, it's up to the staff to make sure that happens.
As for the people you are monitoring, can you verify that they have not been punished? If you are positive about the reliability of the findings you have just told me, have you reported all this to the staff? They would be the most benefited from this information.
@Whirl Well I have reported 1 guy, got the cut and paste answer from Kohai then two weeks later, this thread is started. I mentioned him here to prove a point, and she of course removed him from my post. And guess what? On lost boards he either a) Abandons; or b) times out. There are no time out or abandons on won boards...
I'm watching 3 players right now(They play everyday) to see if the system works. I have yet to see a player miss anytime or change there game behavior. I would think that it is reasonable to assume that if a player was punished they would not be playing 10 games a day- doing the same thing... Chess.com's policy is this; (cut and pasted from the email Kohai sent me on Aug. 22)
"If their account is flagged for breaking this policy they account will be restricted. They will still be able to play games with friends or accept direct challenges, but they will not be able to create or accept open challenges until they play more games that follow the fair play policy"
Since none of the players seem to be hamstringed, change there sytle, and there opponents are not repeated(Unless they are an easy mark) I call Hog Wash, on the claim 'the server monitors game behavior'
I think what irks me the most, is not the fact the system doesn't work; but that we are told it does and that they expect that to be the end of it. There are alot of valid reasons for the system not to work; I have no knowledge of how chess.com pays for its servers, but if they have to pay for server proccessing time it is possible such a feature would honestly cut into there bottom line, and if so I'm cool with it. But don't lie to me about it. Just tell me "Hey we know it sucks, but we can't do anything about it"
Sep 21, 2011
0
#27
@Habarca: Despite your considerable observation, you have no proof that abusers are going unpunished; you only suspect. Therefore, you have no proof that you are being told lies about the system working. Since I don't have that proof either, I choose not to let it bother me.
kohai removed the name of your "culprit" not to sweep anything under the proverbial rug, but to adhere to known Chess.com policy, which is that members are not to be publicly humiliated or attacked.
I know that game abandoners can be frustrating, but we are explicitly told how to handle them. Our duty is to play our part; we need to do what we're told, instead of trying to take the "law" into our own hands. I'm content to let the staff run their website.
I wish you the best of luck in your games.
People who behave this way intend to annoy those who beat them. I keep a list of them and refuse to play anyone on that list again. Blocking them my own way.
Sep 21, 2011
0
#29
1pawndown wrote:
People who behave this way intend to annoy those who beat them. I keep a list of them and refuse to play anyone on that list again. Blocking them my own way.
The only thing is, as that list grows, you may spend so much time scanning that list for your "banned" opponents that your prospective games may keep getting aborted due to their impatience! 
I say guys who abandon games because they are about to lose are not true chess players they arejust playing chess. A true chess player has honor and will accept his defeat(may not like it).in my opinion a true chess player will maintain his honor even more so in defeat
@1pawndown: You can always block a player. Unfortunately, it only prevents blocked members from playing you, but it's easier to let the site keep the list for you.
@whirlwind: I feel like I'm taking crazy pills (unless it turns out you're on chess.com's payroll.) Habarca has presented clear proof of the server's failure. According to Kohai, the penalty for game abandonment is the inability to create or accept open challenges. Since these players (I've followed two myself) continue to do just that, it seems indisputable that the system isn't working. I suppose I should admire your ability to tow the line, do as you're told, and put blind faith in the server and staff, but players like Habarca and I are attempting to improve the quality of the website (not to mention to play some quality chess, which--in my opinion--game abandonment seriously challenges.)
Sep 22, 2011
0
#32
@b-rowdy: Indisputable, clear proof? I see only suspicious circumstances in need of further clarification. We cannot know that any of these players is going unpunished unless we sign into their accounts and try to play from their perspective.
The length of time on these "punishments" of the Fair Play Policy has never been specified. A punishment may not be an actual length of time (e.g., a week) during which they cannot issue open challenges. The punishment may apply to a certain number of seeks they try to initiate. I honestly don't know how that works. Are they free to challenge openly after 50 rejected attempts? or 100? Or must they wait a week, or a month? The staff have never explained the actual execution of the policy.
You may call this "blind faith," but I simply choose not to concern myself with things beyond my control. Many players like Habarca are requesting an abuse button that they can use to report players themselves. Chances are too high that this button will be abused. Players will use it anytime they are perturbed. If an opponent thinks for 5 minutes in a tricky position, the player will think, "Oh, great, he's delaying the game," and click the button. Imagine how angry the opponent will be when he is sanctioned for trying to play a normal game!
