Abandoning a game

@Habarca: You are incorrect on many things. You put words in my mouth, so to speak. I did not say you proved anything. [Refers to: "even thou (sic) I proved that all 3 players ... have all abandoned...."] I also did not say that abusers are definitely being punished. I have not witnessed the Fair Play Policy executed on any member. I do not know how you came to these conclusions.

I do not know where you arrived at the numbers you used in your examples. To my knowledge, explanations of the FPP on this site do not divulge what triggers a punishment, or what triggers absolution; and I have not seen any such values explained in any other threads. I'm not saying they're not out there; I'm saying I haven't yet seen them. Quite frankly, I don't care. I choose not to concern myself with such things. Instead, I let the staff worry about it. I thought that I had made this clear in a previous post.

I give you no answer to your question as to whether or not you've collected sufficient data. I really don't care.

I am incredibly amused that you have challenged me to a bet! Are you kidding me?  First, what makes you think I have that kind of money? Second, a bookie? Seriously? For one thing, we'd both need to know the bookie, or else how would either of us agree on one? Regardless, the notion is ridiculous, because it demonstrates that you and I are not in a position to trust each other. Third, you are voicing a willingness to play multiple accounts on Chess.com to try to manipulate their system, which is a flagrant violation of the Terms of Service. Fourth, you are trying to get me to agree to such flagrant violation of the ToS!  I don't know about you, but I would rather be able to look myself in the mirror and not vomit at my reflection! I hope you were joking in making your offer; if you were, it worked.

I sincerely hope I did not offend you. I always strive not to offend, but I am also honest and blunt when necessary!

You seem to think that I was debating the point with you out of some level of anger, or zeal. I get the impression that you thought I cared a great deal about proving my point. No. I have nothing to prove. I'm just making discussion here. You have entirely misunderstood my goal. I maintain my view that, if the staff say that they will run their site a certain way, then that is what they will do. No system is perfect; no website is perfect. I believe they are constantly working to make this website better all the time.

Are you aware you're only allowed one ?

I hv a Suggestion for this problem .

I hv noticed that even after the Implementation of the Fair Play Policy ,people hv still been abandoning games like mad/as usual .( I play Live Chess almost Everyday ) .

.. but maybe it's due to their not being aware of the Policy or they r not worried about the consequences of the Policy on them ,I dunno.

My suggestion is :

1) to hv any kind of 'Instant Punishment' which I think will definitely be much more effective like maybe loss of a few points like someone suggested earlier or something else,or hv a Warning Sign' that appears immediately they intentionally disconnect ,to Scare them ! .. ( Oops,I juz realised that they won't be able to see this as they hv already disconnected/left .. maybe ,Chess.com cld send them an automatic Warning Message then ... )

Maybe the 'Report Button' suggested is good too !

I think that when people disconnect intentionally due to loosing positions ,they wld already hv caused inconvenience to that particular Opponent (having to wait 2 min for their Win) and any action taken on them subsequently ,as in the Fair Play Policy,wld only help to prevent them doing it to other people .

2) hv some sort of temporary icon next to their Username to show that they r frequent Intentional Disconnectors/Game Abandoners so others know.

Btw,Chess.com already said that they can differentiate between Intentional and Unintentional Disconnecters so I think those that hv their connection disconnected due to Server Problems/Bad Connection,will not be affected !

Another Suggestion is since the above is true,can we hv all games where one Player hv his/her connection disconnected coz of Bad Connection and cannot connect back,automatically Aborted so that people don't Win or Loose points Wrongly/Unnecessarilly .

( I juz lost abt 6 Live Games due to my connection problems ,a few days ago ,mostly Winning ones but sometimes I also win games due to other people's bad connection .)

Tnx.

I don't agree with that  because part of the skill set required for live chess is to use your clock efficiently and take more and less time when you need to and if you feel one move requires a disprortionate amount of thinking time then it should be an option.

I'm half inclined to let the issue go because it seems as if a solution is not worth the time and trouble to players and staff to really solve it.

I will live and let live and take a win anyway I can!

Even though I was one of those  complainers you do have some valid points and I tend to agree with you.

