Show the number of abandoned games

I realize the site does all it can to cut down on the amount of abandoned games in live chess, but there is more that can be done to put the power in player's hands. While there are 'eventual' consequences to habitually abandoning, if the number of abandoned games were shown (like for Online Chess), a player can quickly look to check the record.

If the ratio is very small, it's probably legitimate due to connection issues. However, if it's 10% for example, it's likely intentional. As a player, I can simply glance at the numbers and decide if I want to play this person before making the first move. This would help greatly. In conjunction with what the site imposes on the abusers, this could cut down on the frustration by having the information beforehand. 

Thank you for your consideration on this matter.

Battlesquared

Just take the win and move on.

It's not about the 'win' or getting the meaningless online rating points. It's the principle and not rewarding people who abuse the system by not playing them in the first place.

What a sheltered life you must lead.

"Battle" has a good point. A competent player should be able to tell whenthey are lost with no chance to fight on. The courteous thing to do is resign; most do. It is difficult to legislate morality or maturity.

I don't mind if a player wants to fight to the 'bitter end', that is their perogative. I am talking about when the player knows he/she is in a lost position and instead of resigning...disconnects intentionally out of spite. We've all run into this and it will always be a part of any online chess site, due to the anonymity. I'd just like to have as much information as possible regarding 'abandonded games' and then it's up to each person to decide what to do with it.

good idea trolls would think twice before abandoning lost games.

i play blitz, sometimes they let clock run down, or disconnect

i premove the checkmate, block the opponent and go to the kitchen to grab a cup of tea 

Exactly mnostrant! Haggard, I understand what you're saying. I usually just go work on Tactics Trainer or Online Chess and leave the sound 'ON" in case they return. I've even resigned occasionally if I'm in a hurry rather than succumb to just 'waiting' for meaningless online rating points. (After all, when you play at home...you don't get rating points, but you both know who won). 

While I don't allow these Trolls to ruin my day by doing other things and letting the clock do the work, it would be nice to just have an idea beforehand of the likelihood that it is going to happen. After that, it's "Caveat Emptor". 

Unfortnately he OP's idea won't work since the system has no way to distinguish between games that are intentionally abandoned versus those that are unintentionally disconnected due to technical reasons.  Such a system would unfairly label people that happened to have poor connections.

Well, as stated in my first post...people have to use a little common sense. It's easy to distinguish between a few legit disconnects out of hundreds of games and a large percentage. Also, they already show this for Online chess (they label it "timeouts"). 

Also, the OP does begin to enforce sanctions on those who habitually do it. (They must wait longer between games, etc.). The system doesn't distinguish already, but looks at a percentage of games abandoned. I'd just like the information, so I can make the same judgement.

Lastly, I spoke to several Staff people about this and they concurred. In fact, they were the one's who suggested I post it in the site feedback and suggestion area as they have had these discussions in the past and it had lost steam.

The "timeout" percentage in Online Chess is not unfair because even members with the worst connections have days for each move, so if they run out of time it's not for technical reasons.

But in Live Chess, technical problems can easily ruin a game.  And using "common sense" to distinguish between disconnects due to abandonment vs technical problems is not reliable.  Define "common sense".  Is good sense (intelligence) really that common?  Doesn't seem so to me.  Most people are ruled by their knee-jerk emotions and don't hesitate to accuse others of misbehaviour based on flimsy evidence.  How high would the disconnect percentage need to be before we attribute it to intentional disconnects?  What does "common sense" say about this?  If there is no universally accepted value, then the decision is arbitrary and therefore useless and maybe even counter-productive (would malign and punish members who are already disadvantaged by poor connections).

I would wager that the programmers didn't implement a timeout/disconnect percentage for Live Chess specifically for the reasons I just gave.  It would be a good idea if there existed a reliable way to tell when a disconnect is intentional.  This might be possible in theory, but sounds difficult in practice.

I respect your opinion and the point of this was to just start a good discussion to improve the site if possibe, as requested by several staff members. I do see your point about how the interpretation of the stat would be subjective.

Maybe it would be helpful to find out what the OP considers an 'accepted value' and begins to punish the violators. At least we would all have a 'baseline' and then can make our own choice.

  I like the idea. I usually play g/10 and it is not unusual to have to wait until there is only a few seconds on the clock before they are forfeited. I don't know how many games or % of games has to happen before the admin bans them but it must be pretty high. Often if you go to the players home page the comments posted show that this is something they do often.

Abandoning lots of games before the first move in response to looking at someone's stats would put you on a similar list of undesirable opponents who abandons regularly.

The question is not really about timeouts but abandoned games. 

@ glamdring27: If you don't make a move, the server times you out in 21 seconds, it isn't considered abandoned and no points are exchanged. (Just the right amount of time to quickly look at the stats and decide).

Yeah, I realise it isn't officially considered an abandonment, but really it is.  People ducking out of random games just because they don't happen to like something about their opponent's stats or don't like that they are playing black should still count as an abandonment in my opinion.

I disagree, as a quick glance at things reveals quite a lot about a player. An example would be just clicking on 'games' and if you see a bunch of 1 and 2 move lost games, you know this person is sandbagging. Simply reading what others have wrote (assuming the player didn't delete them) is very helpful. If someone is constantly abusive, disconnects, etc...it can show up via the comments.

As far as not playing black, that does not work. You will continuously get black until you play a game as the computer tracks for that.