I think it's quite a good idea, but the player submitting the game should also provide lines to prove why he thinks the game is lost.
This way for example a 1100 player could demonstrate they know how to mate with r+k vs k.
I doubt something like this would be implemented. The list of complainers would be huge.
"You robbed me of a learning experience I don't know how to win a position were I'm down 2 rooks and a queen"
its an interesting idea, but allowing the community to vote on games opens up a LOT of weird possiibilities and scary outcomes. vote fixing, discussing games in progress, etc. not going to happen :)
Sorry I didn't see this earlier. I just posted a possible system here: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/chesscom-feature-request-and-wishlist-4 #283
Repeated here:
I've been thinking about the need to get tournaments moving along in a timely manner. I haven't been here too long, but the few tournaments I've played in have dragged on way too long waiting for stragglers that don't even affect final standings (top 3) or subsequent round pairings.
Two mechanisms I see for keeping tourneys on track are 1. adjudicating slow games and 2. proceeding with subsequent rounds before all games are completed.
#1 adjudicating slow games
Refer to my Canadian Chess Federation (CFC) rules below. Their objective is not to decide games but to predict the outcome so that the next round can continue on time. That game can continue at it's leisure later.
I'm not sure we could implement such a system without controversy, but here's some thoughts on processes:
#2 proceeding without completing games
In many tournaments the subsequent rounds' pairings are set before the current round is completed. All players with games remaining will be eliminated regardless of the outcome. So why hold things up?
It's not quite that simple. Sometimes an advancing player still has a game on that may affect his placement in the next round. Two optons here are to only advance after the final scores of all advancers is determined or to apply the adjudication method mentioned above.
Thoughts
OTB competition has a system for proceeding in tournaments despite there being active games remaining. Chess.com tournaments suffer from slow play. The majority of players want to get on with their 'suspended' tournaments while other players wish to hang on to lost or losing games to learn as much as they can. To please both camps seems difficult and conuter-productive. The methods I describe above, adjudicating lost games to estimate placements and beginning subsequent rounds before the next rounds, seem like plausible methods of satisfying everybody while keeping controversy and bad feelings to a minimum.
It will take work to build such mechanisms, and it will take willing volunteers to make it work. I believe it would be a step forward. It will be a quality process, advanced players would be more than wiling to participate, and the general player would be very happy with quicker multi-round tournaments. Membership will flourish 
I welcome responses ...
REFERENCE:
Unfinished Games
617. A game that is not finished before it is time to pair the next round is temporarily scored as a draw for pairing purposes unless, clearly, one player is a winner. When an unfinished game is completed, the correct results and cumulative scores are entered on the players' cards.
VARIATION 617.1: A game that is not finished before it is time to pair the next round may be temporarily adjudicated for pairing purposes. Written and also, whenever possible, oral announcement must be made in advance of the first round of the exact procedures to be used. In making an adjudication, the director should seek out the best advice that is available and should give proper weight to the degree of objectivity of that advice. The objective of the adjudication is to predict the probable result of the unfinished game. Therefore, the adjudication should give primary consideration to the position existing on the board, though such additional factors as the respective strengths of the players and the times remaining on their clocks may be considered as well, according to the adjudication procedures announced for the tournament. The players themselves may not be required to declare their evaluation of or objectives in the game or be penalized for refusing to do so.
Yes, I would also add that two computers should be used, operating independently, each with two votes, not enough to overide the five humans, but enough so that it would take unanimity to reject it (As computers are capable of misevaluating some positions that humans can judge).
Applicants to be adjudicators should be 2000+
Adjudicators cannot have a connection to the game being played.
Adjudicators must indicate their willingness to vote nay (I don't want anyone getting in with the sole aim of stopping a process they see as unethical)
Adjudicators must summarize their results and provide them to players.
This feature should be made available for all games (With a higher threshold than in tourney games).
Penalties must be enacted for frivolous adjudications.
The game is not over until the opponent is checkmated. Who are you to decide that a player is infallible and wont stalemate, or even lose to the one behind in material?
What you are proposing to do is change the rules of chess, which is something I vigorously disagree with.
We're not changing any rules, we're reverting them, games used to be adjudicated all the time.
And the game is over when one player is irreovably lost, anything else is poor sportsmanship.
One of the things to remember in this sort of situation is that it is not enough that a position be non-winnable...it must also be one such that there is no chance for a stalemate or a way to force a three repeat of position. As such, almost all games can be justified in being played to the end.
Having said that, I just resign to end the misery of it all.
We're not changing any rules, we're reverting them, games used to be adjudicated all the time.
And the game is over when one player is irreovably lost, anything else is poor sportsmanship.
Wrong. Poor sportsmanship is to have so little regard for the ability of your opponent that you demand that he give up his right to play on just to satisfy your impatience.
i agree entirely Phelan.
We're not changing any rules, we're reverting them, games used to be adjudicated all the time.
