Eliminate the Abort option

I posted this in the live chess forum: Reposted here as a suggestion to fix this. I think it addresses the legit needs of those who are pro-abort. At the same time, it slashes the abuse.

I've been reading more about the "pros" and "cons" of aborting. I still don't like it, and I think its unfair.

But, I think the "feature" can be preserved if there were more controls around it. E.g. Once matched, both sides could need to click "ready" to start the game, but only prior to any moves being made. That way Black isn't given choice of white's first move (via aborting until he finds the one he likes). I'd even go so far as to say this needing to click "ready" should only be available if one of the two players has been in the queue for longer than 1 minute to prevent abuse... (what? you did a seek, and were matched in 2 seconds and you want the ability to abort because you left your computer? RRRRRIGHT!).

For those who don't like waiting for white's first move - easy - start the clock immediately after matching, with the exception mentioned above (must click "ready" if one side has been waiting > some number of seconds/minutes).

For those seeking to play only one side of the board (e.g. only white, or only black), or only a particular opening, do seeks allow for these options? If not, these options should be implemented. Then your opponent can decide if he's willing to play as black, simply because you chose white, or if he's willing to play after the first 5 moves of the King's Gambit accepted. And your opponent can decide if he wants to play a rated game under those conditions.

With those options, you can have all games "binding" and fair, and address the underlying reasons of those who argue they still need this feature.

Just my 2 cents.

 Sounds like a pretty reasonable idea. The only problem with having the option to choose your color is that most people would attempt to only play white.

I suppose that I should have included the caveat that you would only be matched against someone who also chose to pick their own color - the opposite being black. This is self adjusting, as if everyone picks white, they will be waiting a very long time. My original point is: Why should those who choose random be at a disadvantage compared to those who "abort" to be white all the time? We should separate out those who are not really looking for a random game. These people want a pre-set game. They should play against like-minded people who also want a pre-set game.

I see no problem with this, so I think its a good suggestion for development.

We've only just moved away from this system. It skews the rating if people can choose their colour.

Dear Cystem Phailure,

Are you by any chance predisposed to wishing to play one colour more often than not? I'm not....

Well, ratings are skewed now then, because they get to pick their color, effectively via aborts. I suppose there is some logic in keeping presets unrated.

????   Would that make any sense given my position that using the abort button for color choice is abuse?

Why don't you just look at my record?  You'll see that I play essentially only correspondence games (only 6 "live" games during my time on chess.com, 3 as White, 3 as Black), and for more than a year I've played only team matches and tournaments.  In both of those formats I play every opponent twice, once from each side of the board.  But I've had tournaments where all of my first games against the other group members were with Black, and others where the first games were with a mix of White and Black.  And guess what?  It just doesn't matter.  It ends up being an even mix, just like the overall result of chess.com's color assignments for seek games.

They did. A year ago.

how-come-we-cant-choose-what-color-we-are-in-live-anymore

I think the abort option should be available but not for 4 moves, surely? I didn't realise it was. I have aborted games before playing my first move (the phone goes, my opponent hasn't moved as white etc) but I have never used it in a gamesmanship way.

Unfortunately, not all players play the game in a sporting manner. So, here are some simple guidelines that everyone ought to be following:

1) If you find you are playing against the wrong "type" of player - eg rating too high or too low... time control incorrect etc etc, you should have the wherewithal to check these details PRIOR to making your first move.

2) Abort should be used if opponent is taking a long time to make their first move (in some cases, they might be waiting for the game to start at their end). In this circumstance, abort comes after no moves have been played.

3) As has been mentioned - many players don't want to play against a certain type of opening. Very poor sportsmanship in my opinion. If I open 1.e4 then my opponent should be prepared to play against that.

4) There should be a ratings subtraction on players who persistently abort - i.e. more than 5% abort rate flags up a rating subtraction as follows: Game aborted before ANY moves played = minus 0. Game aborted after one move = minus 5, Game aborted after 2 moves = minus 10, Game aborted after 3 moves = minus 15, Game aborted after 4 moves = minus 20. Simples. Once your rating dips low enough and you decide you want to actually play some chess, your 5% abort rate will reduce but you shouldn't recover the rating points. There could be a feature where it shows a players abort %age as well.

Not an ideal solution and apologies if someone has already published anything similar to the above (I've only read the most recent page!).

Happy chessings!

Then why don't YOU change YOUR settings - you can elect to "play as white" or "play as black". Perhaps a little more messing around at your end but, let's be fair, it's you who want "special" treatment. I find by clicking "I don't mind" for choice of colour that I get a pretty even spread of white's and black's. This way, you will be able to play chess with the colour you want to play with so you will be happy and the many people that you leave disgruntled will also be happier because you won't be aborting on them for, apparently "absolutely no reason"!

That's only an option for unrated games.  The choice was removed from rated games to keep people from abusing color choice.  If you select "rated" and then select a color preference, the "rated" setting automatically changes to "unrated".

So it does. Still, I think you are being a bit finnicky about this. Why not just play random? I've played 2000 odd games and probably 40 more as black than white which seems to mean the "random" feature is largely working.

Should you be too worried about whether you get too many white's or black's? I just don't think your reasoning behind hitting abort, just because you don't get the colour you want, is justifiable. If it does annoy you that much that you won't get "one black, one white" in a regimental fashion, why not stick to unrated games so that you are not annoying others?!

I do understand your viewpoint, I just do not agree with it as a principle.

As I said previously, people aborting on me doesn't bother me too much - I usually end up with an opponent of some sort and I'm never too fussy what their rating is (since they seem to fluctuate so much on here anyway).

Just to clarify, in case you were responding to me, I'm not one of those advocating choosing their color.  I'm one of the guys who has been ripping into them.  

I think a chess player has the right to choose for himself or herself whether or not to abort his or her own game.

Ah, got you confused with the person I responded to earlier! I stand by my comments though so we're on the same page! :)

Reversing the coin, doesn't a player also have the right not to have their time wasted by someone aborting? You can't have your cake and eat it you know! Perhaps there should be an option to not accept or display challenges from people who have aborted, say, one or more of their last 20 games. That might actually get people playing chess! 

That might be interesting.  Those who abort lots of games would soon be winnowed down to only being able to see seeks from one another. 

Yep - give them a dose (of their own medicine)! Actually, as I've said, I have aborted myself in the past but it's usually after only one move or if my opponent keeps aborting against me (i.e. trying to get me to play an opening on their terms and not mine!).

I don't think there's justification for getting rid of it but a "name and shame" or "rogues gallery" or "weeding out" system would be good in my book! 

Again, I think if both sides had a "ready" button and an "abort" button to press before colors are chosen, then everything would work out okay. If he waits too long to click his ready button... he's gone for coffee or is on the phone, and you can ABORT!

If both parties click Ready though, the board is set up, the abort button dissappears, and the time should start ticking down IMMEDIATELY, (or maybe after a 3 or even 5 second countdown or something).

At that point, if you want out of a rated game, your options are draw or resign. You can always get those ratings points up next time when you stick to it until the end!

As for the fact that picking colour is unrated games only - that's probably good. Does it really matter if its not rated? I mean, your reason for picking only white is just because you're experimenting, right? (Certainly NOT because you want an unfair advantage! That would be preposterous!). Then you shouldn't be rated on your experiments. You should be rated on your abilities under the fairest circumstances for both players.