I won't belabor this issue any more.I just want to play chess and win if I can!

There have been times when I have tried to resign in a blitz game, but the resignation button does nothing - the only options are to play through a losing position and take the checkmate or abandon the game.  I wind up playing through to the checkmate, but since I've been in the position where the server does not take my resignation request, I will give my opponent the benefit of the doubt on an abandoned game.

Oh, how I hate it when people just stop playing entirely. I like to play long standard games, say, 30 minutes a player. Occasionally I get an opponent that really thinks through the position and takes awhile to move. I have no problem with this, I like to stare at chess positions and observe the strengths and weaknesses, everything that's going on... but when people abandon it and stop playing, it's not so fun. 

Seriously, some folks don't even abandon it. They just stop playing, which is particularly rude and disgusting. When I lose a game, I just resign (I sometimes play it out if it's a forced mate), type good game and move on. Often we chat for awhile. That's etiquette, something everyone should know.

Sometimes I get paired with people who play the minimum 2 moves to take away the abort option and then they make me wait it out. They've even said that over chat. 

One thing everbody should know though is that those who are playing on their iphone and Ipad do not have the chat option so we are not being impolite when we don't chat!

this is what you said whirl'old boy- (correct me if I'm wrong) that in your humble opinion I had not proved they where not being punished my chess.com's own policy, only 'suspicious circumstances' (Over 137 abandons on one account this month I've seen, and all 137 on lost boards, and 240 wins 3 draws... but we'll just call that 'suspicious circumstances' not proof btw. As far as triggers to implement chess.com's fair play policy that chap should have triggered it- and yet he's playing as I type this

So being the nice chap I am, Iaid out the facts as I have them against chess.com's policy for such things and simply asked you to agree or disagree that my data and others point to the policy not being active. Then borrowing your powerful observation to
B-rowdy of "We cannot know that any of these players is going unpunished unless we sign into their accounts and try to play from their perspective." I suggested that I log on with 3 accounts and prove my accusations to a level that would satisfy even the staunchest critic.

Now I must say for a gent who claims not to have a dog in this fight, it seems like you have 3 in the pit. Which leads me to somewhat questions of your motives. Which I am sure are pure. So I suggested the bet, which  I figured it could go 1 of 3 ways, you agree that I'd gathered enough evidence and such action is not necessary to determine if and to what extent the system is broken, which would make you a reasonable individual. Or you accept the bet, I make $5000 and your proven to be a fool. The last option I saw was that you find a reason to decline the bet to which IMHO makes you a tool. I did laugh at your comment about "I don't know about you, but I would rather be able to look myself in the mirror and not vomit at my reflection!"  which would require you once again IMHO to have intellectual integrity which you seem to gladly sacrifice in what you perceive as the best intrests of chess.com

Now, your underlining message as I see it has been basically this, "The system is fine, and any suggestion you make will be abused, ignore it and move on"  Otherwise known as the official Officer Barbrady position

I saw a Dave Chappelle skit where he's in for jury duty, and it reminded me of you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQqp10ZdAnk

If in fact the fair play policy is not able to be enforced in a fair way, then remove it. Some of us will be bummed, but its better then being misled.

@Kohai yes I am aware that I am only allowed 1 account and that more would lead to the banning of this account and the other accounts- If it would move us to the truth and me to $5000 I'm prepared to do it.

@Habarca: You seem to be disappointed that I did not become consumed with pride, swell to the size of King Kong, beat my chest, and roar, "Arrgh! I will accept your wager! You're on!" Is this, to you, the only dignified way to settle this argument that you are forcing on this community? I demonstrated the absurdity of your bet, as well as how much it reeks with moldering corruption. I see by your comment to kohai that you clearly respect Chess.com so little that you would flagrantly violate their rules--and you respect its members so little that you would manipulate any opponents who happened to cross your path--all to meet your own, greedy ends. I would not stoop to such a level as to accept any bet, least of all one that would require me to engage in such callous, self-absorbed practices.

You have also misunderstood my "underlining" message. I am not in a position to either commend or criticize the FPP. That's not my duty, not my expertise, not within my knowledge base. I am not a staff member. Therefore, I do not declare that the system is fine as is. (In fact, I have implied that it may have bugs to work out.) I also did not imply that any suggestion will result in abuse; I said an "abuse button" would be abused, as others have agreed.

