When an opponent leaves the game, I typically try to be as fair as possible when deciding whether or not to declare whether or not it will be a draw or a victory. If it has only been a move or two, obviously it's far too early to tell, and I will declare that a draw. But one thing I just noticed is that if my opponent is rated lower than me, I end up getting punished for this. Not much, typically only a point or so. But still, where is the incentive to actually be honest in these situations if honesty is simply punished?
I'm certainly not suggesting that I (or anyone else) get rewarded for calling a draw. I simply wish that if the game ended for reasons outside of my control, and the outcome was not decided yet, I think it may be more fair to not punish the higher rated player for merely STARTING a game.
You do have a point.
I don't know of a way to remove the punishment for humility than to remove that option altogether. Which is a shame, since not everyone who disconnects did so purposefully, and not everyone who encounters a person who disconnected thinks a victory is deserved.
Should add an "abort" button.
Let's take an extreme position and ban people who repeatedly lose connection.
@#3- Is that extreme? It might be extreme if you do it after ONE lost connection, but how's that saying go? Lose your connection once, shame on you, lose it twice....?
#1 If you, as the higher rated player don't wanna be punished, that's why you have the chance to "claim a win". Why don't you just click that button. IMO you are fair if you declare a win always when you have the chance to win. I use the "declare draw" button only when the position seems not possible at all to win.
A "declare abort" button could be a possible option too.
#3 Indeed, "abort" works on other chess servers in this circumstance.
Perhaps the "offer takeback" button could be replaced with the abort button under the circumstance where few moves have been played (in the same sense of "few moves have been played" wherein a drawn tournament game awards zero tournament points)?
+1 for the "abort" button.
@DunningKruger Some "third world" people have unreliable connections, which is what I think you were referring. I think a banning should only go to people who leave the game when they are losing and "punish" you for a good game. Hard to decided between the innocent and the losers.
#8 If a third world player is playing disconnections would be equally distributed in won, lost and draw games.
If disconnections happens mostly to lost games to a large extent, it's prpbably a bad loser, so that's a way to decide.
Can we please return to the original topic? #3 #4 #8 #9 is a distraction only tangentially related to OP's well-considered question.
