<Comment deleted by user>
As some wit approximately said, long before I did: I don't care if your mouse slipped, broke a femur and rolled around yelping for its mama.
Think "touch move." It's an actual rule, is it not?
"Oh, I didn't mean to touch that king, can I have an oopsy? You're not REALLY going to make me move him, are you? What, are you like obsessed with your rating, n'stuff? Uncool, like, you know, uncool! Where's the brotherly love?"
Is the tournament director going to be moved by such plaintive, passive-aggressive pleas?
I suspect not.
Having ham hands, I have made many mouse-slips. I either try to survive (and sometimes, though rarely, do). Or I simply resign on the spot if it truly looks hopeless. That's life, and we learn to be disciplined. Yes, even in un-rated games. Why? The "game" is called chess. Not Whine.
Furthermore, I've witnessed at times some apparent blunders that, upon a moment's reflection by the blunderer, were suddenly -- it was an epiphany! -- seen as "miss-clicks." No, they were blunders. Not always. But far from never.
Whose clock is ticking while thoughts rattle around trying to sort blunder from non-blunder? The non-blunderer's clock runs, that's whose -- unless there's some Lichess feature I don't know about (which is always possible, admittedly).
Better still to cowboy -- I'm sorry, I mean cowperson -- up. Slip? Oh, well. Survive or resign, this old cowpoke maintains. That approach builds character and diminishes carelessness. And the world needs more of the first and less of the second.
Of course, as always, I could be wrong.
Think "touch move." It's an actual rule, is it not?
"Oh, I didn't mean to touch that king, can I have an oopsy? You're not REALLY going to make me move him, are you? What, are you like obsessed with your rating, n'stuff? Uncool, like, you know, uncool! Where's the brotherly love?"
Is the tournament director going to be moved by such plaintive, passive-aggressive pleas?
I suspect not.
Having ham hands, I have made many mouse-slips. I either try to survive (and sometimes, though rarely, do). Or I simply resign on the spot if it truly looks hopeless. That's life, and we learn to be disciplined. Yes, even in un-rated games. Why? The "game" is called chess. Not Whine.
Furthermore, I've witnessed at times some apparent blunders that, upon a moment's reflection by the blunderer, were suddenly -- it was an epiphany! -- seen as "miss-clicks." No, they were blunders. Not always. But far from never.
Whose clock is ticking while thoughts rattle around trying to sort blunder from non-blunder? The non-blunderer's clock runs, that's whose -- unless there's some Lichess feature I don't know about (which is always possible, admittedly).
Better still to cowboy -- I'm sorry, I mean cowperson -- up. Slip? Oh, well. Survive or resign, this old cowpoke maintains. That approach builds character and diminishes carelessness. And the world needs more of the first and less of the second.
Of course, as always, I could be wrong.
@Noflaps said in #32:
> I've witnessed at times some apparent blunders that, upon a moment's reflection by the blunderer, were suddenly -- it was an epiphany! -- seen as "miss-clicks."
I can believe e. g. Qh3 instead of Qh4 is a misclick, but sometimes the "misclick" is more like "Qh3 instead of Bxc8".
> I've witnessed at times some apparent blunders that, upon a moment's reflection by the blunderer, were suddenly -- it was an epiphany! -- seen as "miss-clicks."
I can believe e. g. Qh3 instead of Qh4 is a misclick, but sometimes the "misclick" is more like "Qh3 instead of Bxc8".
I guess it depends on the circumstances.
Andras Toth has pointed out in one of his videos, that you generally want to accept take backs. After all, you play to have fun and to learn something. If you just take the free piece after a mouse slip, you basically wasted your time and deprive yourself of learning opportunities.
Personally, I don't ask for them, and think especially in bullet they are kind of stupid. But that's not the place to learn good chess habits anyway.
Andras Toth has pointed out in one of his videos, that you generally want to accept take backs. After all, you play to have fun and to learn something. If you just take the free piece after a mouse slip, you basically wasted your time and deprive yourself of learning opportunities.