I find ironic that you liken me to Officer Barbrady, while you continue on your policing and spying charade. I encourage you to continue this debate by presenting your evidence--in a civilized manner--to the staff, who can actually do something about it.

Dave Chapelle is the best.

By the way, I just had a diamond premium member abandon a game.  A premium member!  I can't be alone in expecting better.

I juz thot of something/A Suggestion  :

If Chess.com can differentiate between intentional Disconnects/Abandoning of Games from Unintentional ones/Bad Connection/Server Problem,why don't u scrap the 2 minute wait for our WIN and give it to us immediately/ie the moment our Opponent Intentionally Disconnects/Abandon the Game ?

( If it can be done ie.,I dunno )

That way,Everybody will be happy,I think coz :

1) It's equavalent to a 'Resignation' but in a different form ( tho not so sporting )

2 Nobody needs to wait 2 whole minutes for their Win !

I think in the first place,that 2 min wait is for people who hv Bad Connection ,to try to reconnect .. sometimes we can reconnect successfully,sometimes not at all .. I did suggest above,that if possible, maybe we cld hv these Games aborted ,especially if the Player cannot reconnect ,so there's no wrongful/unneccessary loss/gain in points.( Since it's our Server Problem Fault ; not ours )

.. Juz a Suggestion .. but maybe it's not so simple ; If it sounds silly,plz ignore it.

Tnx .

It doesn't sound silly.  Please don't ignore.

I agree, but too late I think 

I also think I will stop tracking this thread and this will be my last comment, it has turned from discussion into a sledging contest. The issue has been brought up, argued by the community, ignored by staff and so now it is probably the time to accept that it won't change and just put up with it or go somewhere else. Even with this annoyance (and it is a big one in my opinion), the site is still one of the best for chess so I think we can manage.

 there should be a chat message to the opponent explaining that, then chat should be disabled.

Of course some moves might take a long time, but, if you have a 15 minute clock and take 10 minutes for one move, does that make any sense?

Let's look at the basketball shot clock, which was introduced due to, you could say, abuse of ball posession.

In live chess, there's the potential for abuse of the clock, holding the opponent hostage.  Some sort of countdown clock, perhaps visible, would be fine.

If you want *no* clock for a 15 minute game, I can go along with that.  However, how about 50% of your time for longer games?  Surely there's room for agreement here.

 Exactly, there's no proof.  However, enough people have sufficient suspicion of clock abuse for this thread.  That's the rationale for something to address that. 

You may not have run across these people, but I have.  Either a hard limit (ten minutes) or a proportion (fifty percent of total time) per move seems entirely reasonable.  What's wrong with a shot clock to avoid such abuse.

Also, once white moves, there should be a win/loss.  Aborting after white makes *one* move is just gaming the game.  Or, aborts should be mutual, like draws.

The issue is not timing out but people deliberately  abandoning the game in a clearly lost position rather than simply resigning. Timing out happens and is no big deal but if you are playing a fifteen minute game and the opponent lets his clock run out for almost the full fifteen minutes it is rather irritating.

Someone posted here as well that they thought nothing of letting thier clock run out even on longer games when they are losing which is totally outrageous.

Some people are complaining about shorter games. I, however, generally play 20-30 minute games, unless I'm on the bus doing blitz on my phone. When your opponent lets the clock run out when there is more than 10 minutes, there is reason to be bothered. It's poor sportsmanship and is generally rude.

I don't care if people let the clock run in blitz games. No big deal, really. I would just resign rather than let it run, but it's only a few minutes.

Thankfully I haven't played anyone that let the clock run intentionally lately. In the past week I've just gotten to go in, play some good games, chat with my opponent afterwards if they're up for it and generally have a good time. That's the way chess should be, even over the internet.

I am starting to think that the problem isn't people deliberately dropping games but the chess.com's servers are losing the connection. I just lost a connection on a live game but I was still able to do email and even able to access other webpages using another device so I  suspect it is an internal problem with chess.com