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

the race to the bottom isn't fun when, if your score falls below X, then you can't accept open seeks and the seeks you send are in YELLOW as a warning... then nobody wants to play you.

Thank you!

I hope you're right... but you know people are strange sometimes. I wouldn't have foreseen people to want to get the lowest possible rating, but it happens. I could see some people wanting to get a sportsmanship score so low that they're basically impervious to the "thumbs-down". Not everybody is here to play chess, and some people can get games from their friends, and don't care as much about the seeks.

A city near me put up solar-powered displays on the roads which tell you (and anyone else who is looking) how fast you are going. For the most part, they get people to go slower. If the speed limit is 30, it's sort of embarrassing to have it blinking 42 or something.

Enter the law of unintended consequences.

They had to put a cap on the display (perhaps 45mph), because the local kids were using it to referee their drag races.

how bout if ur winning and ur opponent leaves u get a win, and if ur losing or tied when they leave, u get a draw or abortion.

 Agreed. 

 It's also kind of funny to watch them make their pathetic little effort to win by making another move a couple of seconds before they're out of time, hoping you'll be distracted enough during the wait to lose on time yourself when you don't have much left.

How about a pause button? 

I read on one of those article that there is a pause system.  That might solve some of the problems people that have to leave (for their job or similar) have with some of the systems proposed here.

And more, why are some people freaking out over the proposed system. A single bad game isn't going to ruin anything for you (safe for you rating perhaps, though even that isn't realistic as those rating seem to go very slow). The systems are designed to take care of those that abuse the system, not those that burn time once per year.

a pause system, jesus, youd think we dont know what the problem is here

Just as KillaNinja is trying to say......  what are we grown up  people doing discussing a topic such as this. It is a blatant statement on the maturity  and courtesy that many of us don't seem to have. It is shameful that one would ever think of doing something like this. But here we are having to spend quality time turning over reasons and  ways to punish the misbehaviour of some of our colleagues. However something has to be done. I initiated the topic not realizing that it was so prevalent among the players. But something reallly has to be done. I think that Burnsielaxplayer has the right idea. He says,......  " 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 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"......... Combine this with a warning given to the bad player by the other player and you should be able to deter a number of bad players.  If the bad player does this again then he /she should be suspended for a period of time which becomes longer each successive time the bad player pulls this stragegy.

 I second that,

ps. I like that Charles Burn applause above

Who's Charles Burn? I googled and got Charles Burns, cartoonist?

That's Orson Welles - Citizen Kane

So maybe he meant Charles Foster Kane.

Or maybe he meant C. Montgomery Burns

or santa claws

In response to the OP, I don't think either option is necessary or desirable.  If Live chess now allows multiple simultaneous games then that will solve the problem.  Some people start long games just because they're at work.  Are you going to tell people they can't play at work.  If you can merely start another game because your opponent is disengaged for whatever reason, then you don't have to worry about them, or pass judgment on them or designate them a poor sport which they may or may not be. It just becomes irrelevant if you can just start another game while waiting. A simple solution that fixes a number of problems simultaneously is better than the accretion of of piecemeal solutions to individual problems. 

But you have to allow multiple live chess windows, or some means to easily monitor the status of two or possibly three games (I say "multiple" but from past experience that will generally mean "two".)  But of course multiple windows is the easiest method for multiple games.  Don't know how its done currently in live chess.

Yes, Citizen Kane

 Why stop in the middle of a chess game to cook a meal?

I think the "are you there" button is a terrible idea. There are far too many occasions where it would penalise people for a simple break. What if the phone rings?

I'm not going to ignore a call just because I'm in a game (nor will I take the time to type "sorry, phone", and nor would I trust people that are told that not to try their luck and go for an "are you there" while they know I'm not), and I might allow 10 minutes of a long enough game to run down if the call is important, and not check on the need to do a confirmation.

Or I could need to go to the toilet indeed, and 5 minutes is not always enough for everyone. It isn't always enough for me.

Or if my cat spews on the carpet and no-one else is home, I'm not going to delay cleaning it up because I'm playing chess, and this could well take over 5 minutes.

There are just too many situations where it could hurt people just honestly trying to play chess.

If such a system were to be instituted, I would only consider it a good idea if there were some button that I could hastily click when going off to do any of these things which tells your opponent "no, I'm not here, but I intend to come back" and stops the system from forfeiting your game on confirmation. The problem there is that this simply allows the kind of people who would let their clock run down to click that button themselves.

So I don't think a confirmation is a good idea in any case.

A sportsmanship penalty could be a better idea, but obviously would have to be very carefully implemented to avoid any bias.

But my suggestion is that you do neither of these things. It's within the rules of chess for people to allow their clock to run down. If someone you're playing does it, sure, it's annoying, but go check your emails, listen to some music, chat to some people online, google for funny lolcats or cute puppy pictures, have a squizz at your favourite openings in openings explorer, whatever. Or if your opponents' behaviour really bothers you that much, trash talk them :P (firmly tongue in cheek, I don't really advocate doing this).

If you are playing OTB with say an hours time limit, the player can walk away from the board and come back when they like....Although this and delays in live chess drive me mad, it doesnt really break any rules.