Meanwhile the protective measure against abuse of this button is supposedly that, after so many abuses, the user is reprimanded and the button is taken away (for a time). This is unacceptable because 1) the abuse of the button wouldn't have occurred if the button hadn't been there to be abused, 2) the abuse of the button made several (say, ten) players unhappy because they were unjustly reported, 3) whether the button is being abused may be unclear in many situations, creating a "one player's word against the other's" conflict that is unresolvable, 4) any time the button is taken away for abuse proves that it would have had no place in Live Chess in the first place, and 5) this whole scenario creates a long list of things to implement (an abuse button, method to determine whether the button is being abused, an automated message to send if the button is abused, method to determine when the button should be restored). Should all these things really be necessary?
Or, we can be content with the Fair Play Policy as it stands, simply let the staff handle these matters, and wait for them to work out any bugs that their system may have.
Too many people would be the police, judge, and jury of Chess.com. They want more control. Many say that they are trying to improve the quality of the website, when they in fact have a bitter, jaded, and cynical view of procedures after having been frustrated by a lack of sportsmanship (which, admittedly, is lamentable); and so they grumble, "If you want something done, you have to do it yourself." The staff will do all this work for us, if we will let them.
Wow this is almost becomming quite heated in here... 
I agree and disagree with so much already said here, but I think that the main issue has been a little sidelined. At the end of the day, I believe this thread is about the fact that people purposely abandon games in an unsportsmanlike manner and it has frusted people enough that they want something done about it. To add to the frustration it appears that this complaint is falling on deaf ears.
The report button was a suggestion and nothing else, if it is unlikely to be helpful, that is fine, I don't think anyone is vehemently pushing for it, but that something (whatever it is) gets done to resolve the matter. This was just one idea put forward.
As for the server monitoring these things, evidence or no evidence, it doesn't work for the simple fact that the problem is so wide spread and frequent that it's almost pandemic. I really think that all that people are looking for here is a little reassurance from staff that something is being done about it. The replies that the staff gave a few days ago didn't seem to fill anyone with confidence as all they did was point to a broken system.
I have absolutely no issue with letting the staff do their job, but surely to do their job to the best of their ability, they need to know what the issues and frustrations of the players are. They have no reason to believe that the system is broken unless people put in a complaint, it's just part of the process. I don't see how keeping quiet benefits anyone. In this way I believe that the suggestion of the button was more or less to inform the staff of certain players, not to take their jobs. I may be wrong, but that's how I read it.
Sep 22, 2011
0
#34
For Standard games a maximum time should be allowed:
15 to 20 min. game:5 min. to play your move.
21 min.+ game :10 min. max otherwise strike 3 you're out.
It won't solve the problem but it will limit the damages.
PS another site uses the 5 min. rule for their 20 min. games.I know I can block a player (and I will)but it won't stop the cheap behavior from other bad losers.
xyzed wrote:
For Standard games a maximum time should be allowed:
15 to 20 min. game:5 min. to play your move.
21 min.+ game :10 min. max otherwise strike 3 you're out.
It won't solve the problem but it will limit the damages.
PS another site uses the 5 min. rule for their 20 min. games.I know I can block a player (and I will)but it won't stop the cheap behavior from other bad losers.
Ditto, I agree with the proposed time limits and their necessity.
whirlwind2011 wrote:
[...]
Or, we can be content with the Fair Play Policy as it stands, simply let the staff handle these matters, and wait for them to work out any bugs that their system may have.
[...]
If you've ever played yahoo chess, you would know that doesn't work :(
Disgruntled_Sheep wrote:
[...]I believe this thread is about the fact that people purposely abandon games in an unsportsmanlike manner and it has frusted people enough that they want something done about it. To add to the frustration it appears that this complaint is falling on deaf ears.
The report button was a suggestion and nothing else, if it is unlikely to be helpful, that is fine, I don't think anyone is vehemently pushing for it, but that something (whatever it is) gets done to resolve the matter. This was just one idea put forward.
[...]
It should be easier to award different ?badges? with one click. Bad sportsmanship should, unfortunately, be one of those. I think it's often subjective and debatable.
Of course, their can be "gangs" who would abuse even that, and maybe the bad sportsmanship badge should be hidden...?
b-rowdy wrote:[...]I just ended a game (can anyone guess how it ended?) with a player who has four critical comments on his "Notes" regarding how he abandoned games. Four... and those were only the people who complained to him about it!
Forgive me if I'm skeptical that server detection is doing anything to solve this problem.
On the flip side, the android app won't work for me and I get too many disconnects to count. I think disconnects should just be losses because there's no way to know what happened, even if there's a pattern indicating that all the disconnects are from losing positions/etc.
Just time out after x amount of time.
