Chess.com Needs Your Input - Live Chess Games Adjourned?!

Sort:

goavs191

Nov 10, 2008

#141

Hey all. If you have visited Live Chess recently (since Nov 8th) you might have noticed a few new changes. One is private and group chat! The first step in making communication in Live Chess better. The second is game "adjournment".

This is how it currently works:

You are playing a game. If your opponent disconnects (could be intentional or because of their internet connection or Chess.com's server's fault), then that game is auto-adjourned. Then if your opponent comes back online you will both see a yellow highlighted game in the SEEKS window and either of you can click on RESUME. If you don't finish the game before 7 days, then the game is "Adjudicated", meaning that the winner is judged to be a WIN, LOSS, DRAW, or ABORT (if too short).

Question is, how SHOULD it work :)

How long should people have to resume? What about playing while you have a pending game and that person is online?

Please give us your thoughts! :)

Erik

I think they should have 10 or 15 minutes to come back after adjourning thats long enough to get reconnected. Anybody that needs longer is just trying to cheat. Also I feel that the person that gets adjourned on shouldn't lose the game ever, either they get a voided game or the win

erik

Nov 10, 2008

#142

chess_kebabs wrote:

I was wondering how you would have time to adjudicate anyway Erik! Personally, I like the opportunity to resume the game and finish off there and then and not have time to study the game and move within 7 days.....but I guess it gives both sides the opportunity to study the game, but the person who was winning at the time of the disconnect might not wish this to occur. It's LIVE chess, not turn-based chess, and I feel should remain LIVE. You almost need a referendum on this one! One thing is for sure, whatever decision you make you can't please every body...so the democratic way no doubt will prevail here, what the majority will think is fair and want.

that's why you get a choice of what to do: wait, claim win, or adjourn :)

bondiggity

Nov 10, 2008

#143

I like the idea erik, sounds good.

gumpty

Nov 10, 2008

#144

- if you get more than 10% disconnects (with minimum of 5 games and defined as games where you disconnected and did not resume within 90 seconds) then you get the following penalties: you can no longer accept open seeks (except those from other "disconnectors"); when you post a seek your name is red and your seek is at the bottom of the list - everyone will know you are a "disconnector". - punishes disconnectors the problem with this erik, is that you seem to be assuming that anyone who loses their connection a lot must be cheating or doing it on purpose.I for one would be labelled a 'disconnector, the first day this came into effect, due to the fact that i have to use a wireless usb modem connection which means i disconnect a lot and probably 1 in 4 games on livechess i have lost have been due to lagging out, but i would always come straight back, and finish straight away if i had that option, but i really dont want labelling a cheat or 'disconnector' and have my name made red, for doing nothing wrong!. please dont think that people who lose their connection a lot are always doing it not to lose! :-)

erik

Nov 10, 2008

#145

Ray_Brooks wrote:

90 secs to reconnect is not long enough. When I get disconnected from C.c, it's not the simple process of opening again (usually takes 20 or 30 mins this way), I have to reboot my machine to get back on. 5 mins minimum please, 10 mins comfortable.

the problem is that we can't expect to have people waiting for 10 minutes to continue playing. that isn't reasonable to the other player. what are they supposed to do? this would also encourage other players to quit because it causes inconvenience to the other person (if trying to spite).

likesforests

Nov 10, 2008

#146

Erik, a 90-second grace period plus limiting to 10% disconnects sounds great. I mean, it's an improvement over the no-adjournments model and would smooth over temporarily disconnections without encouraging abuse or causing much frustration.

But one concern:

> if you get more than 10% disconnects (with minimum of 5 games and defined as games where you disconnected and did not resume within 90 seconds)

Should we limit disconnect-resumes to three per person per game?

A dozen disconnect-resumes in a game--whether due to an abuser who doesn't want to take the loss or due to poor connectivity--would be frustrating. Just an idea.

kasayu

Nov 10, 2008

#147

3 and 7 days are too long for live chess. Why not just play online chess?

You should make the end of live chess games after 24 hours at most.

olivemyluv

Nov 10, 2008

#148

I understand the notion that u may not see adjourn games in your archives for reasons that are obvious, however, I think you should at least be able to see how many adjourned games you've been subjected to and are waiting to continue. Simply a list, without being able to view the gameboard, along with the opponents name and days left to resume. (That is, for those of us with several adjourned games that have occured during the early stages of ADJOURNMENT INDECISION 08' )

likesforests

Nov 10, 2008

#149

gumpty> this erik, is that you seem to be assuming that anyone who loses their connection a lot must be cheating or doing it on purpose.

A "disconnector" in this model is simply someone who often can't finish their live chess games--of course, they shouldn't be viewed as cheaters.

likesforests

Nov 10, 2008

#150

RainbowRising> If you disconnect you lose automatically. Period.

Did you see Erik's most recent proposal? Is waiting 90s for your opponent to resume before flagging the loss, as Erik proposed, too long?

gumpty

Nov 10, 2008

#151

likesforests wrote:

gumpty> this erik, is that you seem to be assuming that anyone who loses their connection a lot must be cheating or doing it on purpose.