Personally, I don't ask for them, and think especially in bullet they are kind of stupid. But that's not the place to learn good chess habits anyway.
Chess IS fun. Not owning one's mistakes is not. Ask any aggrieved spouse or roommate.
Cowperson up, whiny, demanding miss-clickers! says kindly but principled noflaps. Our culture needs to do the same. We don't grow strong by demanding our mistakes be overlooked or blamed upon something or somebody else.
Ask yourself: what would Dirty Harry say? Perhaps: "Ya say ya want a take-back? Well, do ya, punk?"
Or, as always, perhaps not.
Cowperson up, whiny, demanding miss-clickers! says kindly but principled noflaps. Our culture needs to do the same. We don't grow strong by demanding our mistakes be overlooked or blamed upon something or somebody else.
Ask yourself: what would Dirty Harry say? Perhaps: "Ya say ya want a take-back? Well, do ya, punk?"
Or, as always, perhaps not.
@Overcooker said in #1:
> I accepted someone's takeback, then later I made a massive blunder and proposed a takeback, which was not accepted.
>
> Was I being too nice? I eventually resigned when my takeback was not accepted, it didn't matter winning the game at that point, I just didn't want to play with that person anymore.
If you accept a takeback because you expect someone to accept yours, don’t accept takebacks. People won’t always grant you a takeback when you want one. Only accept takebacks if you’re fine with not getting one in return.
Takebacks don’t exist in otb chess. Perhaps it’s a better idea not to ask for them and not to allow them for opponents as well?
> I accepted someone's takeback, then later I made a massive blunder and proposed a takeback, which was not accepted.
>
> Was I being too nice? I eventually resigned when my takeback was not accepted, it didn't matter winning the game at that point, I just didn't want to play with that person anymore.
If you accept a takeback because you expect someone to accept yours, don’t accept takebacks. People won’t always grant you a takeback when you want one. Only accept takebacks if you’re fine with not getting one in return.
Takebacks don’t exist in otb chess. Perhaps it’s a better idea not to ask for them and not to allow them for opponents as well?
Playing classical time controls, I've offered many takebacks in the past month.
The games turned out to be excellent games of chess and I wouldn't have them any other way.
Games which are spoiled by non-moves do not pique my interest in the slightest.
Like it or not, mouseslips, faulty mouse switches, muscle spams, hardware/software glitches, cats on keyboards, and user error are not actual chess moves.
I only allow chess moves on my chessboards, and, therefore, I'm happy to offer takebacks on obvious slips.
There was one period some years ago where I switched them off for a week because a handful of people, in a small span of time, were requesting takebacks on moves that weren't obvious slips and then being abusive in chat; however, since then, the takeback feature has been nothing but a pleasure to make good use of.
It happens a handful of times every few months. It's not a big deal in the slightest.
Also, the mutual respect from the good sportsmanship is refreshing.
5/5. I highly recommend.
The games turned out to be excellent games of chess and I wouldn't have them any other way.
Games which are spoiled by non-moves do not pique my interest in the slightest.
Like it or not, mouseslips, faulty mouse switches, muscle spams, hardware/software glitches, cats on keyboards, and user error are not actual chess moves.
I only allow chess moves on my chessboards, and, therefore, I'm happy to offer takebacks on obvious slips.
There was one period some years ago where I switched them off for a week because a handful of people, in a small span of time, were requesting takebacks on moves that weren't obvious slips and then being abusive in chat; however, since then, the takeback feature has been nothing but a pleasure to make good use of.
It happens a handful of times every few months. It's not a big deal in the slightest.
Also, the mutual respect from the good sportsmanship is refreshing.
5/5. I highly recommend.
Point #1: It takes a lot of integrity, sportsmanship, and love for the game of chess to be on the brink of setting a new high score...where you're in a losing position...where your opponent obviously mouseslips/spasms/glitches/etc...and to offer them a takeback.
It's a great way to elevate the esteem of the game; it's a great way to make chess friends; it's a great way to boost morale; it's very good for the community; and, of course, there is a good chance that you may be playing a child.