Also, when I go to reconnect, using android web browser, I cannot get back to the game in progress :(
Sep 22, 2011
0
#39
thufir wrote:
whirlwind2011 wrote:
[...]
Or, we can be content with the Fair Play Policy as it stands, simply let the staff handle these matters, and wait for them to work out any bugs that their system may have.
[...]
If you've ever played yahoo chess, you would know that doesn't work :(
I have played on Yahoo! Chess for many years. This site is not even close to Yahoo! Chess. 
Its quality far exceeds Yahoo!'s. I would not have paid for a membership here otherwise.
b-rowdy to@1pawndown: "You can always block a player. Unfortunately, it only prevents blocked members from playing you, but it's easier to let the site keep the list for you."
Amen, and it doesn't help the other player
alright whirl, your saying that even thou I proved that all 3 players that I monitor for the last month(Takes 10-15 minutes a week btw) have all abandoned or timed out on lost boards every day with opponents they ONLY play once, the players they score wins against are normally played only once as well; unless the win is a clear cut slaughter, are somehow being punished by chess.com
The premise that chess.com policy that states "If their account is flagged for breaking this policy they account will be restricted. They will still be able to play games with friends or accept direct challenges, but they will not be able to create or accept open challenges until they play more games that follow the fair play policy. "
If they are being punished then they are either playing a) friends or b) accepting direct challenges. If we go the friends route we have to accept since they only play people once, and most have 300+ games history they must have a friends list of at least 100+ players and that they add atleast 10 + friends a day to get games. After all the punishment stands until they "play more games that follow the fair play policy" and since there game style doesn't change they must remain on perpetual probation if the rules of chess.com are to be believed. While this is indeed possible, it is not probable and is more akin to the odds of winning the New York Lottery mega jackpot on 1 ticket
The other way they can get games while punished by chess.com's rules is to accept direct challenges. This is problematic since in the old days at chess sites you could talk smack in the lobby until you got a game. I don't see the option here; and if it is, you'd see 600-800 point spreads between opponents. Not the 100-200 point spread which is what you normally get from a game request. If there is such a spot, point me there and I'll observe it since my data puts game abandoners at chess.com at about 3-5% of the player population; it should be easy to see the chatter. Once again, working that hard for there 10+ games a day every day and not changing there MO is another far fetched theory.
So I need a simple yes or no from you whirl, you think that I have not collected enough data to prove that chess.com does not follow its own policy of
"Chess.com encourages players to be kind and show good sportsmanship. Our Fair Play policy expects that players will not:
intentionally disconnect during games
stall to make opponents wait unnecessarily
frivolously abort games because they don't want to play black, etc.
If their account is flagged for breaking this policy they account will be restricted. They will still be able to play games with friends or accept direct challenges, but they will not be able to create or accept open challenges until they play more games that follow the fair play policy."
If not, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. I will bet you a sum of up to $5000 USD, to be held by a bookie we both agree on. On the conditions that I will start 3 accounts, mask my IP and for a month abandoning and timing out on all lost games, I will post my findings on chess.com and Youtube with the understanding that all 4 accounts are likely to be banned for violation of chess.com policy on multiple accounts.
You will win if only 1 of my accounts is banned.
I will win if I successfully run the gambit with all 3 accounts.
I was referring to the punishing players who disconnect due to acts of god or accidental mishaps as 'draconian'.
punishing people like the one I listed today who at the time of this *NEW* post has already 'abandoned' 2 lost games since I posted his name is not 'draconian' but falls more in the line of 'just' action.
I applaud your service to us as a official chess.com staff member, and the time this duty must take from you. I understand that you and the others do not have the time or the resources to police the players; therefore it is left to the server to flag said behavior. And so when we write you; you cut and paste the official answer approved and written by chess.com. And if the system worked that would be the end of it. But the problem is the system does not work. It takes no actions against violating players, and the well worded cut and paste answer feels just like that... A well worded cut and paste answer to pacify the complainers. I'm half temped to go out and throw 20 games straight abandoning every one once the board is lost to see if anything happens. I doubt it will; if I go to that much trouble I should at least win the 'Brave Sir Robin' medal... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4SJ0xR2_bQ)
If you're sure the system works, go follow the player who's name you removed from my post. Watch him for a month or two, and see what happens without your interference. I bet nothing happens to him, and all his abandons and timeouts will be on lost boards. I do agree with the op idea of diminishing the players disconnect clock, to the point where they forfeit the right to a legit disconnect. As far as players who have 10 minutes left on there clock and a obviously lost board who make you sit there for the 10 minutes so you can get your win there should be a flag button we can hit and have the server review the game. If a player abuses the button, remove the button and send them an email.
couldn't have put it better myself...