Feature Request: Don't change rating points when terminating abandoned match

There are problems with allowing games to be aborted, for example:
- user interface gets even more complicated and difficult to maintain (and add future features such as adjournments)
- players may intentionally disconnect (angle shooting, whether the player is hoping for an abort or whether the player is going offline to cheat)
- chat room and forum arguments about sandbagging/boosting or other unethical behavior by players, whereas right now the current rules are quite clear and players are unlikely to award draws to disconnected opponents

Adjourning brings another host of problems, but at least these problems can be managed.

Maybe the rating should also increase or decrease by number of moves played in the game.

1. One or both guilty forfeit: Score 0, Rating 0, Forfeit limits 3 times (1st offence Warn: Teach how to exit game, 2nd offence Explain: Repetitive consequences, 3rd offence: A temporary ban implemented, Repeated bans increases the delay time to be able to play)

2. Victim of forfeited game: Recommend taking the win. Warn the victim that selecting a Loss or Draw could cause their rating to drop.

Do the present forfeited game ratings factor in the number of moves played vs time wasted during the game?
That weight factor differential could make a difference in the victims rating and tournament pairings or standings.

In Arena's do the number of winning games include forfeits? If so, than is there a tie-breaking system that gives a weight factor for the forfeited games? A person could in theory get first place if everyone forfeits when they play against that particular player that people want in first place. Seems like scoring can be biased by the way the games are forfeited.

@Toadofsky said in #31:
> There are problems with allowing games to be aborted, for example:
> - user interface gets even more complicated and difficult to maintain (and add future features such as adjournments)
> - players may intentionally disconnect (angle shooting, whether the player is hoping for an abort or whether the player is going offline to cheat)

I don't know how true this is. If I recall correctly, there was a period of time where games still in-progress at the end of an arena tournament would be aborted.

The ask is for a button to abort the game (in addition to Claim victory and Call a draw). I don't see how this contributes to players disconnecting. The user that remains is simply given wider choice on how the incomplete game should be concluded.

Additionally, I don't buy in to the arguments using FIDE's handbook. Online chess is different to FIDE tournaments, there isn't an arbiter here.

The reason I think this feature should exist is because this is online chess. People can lose connection for all kinds of reasons. Maybe their power went out? I'd like to have the option to abort the game in those situations.

@Clarkey said in #33:
> I don't know how true this is... The ask is for a button

What if an abort feature is added but there is no way to use it? In fact, what if it's already there, but there just isn't a UI control for it? You're asking for UI and UX changes, and I'm saying that changes require code, and that code has complexity.

@Clarkey said in #33:
> I don't see how this contributes to players disconnecting.

As I referenced earlier, lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/feature-request-dont-change-rating-points-when-terminating-abandoned-match#8 explains how an "abort" feature could lead to ratings manipulation; whereas abuse of an "adjourn" feature would make ToS abuses more obvious.

@Toadofsky

I think you're being a bit obtuse. I'm a professional developer and used to work on lila. I'd be impressed to find a feature request that didn't involve code changes.

Being able to claim a draw was implemented as a suggestion from me to thibault in the first place, and it was implemented for very similar reasons. If the principle of the feature is really that abhorrent, perhaps it should be removed?

If you've run the calculus and think this feature request isn't worth the effort to reward, okay. But I really don't buy into your arguments. What rating manipulation? If you can already scalp points from opponents with poor internet connections, how is this making the problem worse?

Far be it from me to come up with every possible pattern of possible abuse, but I'll try listing those which readily come to mind...

1. A player gets paired against a strong opponent and the game isn't going their way, so they intentionally disconnect. The opponent decides not to take their rating points. Possibly the player has done this against other strong opponents in the past.
2. A player gets paired against a strong opponent and the game isn't going their way, so they intentionally disconnect. The opponent decides to claim victory, then the player harasses the opponent both on Lichess and on social media, since the opponent chose not to abort the game.
3. A player studies opening traps and eventually meets an opponent who doesn't fall into them. This player then intentionally disconnects, and the opponent decides to abort the game.
4. A player disconnects every 5 moves or so to consult with an engine. Upon discovering that they have fallen into a trap, they decide not to return, and the opponent decides to abort the game.

There's all of this, but also if "abort" is added it forecloses the ability to add "adjourn" in the future unless we can figure out a UI which doesn't confuse users. Again, I'm not suggesting that "auto-adjourn" would be a thing, but especially for rapid & classical time controls I can imagine use cases where players may wish to adjourn a game; possibly even in blitz if one of the players starts lagging.

