So an idea I had is that we could offer to abort a game. Like let's say you play someone much weaker. 1.e4 e5 2. Nfe. Then your opponent realizes he forgot something on the stove and wants out. But if you take a draw you will lose rating. So the players could agree to instead abort the game meaning that there is no rating change.
An alternative approach is that you automatically don't change rating if it's a draw in the first few moves. It has the advantage that it's simpler, but disadvantage that it's less flexible. If you go down a mainline for 10 moves it can make sense to abort even that far into the game.
This is an excelent idea.
Yeah, makes sense! Maybe we can cap the abort option for a certain number of moves?
<Comment deleted by user>
Hello
i don ́t understand why so many players care so much about their rating.
For me the only purpose of rating is to get an even opponent in the quick pairing so that the game is fun with winning opportunities on both sides.
So when i have to leave the game for whatever reason i simply give up.
Minus six points who cares? Doesn ́t influence my playing strenght in any way.
This happens not often, so what?
Have fun.
For some people, the rating they have may represent years of hard work. They don't want to lose it due to an unfortunate situation. So, an abort option, by mutual agreement within 10 or 5 moves, would be a great thing... :)
> For some people, the rating they have may represent years of hard work. They don't want to lose it due to an unfortunate situation.
that's not how ratings work, ratings are not a currency. if you lose a couple of points due to unfortunate situations, all it will take is a few games and your rating will converge towards your true strength again.
what your years of hard work gained you is your playing strength, not your rating.
The stumbling block I see with the idea is that it is a potential source of bad feeling. A player requests an abort. The opponent will then feel under some moral pressure to accept when they would rather play on. Declining the abort request might seem churlish, so they accept against their will and feel cheated out of a game.
Of course there are plenty of legitimate situations where a player simply has to leave the game (pan on stove was your example, there are many others). But I think I'd prefer to see that player resign rather than introduce this new ethical minefield. Resigning when you are not lost is against the TOS, it's true, but it isn't a problem unless it's being done frequently. It will already be understood that there can sometimes be exceptional circumstances which force it.
@Brian-E said in #8:
> The stumbling block I see with the idea is that it is a potential source of bad feeling. A player requests an abort. The opponent will then feel under some moral pressure to accept when they would rather play on. Declining the abort request might seem churlish, so they accept against their will and feel cheated out of a game.
>
> Of course there are plenty of legitimate situations where a player simply has to leave the game (pan on stove was your example, there are many others). But I think I'd prefer to see that player resign rather than introduce this new ethical minefield. Resigning when you are not lost is against the TOS, it's true, but it isn't a problem unless it's being done frequently. It will already be understood that there can sometimes be exceptional circumstances which force it.
The same thing goes for takebacks. An option to disable them maybe would be ideal.
for takebacks you can disable that option in preferences (click your user name) and game behaviour, select never.
