I play an irregular opening with white and frequently encounter people just aborting the game to avoid playing it. The system detecting whether somebody needs to be punished for aborting games needs to be much stricter to pick up on these people.
People who abort games are punished.
Although a warning appears for both players.
The person may be punished, receiving a play ban automatically by the system, but no one will see it (only the person).
But apart from that part
There are 2 types of people: those who complain that punishments are too light and those who complain that punishments are too heavy
It's 8 or 80, they're never satisfied
Although a warning appears for both players.
The person may be punished, receiving a play ban automatically by the system, but no one will see it (only the person).
But apart from that part
There are 2 types of people: those who complain that punishments are too light and those who complain that punishments are too heavy
It's 8 or 80, they're never satisfied
@SergioGlorias said in #2:
> There are 2 types of people: those who complain that punishments are too light and those who complain that punishments are too heavy
... and a third type which understands that a middle ground needs to be followed, giving warnings initially and serious sanctions if the behaviour persists. As is indeed done on the site.
I had my first ever warning for failing to start a game a few days ago. My connection failed (huge sudden lag) just as the game was starting. I was glad nothing more came of the incident. But I guess there's now a blemish on my record here. ;-)
The problem, @realZoliking , is that the system cannot generally determine the reason for failing to start a game. It's probably true that a lot of your opponents are indeed aborting the game because they don't like your opening move, but the system can only earmark which of those opponents that is if they do it regularly with other players too. And if they do it regularly, then ultimately they won't be able to play games at all.
> There are 2 types of people: those who complain that punishments are too light and those who complain that punishments are too heavy
... and a third type which understands that a middle ground needs to be followed, giving warnings initially and serious sanctions if the behaviour persists. As is indeed done on the site.
I had my first ever warning for failing to start a game a few days ago. My connection failed (huge sudden lag) just as the game was starting. I was glad nothing more came of the incident. But I guess there's now a blemish on my record here. ;-)
The problem, @realZoliking , is that the system cannot generally determine the reason for failing to start a game. It's probably true that a lot of your opponents are indeed aborting the game because they don't like your opening move, but the system can only earmark which of those opponents that is if they do it regularly with other players too. And if they do it regularly, then ultimately they won't be able to play games at all.
I don't have any more information than the system, they don't say in chat why they quit. I know how uncommon the opening I use is, so does the system, lichess has solid stats. I see that they abort the game after they see the move, so can the system. And despite not seeing anybody individually punished I can tell that the system is not picking up on this by how frequently it happens.
Whenever I use the Sicilian in playing some less than 1300 players, they abort the game. Although I have gotten the ELO and the Points in the tournament, I have wasted 3 minutes as it is super blitz. Also, when I playing in the tournament, I often get to #1 in 10 minutes, then if players like 900 and 1000 will simply not play anything. I have wasted 3 minutes when I could have won 2 games in it.
<HUH>
@realZoliking said in #1:
> I play an irregular opening with white and frequently encounter people just aborting the game to avoid playing it. The system detecting whether somebody needs to be punished for aborting games needs to be much stricter to pick up on these people.
Is it the Catalan?
> I play an irregular opening with white and frequently encounter people just aborting the game to avoid playing it. The system detecting whether somebody needs to be punished for aborting games needs to be much stricter to pick up on these people.
Is it the Catalan?
@realZoliking said in #1:
> I play an irregular opening with white and frequently encounter people just aborting the game to avoid playing it. The system detecting whether somebody needs to be punished for aborting games needs to be much stricter to pick up on these people.
I don't see anything terrible. A person has the right to cancel a game if he thinks so. Maybe he doesn't like your rating (low or high) or maybe he mixed up the control he wanted to play or he doesn't like your first move. We don't play OTB in classic where such behavior would lead to defeat, this is online chess. Therefore, it doesn't harm anyone, it is clear that if a person constantly interrupts games, he will get a temporary ban and this is fair. Otherwise, I don't see any sense in any punishment at all. As I already wrote above, there can be a huge number of reasons why your opponent does this. And he does not complicate your life in any way, all you need to do is find a new opponent. In the worst case, he takes 10 seconds of your life
> I play an irregular opening with white and frequently encounter people just aborting the game to avoid playing it. The system detecting whether somebody needs to be punished for aborting games needs to be much stricter to pick up on these people.
I don't see anything terrible. A person has the right to cancel a game if he thinks so. Maybe he doesn't like your rating (low or high) or maybe he mixed up the control he wanted to play or he doesn't like your first move. We don't play OTB in classic where such behavior would lead to defeat, this is online chess. Therefore, it doesn't harm anyone, it is clear that if a person constantly interrupts games, he will get a temporary ban and this is fair. Otherwise, I don't see any sense in any punishment at all. As I already wrote above, there can be a huge number of reasons why your opponent does this. And he does not complicate your life in any way, all you need to do is find a new opponent. In the worst case, he takes 10 seconds of your life
I never use abort function but it would seem odd for the site to provide a function then punish players who use it, maybe they should either remove the function or place a clear set daily limit on how many times in any given day a player can abort a game, 3,5,10, whatever appropriate, none at all in arena's, see what feedback they get, you could even have a counter on your game pages saying how many left in any given day. If going to have the function should be nice and clear how can be used. of course someone could start a game and resign after a few moves but that would affect their rating but if someone was doing so on principle, e.g. not prepared to play a game against anyone who plays this sort of opening, they won't mind that vs players who abort knowing they don't lose rating but would play if they do lose rating.
trying to be balanced, assuming you mean 1. b4, Polish Opening, would call it a less common opening than weird, nothing wrong with that, if found an opening you enjoy then good to play it over and over and try to learn it as well as you can. if over time you manage to improve your rating and get to a bit higher rating level you will likely find less of an issue, more players at higher levels these days are quite happy to get out of the more standard opening theory / computer prep as quick as can, but flip that a bit, when you play hundreds then thousands of games and see players playing odd chess but play remarkably well and what appears to be well above their rating level then lots of players will suspect cheating and over time take a view no longer prepared to play those sort of games. some players will be more casual players or beginners who are trying to learn to play good principled chess and don't want anything to do with anyone playing like you say what is weird chess to them, lots of reasons. you may want to play a mix of games via home page and via arena tournaments and see if get better luck one over other.
trying to be balanced, assuming you mean 1. b4, Polish Opening, would call it a less common opening than weird, nothing wrong with that, if found an opening you enjoy then good to play it over and over and try to learn it as well as you can. if over time you manage to improve your rating and get to a bit higher rating level you will likely find less of an issue, more players at higher levels these days are quite happy to get out of the more standard opening theory / computer prep as quick as can, but flip that a bit, when you play hundreds then thousands of games and see players playing odd chess but play remarkably well and what appears to be well above their rating level then lots of players will suspect cheating and over time take a view no longer prepared to play those sort of games. some players will be more casual players or beginners who are trying to learn to play good principled chess and don't want anything to do with anyone playing like you say what is weird chess to them, lots of reasons. you may want to play a mix of games via home page and via arena tournaments and see if get better luck one over other.
It is surely unacceptable, when playing Black, to abort the game because you don't like White's opening move. Take that to extremes and players wouldn't need to learn a defence against 1.e4 for example. Just abort all games where the opponent opens with that. And for players like the topic starter who play an unusual opening move with White, it isn't fair for any shock value in this move to be nullified by the ability to abort the game in response.
The abort function is there on move 1 to enable cancellation in rare instances where the game was started in error. It needs to be there but must not be misused.
The abort function is there on move 1 to enable cancellation in rare instances where the game was started in error. It needs to be there but must not be misused.