“Time out” games not taken in account in the ranking

Hello I don’t understand why “time out” games, in the 180th move are not taken in account in the ranking. I had this issue twice, was winning a ranked game and my opponent stopped playing. Then the game reached the time limit for my opponent and was cancelled, and not taken in account in the ranking.
This seems to be new. In the past it was different.
Does someone know the explanation ?

Thanks !!

1 Like

This is probably due to the implemented mechanism to protect the rating system against mass timeout.
There are more complains coming in the forum so maybe more abuse?

Thanks for your answer. This system evolution, if confirmed, is not logical. This would mean that whenever someone is loosing a ranked game, he would simply stop playing. This would prevent him from having his rank lowered

its only in correspondence

1 Like

I don’t know if the mechanism changed or its parameters (like min =2) but it’s already some years ago it exists.

Not exactly as he has to lose at least 2 games by timeout one after the other. I share that’s still quick and prone to be abused.
I think it’s still useful to report abuse of the feature for mention.

The first time out game counts as normal. It’s the second and subsequent that are not counted for ranking.
This has always been the case but previously it was not indicated in the game history.
And as noted, this is only for correspondence games.

Thanks for your answer.
you write that it is not counted after the 2nd game. iBut it was my first game with this player….
Same on another game with another player.

1 Like

You were the 13th.

Ok I see ! It is not only with the same player. So to summarize : for correspondence games, when there is a time out after several moves, and it is not the first time for a player, the game is cancelled….
Now I understand.

Not very “go ethical “ :thinking:

It means that we have to carefully select our opponents :joy:! What a pity !

1 Like

The timeouts must be consecutive. However, there has recently been evidence that the system is no longer working properly, because live games, which used to break the chain, are no longer doing that. If true, it is frankly nonsensical and should be fixed, as it destroys the original purpose of the rule. Needless to say, many players cheat by abusing the rule.

There are many other threads on this topic, one recent and others going back years.

1 Like

There was a recent discussion on GitHub. Anoek ran a simulation with and without the mass timeout rule, and he observed rank inflation without, so I wouldn’t expect it to go away any time soon.

I believe there are some improvements to messaging in the pipes though, so hopefully more people will understand the rule when they are affected by it.

1 Like

Thanks for the links. I will have to come back to this, as I need to go walking now. However, I wonder if the experiments took into account the abuse of the rule. Better messaging isn’t what’s needed, but better control of the abuse.


That’s not quite right. It is “And the previous game of this person also time out”.

To resume the Github thread

  • Abuse is not occuring that much.
  • By testing, rank inflation will occur if the mass timeout rule is cancelled.
  • Other system looks complex.
  • Improving information on the feature would be good.

Not mentioned: playing live games doesn’t interfere in the system.

Greetings, I agree that time-out games** are annoying especially when one wants to join a correspondence game and one must complete a certain set of rank games but cannot meet the requirements because of these games…

1 Like