And the game is over when one player is irreovably lost, anything else is poor sportsmanship.
Wrong. Poor sportsmanship is to have so little regard for the ability of your opponent that you demand that he give up his right to play on just to satisfy your impatience.
Isn't poor sportsmanship really having so little regard for your opponents abilities that you don't trust him to win an absolutely won position with no chance of even a draw with inaccurate play.
its an interesting idea, but allowing the community to vote on games opens up a LOT of weird possiibilities and scary outcomes. vote fixing, discussing games in progress, etc. not going to happen :)
Hence my idea that the staff retain veto power over any decisions.
one problem is that if you're playing against beginners, they don't see any mate. and they'll abandone the site if there is a feature that declare the outcome of the game when nothing 'seems' to have happened.
:D just me. I want this site to be as popular as possible:D
one problem is that if you're playing against beginners, they don't see any mate. and they'll abandone the site if there is a feature that declare the outcome of the game when nothing 'seems' to have happened.
:D just me. I want this site to be as popular as possible:D
Perhaps someone on said committee or a staff member could provide a short explanation?
i already did - we're not going to do this wide-scale. if there is a game that is clearly over and is holding up an event (and is the ONLY game holding it up), we will act if it is reported. but getting community members to adjudicate creates too much liability for us.
While I don't agree with the idea, if it was to be implemented, perhaps you could base it on point differnetial remaining ie, if all the losing player only has a B+K (3 points) and the other player has 2Kn+B+Q+R+3P(20), you could end it on points. Just a thought.
Well as long as this doesn't affect live chess I suppose I wont mind, since I don't play correspondence.
The problem with this is that it assumes that everyone believes not resigning is bad form, whereas even Silman tells you to play on for a blunder. While correspondence is very different from live chess in the respect of blunders, an opponent should be forced to mate you to win. The only place I think it has any value is in tournaments, where the outcome of endgames can be decided in very particular circumstances (e.g. draw automatically on bishop + kings or knight(s) + kings, win on rook + king vs king) I don't think you can adjudicate on games except in very rare circumstances. The other big problem I see with this is that it just isn't workable. Look at how many members are on here, and then just think how many games would have to be adjudicated each day, by people who have jobs and families. Even if you take the stray ones out, you'll still get a lot. As the backlog built up, by the time you got a decision the game could have been played out anyway.
Personally I think that it's bad form to expect people to resign in situations that you think are lost, they need to learn the lessons as much as anyone else, and playing a good endgame is a good test of the fullness of your skills, which, after all, should be there. If it's really a certain won endgame, it shouldn't take that long to win it...
I think Erik should hire a staff of fifty GM's who should spend all their time mulling over the tens of thousands of crappy 1100-rated player games that are played here every month. That should speed things up.
I think there's a key point many are not understanding. There's no need to make a final decision on these game. We only want to move the tournaments forward. The least risky way to do it is to assign a temporary decision to any and all meaningless games. If in a group of 4, one player has 6 points, it is clear that all other games in that pool are meaningless. Simply label them as draws so the next round can start. Update the actual result when the game finishes.
The next least risky is an adjudication but again only assigning a temporary result. The adjudicators need to be convinced not only that the game is won but that the winning player knows how to win it and there are no chances at all for any other result, except for major blunders.
I've noticed that there often seems to be complains about opponents dragging out games where the ending is evident, or whether it's proper etiquette to do so, how we should boycott certain players, etc. The list goes on.
My idea is this: What if players that felt certain games were won or lost could refer their games to a committee of sorts, composed of say, the top 1% or so of the chess.com community (or perhaps hand-selected by the staff). Each member could then vote either the game as won/lost for a player or indecisive. Perhaps there should also be an option to mark a position as "clearly still playing" or something of the like to prevent abuse of this feature; players who send multiple referrals (perhaps a 3-warning system?) of games in positions where there is clearly no winner yet established (e.g. during the opening) would have this feature revoked. This feature could also be limited to people who've only played a certain number of games (say, 10) to prevent abuse. (I guess only to premium members would also be an option, but seeing as how I'm not one of them...)
Assuming the committee is large enough, my idea is that not every member in the committee would have to review every game; if a game got, say, 50 votes in favor of a won position and less than, say, 5 in favor of undecided, then the game could be forcibly resigned for the losing player.
Also important to note would be the strength of the players involved; a 2500 player could be trusted to win an endgame with only pawns and kings (provided the position was suitable), a 1000 player might still blunder a R+K v. K endgame.
I suppose if a game was passed by the committee, it could then be referred to a staff member who would essentially have veto power over the decision. Although there is definitely the issue of people not playing in the game determining its final outcome, I think this would also have the advantage of speeding up a lot of games on this website and would end complaints against people taking too long to move (or whatever).
I think this is a valid idea, but perhaps I'm underestimating the ethical dilemma involved here... thoughts/comments?