A "disconnector" in this model is simply someone who often can't finish their live chess games--of course, they shouldn't be viewed as cheaters.

so why label them red, and put their seeks to the bottom of the list to make it hard for them to get games then?

likesforests

Nov 10, 2008

#152

gumpty, when your wireless goes down, do you usually get back within 90s?

It sounds like this would be better for you than the original no-adjournments scheme because short outages wouldn't flag as a loss, and long outages may or may not be a loss, depending on your opponent's patience.

Although having a high disconnect%--like having a high timeout%--may make you the second choice for players with more reliable connections. Is that unfair?

(Maybe "orange" is better than "red" to imply caution rather than danger?)

Juan_Endgame

Nov 10, 2008

#153

"after those 90 seconds, if the game is more than 4 ply (2 moves each) then the window gives you 3 options:

- claim win
- abort game (no result, nobody wins, no rating changes)
- adjourn game

you could also wait longer and your opponent can auto-resume as long as you keep that window open (until you close the session or window, in which case the game would adjourn)."

So you can wait for a bit longer but if you get bored waiting you cant then claim the win, but you could claim the win if you didnt wait at all for your opponent to come back?

how about these options in a pop up box after 90 seconds:

-Claim win.

-Stop the clocks and wait for your opponent to comeback, claim win anytime by closing game.

-Abort game (no change in ratings).

-Adjournment (not an option I see much point in and makes for more complications).

Lastly as someone else says there should be a limit to the amount of disconnects per game allowed or it could get silly.

phindex

Nov 10, 2008

#154

rileyriley wrote:

http://www.chess.com/images/icons/custom/quote.gif); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: #d7d7d0; color: #444444; padding-top: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 24px; display: block; background-position: 4px 4px; margin: 6px; border: 1px solid #bcbcb3;">

Sorry, I haven't read the posts before mine. This is in response only to the original post.

I am disconnected frequently, so I have a lot of thoughts about this. I will narrate the reaction from chess.com that seems ideal to me.

I disconnect. Once it is my turn, my opponent is presented with the option of stopping my clock (to wait for me) or letting it run. If he decides to wait, he may change his mind at any time before we start playing again. After he has decided to wait and stop my clock, he is free to start another game, but he may not join another game while my clock is running and he may not start my clock while he is in another game. If he disconnects then my clock is stopped and the game is put on pause.

When I reconnect, I am presented with the option of continuing the game or forfeiting. I may not play any other games until this game is resolved. If my opponent is playing another game, I may wait for it to finish, or forfeit, but I cannot start a new game (because if I could we might go back and forth starting games 5 minutes after each other). If my opponent has disconnected I may wait for him to come back online or forfeit.

We can continue in this state for up to 7 days, at which point chess.com decides (correctly) that it's never going to happen and gives my opponent a win and me a loss for the game. The game is somehow marked "lost by disconnection," not just "lost," but my rating is affected the same as if it were just a loss.

Once our game resumes, all power is lost to both sides and everything is as if we had never disconnected.

Note that this scheme gives my opponent the power to effect the old chess.com default behavior. He can use this power to prevent me from abusing the disconnection rule. If we were having a good game and he would like to finish it, we may. He can also use this power to force a loss on me even if I was winning, but I think I should be responsible for having a decent connection. It lowers the enjoyment for everyone when someone (usually me) disconnects and I don't expect to have all of you work around that. If my opponent is annoyed that I disconnected in the middle of an intense game, I think it is his right to let my clock run out (but not to just declare a loss for me instantly).

I'll be happy to clarify any of my points! I think it's a great way to go!

Scratch everything I've said before, rileyriley has by far the best solution I have seen.

phindex

ghuczek

Nov 10, 2008

#155

I have had three players "adjourn" in losing positions. "Live chess" should be just that. Why give players a few days to let a computer analyse the position?

erik

Nov 10, 2008

#156

being a "disconnector" means that you have NOT re-connected within 90 seconds (which should be totally reasonable for 95% of people). maybe it isn't red, but grey or something. its just that people shuld know if they are playing someone who does not reliably finish games.

erik

Nov 10, 2008

#157

chess_kebabs wrote:

I said the same thing Ghuczek, but Erik has said there is a choice, you can claim a win and not keep the game going, if I read that right?

correct. also, we have abandoned the computer adjudication :)

erik

Nov 10, 2008

#158

so i discussed all of this with jay and he seems to feel that nobody will really use the "adjourn" feature at all and it is a waste of resources to build it. he thinks that 99% of the time people will claim a win on time. do you agree??

gumpty

Nov 10, 2008

#159

ok erik, thats fine, i thought as soon as you lost your connection that was classed as a disconnect, but if its only IF you dont reconnect, thats fair :-)

NM DavidForthoffer

Nov 10, 2008

#160

I think an "adjourn" feature will be abused more than used.

This forum topic has been locked

Forums

Hot Topics

Unanswered

Most Recent

Post your best miniatures here

AngelinaFerri 5 min ago

Opening