Eliminate the Abort option

JazzTChess

Aborting a game is: very annoying to the other player, wastes the other player's time, is bad sportsmanship, cheats the other player out of a win and points,  and defeats the whole purpose of agreeing to play a game of chess in the first place.  Resigning a game is the better way to go about it. 

If you agree that the abort option should be eliminated, please add  your comments to this thread.  Hopefully chess.com will be listening!

LeotheLion402

Eh. I'm going to have to disagree with you. I've used the Abort function myself on occasion, for a couple of reasons.

The first of which is misclicking. In Live Chess, the challenges in the challenge section go by quite fast. This sometimes leads to my simply missing the intended target and I find myself starting not the 10:5 game against a 1300 something player, but instead a 2:1 game against a 1600 something player. I suppose I could play it out, but I consider it a bigger waste of my time to play a game I don't want to play than spend a little extra time searching for a new game. And my opponent? Well, he'd probably get a better game playing a stronger player.

The other reason is that sometimes I find I need to go do something else, but I already clicked the game. I should resign? It seems perfectly reasonable that I should have an out within the first few moves if I realize that I cannot continue the game. You may argue this is unsportsmanlike. I consider it practical.

Now. I do understand that the Abort button is abused. People use it because they don't want to play as black, or they don't want to play a particular opening that they can discern within a couple moves. That gets irritating and I certainly don't appreciate it, but I believe that it is better than the alternative of not having the option entirely. A few moments to find a new game just isn't that bad.

So, no I don't think that removing that feature is a good idea.

Just my two cents. Disagree if you like.

-Leo

TheGrobe

I don't think you'll really ever be able to do away with it, but surely you could detect and penalize those that are clearly abusing it....

LeotheLion402

El_Senior-

Your ideas are good, but I would still be in favor of keeping it as it is. I don't think it's that big of a deal - really only slightly annoying - and I appreciate it for the second reason I mentioned. But I would like to see your ideas implemented.

TheGrobe-

See, I don't think that there would be an reasonable way to sort out those who were "clearly" abusing it from those who wanted it for the two reasons I suggested. Sure, you could track the number of times someone aborts and if they go over a limit, penalize them, but... That's still not examining the actual context of the abortion. Meh, what do I know?

Anyway, this discussion is starting to sound kind of funny. (*Gasp!* You're in favor of abortion?!) Laughing No politics!!

-Leo

CuzinVinny

It's a simple "you are wrong" situation.

Your wrong. Plain n simple ^^ 

rooperi
LeotheLion402 wrote:

Eh. I'm going to have to disagree with you. I've used the Abort function myself on occasion, for a couple of reasons.

The first of which is misclicking. In Live Chess, the challenges in the challenge section go by quite fast. This sometimes leads to my simply missing the intended target and I find myself starting not the 10:5 game against a 1300 something player, but instead a 2:1 game against a 1600 something player. I suppose I could play it out, but I consider it a bigger waste of my time to play a game I don't want to play than spend a little extra time searching for a new game. And my opponent? Well, he'd probably get a better game playing a stronger player.

The other reason is that sometimes I find I need to go do something else, but I already clicked the game. I should resign? It seems perfectly reasonable that I should have an out within the first few moves if I realize that I cannot continue the game. You may argue this is unsportsmanlike. I consider it practical.

Now. I do understand that the Abort button is abused. People use it because they don't want to play as black, or they don't want to play a particular opening that they can discern within a couple moves. That gets irritating and I certainly don't appreciate it, but I believe that it is better than the alternative of not having the option entirely. A few moments to find a new game just isn't that bad.

So, no I don't think that removing that feature is a good idea.

Just my two cents. Disagree if you like.

-Leo


Good points, but how often does this happen? Once a day, maybe.?

Just limit it, give player say 3 aborts per day. If he wants more, then it's because he's abusing it.

Timotheous

I would say I am in most cases personally against using the abort button, but I don't want to interfere with someone else's right to abort the game. In fact, if it is so early in the game that it still allows the game to be aborted, it is just a move, not really a game, and if it was an unwanted game, it would not turn out to be a very happy and well adjusted game.

Once enough moves have happened so that the abort button is disabled, due to the game really having some intelligence invested in it, and there is a real heart beat to the game, then it should probably not be aborted at that point. I wonder if their would be away to give the game up to another player who may want to adopt the game, rather than aborting it at that point?

JazzTChess

Thanks to everyone for sharing their views.  I am sticking with my opinion, but It looks like I am in the minority on this! 

Deranged

Yeah they need to fix the 4 move rule into 2 moves.

For example, if someone falls for fool's mate and loses in 2 moves, shouldn't that count as a legitimate win and earn rating points?

musicalhair

El_Senior said "or add a sanity check dialog box (are you sure you want this pairing???)"; I like that.  Others said knock it down to 2 moves from 4, I didn't realize it could be done at 4 moves, that seems crazy.  2 seems crazy.  It's like "Oh he played the Grand Prix? I"m outta here", at least change the abort button at that point to the "chicken out" button.  Maybe give it a little "bak-bak-bak" sound effect.

IOliveira

The four moves rule avoids the rating inflation that could happen with guys that sudenly win a lot of games by early timeouts.

Fookatook

The real solution to most of the problems I run into is people not using their filter.  If you don't want to play someone below a certain rating, filter them out.  I have had games started and aborted 3 or 4 times in a row with the same person because we are the only ones opening seeks in the time range we are looking to play.  

Vented.  I feel better now.

NickYoung5
Kintoki wrote:

I use abort ALOT because several times I accidently click on a 3 minute game instead of a 2/1 game.

So no. Don't.


 But do you end up actually playing moves before you realise this or abort without playing any moves?

SchachMatt

i'm personally against the abort option.  I've never seen it used properly, only after I play 1. d4 do people abort.

AndTheLittleOneSaid
phryndmnnt wrote:

i'm personally against the abort option.  I've never seen it used properly, only after I play 1. d4 do people abort.


So stop doing that. Wink

I use it quite frequently when I'm (impatiently) waiting for them to make their first move, and they take forever.

TheGrobe

Another perfectly legitimate use of the abort option.  It simply can't be eliminated.

Flamma_Aquila

I abort in live when my opponent has high lag... I hate playing that way.

Ray42594

I think the abort option is useful for when you accidentally accept a computer challenge by misclicking

TheGrobe

The original comment was slightly ambiguous and missed the point of the original poster's request.  El_Senior's sarcasm was on point.

IOliveira
El_Senior wrote:
II-Oliveira wrote:

The four moves rule avoids the rating inflation that could happen with guys that sudenly win a lot of games by early timeouts.


So, now my opponent can time out and he wins? 

I thought I was the winner in those cases!


You missed what I said.

I was talking about people that win too much games when the oponents time out a lot.