Live Chess - LOOOONG Games... should we make you confirm?

lots of people complain that they get in a game and then their opponent starts to lose and then... they just sit there and make them wait out the clock. 

this can be addressed in two ways:

1. sportsmanship score (holding off on this for now)

2. confirmation "Are you there?" after 5 minutes of no moves, with 30 seconds to respond. 

sportsmanship score is just tricky. but the "are you there" doesn't prevent abuse (like someone just being rude and having to stay there hitting "YES" every 5 minutes). 

is it annoying to have to hit YES after 5 minutes of thinking? 5 minutes is ample time for a quick bathroom break or something like that. but is it annoying? does it help? or does it hinder?

second option

I'm not a fan of either option. It's very possible that someone needs to walk away from the board for 5 minutes, if the time is a hour or so. If the time is less than that, waiting it out isn't that bad. If you play a game with X time, be prepared to play for X minutes!

Hitting "yes" leans towards annoying only if it becomes an annoying trait of the opponent to constantly interrupt your thinking, about a position.

I know you're holding off on "sportsmanship score", but I haven't any idea what that could be?

I like the second option, Erik.  Five minutes is plenty of time for me to make my cereal, come back, think and make a move!

Some of us players actually know how to cook real meals, is the thing

What I want isn't that, but the pausing, not terminating, of live chess games when I have to disconnect. I hate losing on time for that reason.

I like the confirm idea.

What would happen if you weren't there to confirm?

Let's say I start a 60 minute game, why should I not be allowed to go to Subway for 20 minutes to get a sandwich?

I guess because nobody should be spending 20 minutes going to Subway?

"should" -- hmm -- I suppose -- well I guess it's just a different contract, right?

I'm a bigger fan of the sportsmanship score. I'm sure the powers that be can come up with something good.

Because if I'm nice about it, and let my opponent know that I'll be out for 20 minutes, maybe they'll even give me a thumbs-up for being courteous.

I never even thought about Subway! And say you're trying to think what vegetables you want on your sandwich, and the Subway guy keeps asking if you're there?

So if you don't hit "yes" after the 5 minutes and the 30 seconds, then you lose? (Or it is equivalent of flag fall, so that you wouldn't lose if opponent had lone king)

I think a viable option would be to have a game setting for such scenarios.  Depending on playing styles and in-game habits, some people may require five minutes or more to think/take phone calls/bathroom breaks/etc.  Other people may consider five minutes of inactivity to be unacceptable..while others may not care either way.  To appease everyone (and in the spirit of a highly flexible product), there could be a group of live chess settings for such conditions that will allow a user to filter challenges for games enabling the inactivity timer, games disabling the inactivity timer, and for those who have no preference either way.  Thoughts?

Haha, good idea.

Seriosuly though, that seems a long way to go for yellowed lettuce and a sandwich with all ingredients seemingly kept in pickled water.  The closest to my apartment is about a 4 minute walk, which is within the boundaries of acceptability.  Though there's a much better burger shack a little further away.  Damn those fries are good!

Sometimes it makes sense to keep things simpler, and not to have them customizable, especially for new users. One also has to consider that there is some notion of an upper limit on the number of customizations which should be there, so if you use the space now, then your ability to add future settings may be lower.

A question: how do similar websites handle this?

I think the player whose opponent is letting the clock run down should contact an administrator that is online.  And if the situation is lost (Where an average player can reasonably expect to beat a grandmaster in the same situation), the administrator should end the game and give the player the win. The ICC does something very similar to this.  Administrators always err on the side of NOT ending the game. 

On the ICC a few weeks back, I was playing someone rated around 1600 (I was around 1450 at the time) in a 45 + 45 game.  He was moving very quickly so he had more than an hour left on his clock when the following situation arose:

At this point, my opponent did not move for more than 10 minutes, and this is when I realized that he would never return. I asked an administrator if there was something I could do (besides waiting out the 60 minutes) and he took a look at the game, explained the policy, and he gave me the win.  I suggest something similar to this.

It is not uncommon to sit and analyze a position for 20+ minutes on a single move, and having to click "Yes" every 5 minutes would be annoying and could ruin my concentration.  I believe that a sportsmanship score would be abused, and so would hurt many more players than the small percentage of players who abandon games like this.

I also like the idea of in-game adjudication. Here are some follow-up questions.

What if the position is not very clearly winning? In-game adjudication seems to only address clear positions.

What if there are no admins available?

In general, I'm a big fan of automating tasks, where possible. I think there's an opportunity here to accomplish that. Note that either of Erik's suggestions are automated. There is enough work in a chess server which must be performed by humans that it makes all the sense in the world in this case to have something which may not be perfect but takes a big load off of future volunteers in live chess.

I think the 'are you there?'function  is a good idea but it should be a button.
the button will appear after five minutes of thinking. The opponent has the option to press it and then the 'thinker' has to respond.

The advantage of the button versus the automatic is that you can agree on a larger break in the game. for example: a player has to watch over children. When there is something wrong he can chat: i have to look after my children I will be back in ten minutes.

In that case an automatic are you there will lead to lost of a good game.
A button will give both players fun and a good game.

i had always said and i hold to it that this is concerning primarily games that are clearly lost for the opponant, and i know iv said it too many times by this stage. i can hardly imagine any game where it was drawish, unclear, winning for him or whatever where he would suddenly stop playing. no matter what would be done about the other situations i would emphasise the 90% of the times where its obvious why someone has stoped playing and i think this needs to be fully addressed as part of this matter. not simply, 'my opponant has left the board, what can i do?' but 'my opponant has just left the game after losing, what now?' this was my original complaint, no matter whats done anywhere else, but just to clear that up.

As for what to do, i really dont mind at all. Its been spoken about before, and really if anything can be done at all it i would be greatful. if not i can completely understand why, but anyway, thats just wher i stand, and iv said way too much on the topic already by this stage. i think i complain too much :)