lichess.org
Donate

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

Or -- next to the delete & edit buttons -- we could also have an 'edit & delete'...
Actually, the edit button is an EXCELLENT IDEA
What grimus is asking for is for a game ending state that is called 'Unfinished'. Not adjournment. The * in PGN signifies a game is still ongoing, or that will otherwise continue. So * is no good for our purposes.

Simply put, it is impossible to represent this in PGN... unless, you know you just consider it a draw, which is the standard practice.

Also, grimus, you conveniently dodged my question at #31. [ direct link: lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/there-ought-to-be-an-unfinished-option-of-game-resolution?page=4#31 ]
Explaining relevance for a statement or suggestion is inconvenient, Hellball. It's why when I ask for someone to explain their logic I'm often met with ludicrous tantrums that force topics closed rather than logical discussions.
Re: #42, I don't mean to answer for grimus but (referring to #31) a draw does not mean the game is inconclusive, otherwise the rating wouldn't change after one.

If I draw against a GM, the change in my rating would reflect that this outcome is (and should be considered as) my best performance ever!

In this sense a draw wouldn't satisfy grimus' quest for the "most fair" outcome.

I can see how declaring the game as "unfinished" would introduce a host of unnecessary complications. So, barring computer adjudication, giving someone the option to "erase" the game (show it as cancelled, never started) instead of claiming victory, drawing, or resigning *when and only when their opponent has left the game* would be a welcome option to some.

Personally, I don't care much for the option and I accept that it may not be worth the development effort. I am only pointing out that, the way I see it, grimus' idea is not unfounded. Say, for example, you are playing against a friend who you know had to leave urgently (i.e., you know that they are not cheating). You want to be extra courteous, so you elect to delete the game (computer adjudication would have its appeal, too, but it can be more work to develop I suspect).
Donterr, very good job defending my view, actually. thanks.

I don't think that the computer arbitration is very useful or necessary.

As far as it being difficult for the computer program to deal with these "abandoned" games, it should be easy.

Whatever the computer does when either side abandons the game before each side makes a first move is what it should do after the option is available when time runs out or the person "leaves".
So, I think the idea is something that is possible to accomplish. Then again, I don't think anyone argued that it wasn't possible. I think the main arguments against such a feature are not in terms of whether it's a nice idea or not (I think most agree it's a nice idea) nor whether it's even possible (I think we've all agreed it's possible). Let's go back to the basic questions about why it should/shouldn't be done:

1) Objectively, even if a GM disconnected against you and you won a lot of rating points, your rating would go back down, and their rating would go back up over time. Therefore, since Glicko-2 ratings balance out over time to account for this sort of thing, why does "fairness" matter to the point it need a feature like this?

2) It's assumed on most online servers that a disconnect is to be considered a forfeit of the game. Lichess offers you more "fairness' than the vast majority of other online chess servers by giving you the chance to claim a draw rather than a victory if you feel the game was at an inconclusive state when the opponent disconnected, and you always have the option to resign the game if you feel it's lost. What added benefit does having a choice to just abandon the game add to the quality of lichess other than allowing a fringe minority of players the option to take a moral high ground?

3) There are already options to play casual games, unlimited clock games, and correspondence games, all of which relatively eliminate any need for "fairness" due to a player disconnecting. If you are playing a "friend" as one example mentioned, why are you playing rated to begin with? Rated play is for competition and the general mentality is if someone disconnects during rated play, it's the same as forfeiting the game. So how many people would actually use this feature?

I think these are the underlying development questions that need to be answered in regard to a feature request like this...ultimately, why should time be used to develop it?
"f 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."

This thing only happens because the human player makes a tremendous blunder, not avoiding the checkmate in one/few. Happened with me a few times, I knew I was losing, but there was the dim possibility of rather blatant checkmate attempt, that would be avoidable, and wouldn't even cost much, but the adversary is paying attention only to his/her checkmate sequence, and just happens that the desperate one may be just one move faster.

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