I accept your arguments. They seem like edge-cases, but large volumes of people can be surprising.

I think adjourning would be nice in this situation, but I do see the issues raised in this chat.

Personally, I'd only want it in a tournament setting. In a tournament the outcome of a game contributes to the over-all result of a series. This gives both players incentive to resume the game. In regular online settings I expect the frequency of resumption to be low.

I absolutely agree, in rapid and classical games, adjourning would be sweet, but the implementation would need to be right.

Let's imagine two players, Player A and Player B have 'auto-adjourn' enabled in their settings. Player A disconnects unexpectedly and it's their turn, the game adjourns immediately, pausing the clock. Some questions.

1. How long can the game be adjourned before it's considered abandoned?
2. When a game is considered abandoned, what happens?
3. How are games resumed?
4. Can Player B leave the page? What are Player B's commitments in this situation?
5. What can be considered abuse of the feature? How do you moderate this feature?

My 2 cents:

1. At most 24 hours, probably less. There's no need for it to be especially long. If a game has been adjourned, both players should be making an active effort to resume the game.
2. If a game is considered abandoned, presenting Player B with the usual options (Claim win, call draw) probably makes the most sense.
3. Both players need to be at the board and press a "Ready/Resume" button. You might want to put something on the homepage that reminds the players they have an adjourned game.
4. This is a tricky one and it raises a lot of questions. If Player B is in a poor position, they might not want to resume the game.
5. I'll leave that one for finer minds.

Sounds like a complicated feature. What are your plans for it?

@Toadofsky said in #36:
> Far be it from me to come up with every possible pattern of possible abuse, but I'll try listing those which readily come to mind...
>
> 1. A player gets paired against a strong opponent and the game isn't going their way, so they intentionally disconnect. The opponent decides not to take their rating points. Possibly the player has done this against other strong opponents in the past.
> 2. A player gets paired against a strong opponent and the game isn't going their way, so they intentionally disconnect. The opponent decides to claim victory, then the player harasses the opponent both on Lichess and on social media, since the opponent chose not to abort the game.
> 3. A player studies opening traps and eventually meets an opponent who doesn't fall into them. This player then intentionally disconnects, and the opponent decides to abort the game.
> 4. A player disconnects every 5 moves or so to consult with an engine. Upon discovering that they have fallen into a trap, they decide not to return, and the opponent decides to abort the game.

As @Clarkey mentions, these seem to be edge cases. But even excluding that, I don't believe these are good arguments.

All of these could be said for the takeback and claim draw features as well. A player might face a strong opponent, and decide to disconnect intentionally hoping the strong opponent would claim a draw. They might try some opening traps, and if they don't get the expected lines, request to take back the last move and try a different one.

The crucial point here is that the choice to abort/claim draw or takeback lies in the hands of the opponent. And most of the time, I believe such requests are denied anyway. So there should be no expected gain on average in the long run, and anyone can be able to see that (if not mathematically then practically or using common sense). This is why we don't usually see players abusing the already implemented take-back and claim draw feature. I fail to see why an abortion claim would make things worse.

Of course, I do agree with the UI/UX and implementation overhead. But this is not a complicated feature and should not add much overhead. And yes, I do agree players would be more likely to abort than to claim draw since claim draw affects the rating change. But regardless, due to the above-explained reasons, I believe the effect of abuse should be negligible.

@Toadofsky said in #36:
> There's all of this, but also if "abort" is added it forecloses the ability to add "adjourn" in the future unless we can figure out a UI which doesn't confuse users. Again, I'm not suggesting that "auto-adjourn" would be a thing, but especially for rapid & classical time controls I can imagine use cases where players may wish to adjourn a game; possibly even in blitz if one of the players starts lagging.

Good points, but adjourning is a complicated thing. Best to leave that to another discussion I suppose.

@sgtlaugh said in #38:
> adjourning is a complicated thing

How so?

Also, let's note that Chess.com doesn't allow game aborts after move 1, just like Lichess... just because ICC/FICS allow it doesn't make it a good feature:
support.chess.com/article/1206-what-does-it-mean-to-abort-a-game-how-do-i-do-it

My suggestion:
Keep the oppenent-left-the-game dialogue as it is, but whenever the "Call draw"-option has been chosen, the game is switched to unrated. The code for switching a running game to unrated appears to exist already, because running games are switched to unrated as soon as one of the players is banned for cheating in former games.