lichess.org
Donate

There ought to be an "Unfinished" option of game resolution

? 'omniscient' ? Nooooooooooooo [Neo-Luddites convention soon: look for your carrier pidgeons]
#22 That's actually a lot less in line with club play, as I stated, the current system is virtually exactly how the rules work for rated play in any form of chess. If a game goes to arbitration in club play, there is no computer to determine who has an edge. The vast majority of games where someone leaves the board would be arbitrated as a forfeit unless the opponent requested a draw...i.e. exactly how it is here.

There is also nothing to say that having any amount of advantage from the computer would be more "fair" in determining the winner of the game. It takes the human factor in which the player might have left because he couldn't find a way out of a mate and got angry and stormed away from the board, even though there is a technical computer line that shows he's ahead by a pawn or something. So it goes. So you arbitrate because you think you are winning but are not sure, and the computer gives your opponent the win, even though he forfeited the game because he thought he would lose?

As I said the pretense behind this adjournment idea is nice, but it just isn't realistic to how competitive chess play functions. Adjournment doesn't really happen anymore.
Don't mean to be pedantic about this :). But I don't follow the argument. The option to arbitrate would be in addition to the currently available options. So someone could still claim a win/draw/resignation. The "computer arbitration" would be useful to people who might, in some cases, share grimus' desire (as I understand it) for a "more fair" outcome. If, when a player leaves, the remaining player is unclear on who is winning then they could defer to the computer (in addition to the current options)?

I understand your explanation on why arbitration in club play would usually result in a forfeit but in online chess there is a legitimate case of lost connectivity. I guess the analogous thing in club play would be the player being abducted. In such a case, the human arbiter would likely base their decision on the position's relative strength? i.e., something which Stockfish can do very quickly and "fairly" (ok, if not "omnisciently", lol #21 :) ).

I can see how this additional option might not be worth the development effort but why is it "wrong" to have it?
I didn't say it was "wrong" I took issue with your point that it would be "more similar" to club play. In that regard it is not. It is something that could only ever exist online.

That being said, it's not "wrong" I just don't think the devs are going to find it worth their time to appease the <0.1% of lichess users who would care enough to use it.

(The math is accurate because that the vast majority, probably well over 90% of users, are not very vocal on the forums and are just here to play hard and play fast. So even if 1% of forum users said they wanted the feature, that would be 1% of 10% of all users, and there might be 1% of that other 90% to add to that. So <0.1%)
I just want to make a quick comment about the "computer arbiter" thing.

That is a clever approach for sure, but I think it has a problem.

If you look at the analysis the computer does, it doesn't really know what it is doing. I've played games where the computer says one person has a huge advantage, right up to the move of checkmate against them.

I think people could too easily abuse that situation by simply leaving right when they can no longer avoid checkmate, if they are up in material, the comp might say they won!
static, I see now. It has to be different from club play, my mistake to suggest it would be more similar.

I agree on the percentages, as well, most people wouldn't make use of an option like that. I can see why the devs wouldn't go for it, if implementing it is anything other than trivial.

grimus, if someone leaves the game in that way (when they can't avoid checkmate) their opponent can still claim victory? The idea was to have a choice of being "extra-courteous", for those opponents who might deserve it.

The above being said, I am not pushing for the "computer arbitration" button at all :). I wanted to understand static's reasoning in his previous posts.
@Grimus

That's not how to computer analysis works at all. As soon as they have a forced checkmate against you, the advantage goes to 10 (maximum) against you, unless of course they miss it the sequence. Try it out for yourself in any possible situation.
____ @morid -- I believe you are arguing against grumus' words (a valid argument) and missing the point,,, I have often been in a position where an opponent with inferior material (& even development) has my prospects (& brain) in a full nelson. What makes it worse is that I know there should be a way out & I can't see it... If I were to 'pull out' & trigger arbitration the computer may find the 'saving' combo for me and then -- LOGICALLY PLAYING ITSELF -- award me the win because of material/ position

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.