-
Point #2: I've never seen a tournament where a chess player accidentally drops their queen a square short when intending to trade. By definition, this is not a chess move.
Chess would become unplayable if some random glitch would randomly take queens off of random chess boards.
There's no good reason to allow an online/computer issue to spoil a good game of chess.
-
Point #3: Whatever an obvious slip/glitch/spasm is, in no way can it be considered an actual and legitimate chess move.
That said, it is taking advantage of an unfortunate exploit that only exists because of the nature of online/computer chess.
-
Point #4: It's a waste of time to play on after a slip/glitch/spasm/etc.
If your next 20 opponents all slipped/glitched their queens, you'd gain about 100 points. But, after that, you'd promptly be returned to your objective rating. There is no way to gain/lose points unless it's earned.
-
Possible Solution: For those who frequently have this issue, using the two-click move selection option is probably the best way to avoid mouseslips. It works very well and it's minimally invasive.
It's a great way to elevate the esteem of the game; it's a great way to make chess friends; it's a great way to boost morale; it's very good for the community; and, of course, there is a good chance that you may be playing a child.
-
Point #2: I've never seen a tournament where a chess player accidentally drops their queen a square short when intending to trade. By definition, this is not a chess move.
Chess would become unplayable if some random glitch would randomly take queens off of random chess boards.
There's no good reason to allow an online/computer issue to spoil a good game of chess.
-
Point #3: Whatever an obvious slip/glitch/spasm is, in no way can it be considered an actual and legitimate chess move.
That said, it is taking advantage of an unfortunate exploit that only exists because of the nature of online/computer chess.
-
Point #4: It's a waste of time to play on after a slip/glitch/spasm/etc.
If your next 20 opponents all slipped/glitched their queens, you'd gain about 100 points. But, after that, you'd promptly be returned to your objective rating. There is no way to gain/lose points unless it's earned.
-
Possible Solution: For those who frequently have this issue, using the two-click move selection option is probably the best way to avoid mouseslips. It works very well and it's minimally invasive.
@ThunderClap #29
The exact same people who invented the touch-move rule for OTB chess also invented the takeback rule for online chess, for the exact same reason, and to serve the exact same purpose.
You're correct.
They are fundamentally the same thing, but not in the way that you are positing.
There is a very good reason that I've never seen a player intend to trade queens and then accidentally drop it a square short in an OTB tournament. The reason that this doesn't happen is because it would devalue chess and make it irritating to play.
People would quickly give up chess if random accidents routinely destroyed perfectly good chess games.
We'd want to be rid of these kinds of accidents so that we could move away from non-chess, and towards chess, in order to improve the game.
Just as we saw a problem occurring in OTB play where people touching pieces and putting them back became an issue and we made a rule to prevent the drawback of this activity...so it is with the unfortunate drawbacks of playing chess online where other instances can destroy the experience.
Both rules were made by the exact same people, for the exact same reason, and to serve the exact same ends.
We used to only move up one square, and decided that pawns should move up 2 instead.
We tried that for a bit, realized that there were some challenges with it, and so we invented an en passant rule.
We realized that being allowed an infinite amount of time produced drawbacks, and so we invented the clock.
All of these things, and many more, were invented by the exact same people, for the exact same reason, and in order to serve the exact same ends.
When all the chips are down, "non-moves should be allowed/encouraged/normalized/chosen/preferred" is not a hill that any chess player would die on. Nobody thinks that chess works better that way.
Imagine if you were in an afterlife, looking for a game of chess, and in every game of chess you played your opponent accidentally made a non-move that you were obligated to take advantage of.
Imagine that you couldn't help but "win" every single game of chess that you played in your afterlife due to this bizarre happenstance.
How long would you enjoy the game for?
Would you wake up every morning rushing to go "win" some more games of chess?
Or would your chess experience be destroyed by non-moves?
Would you miss playing chess and invent a takeback rule so that you could finally enjoy a perfectly good game of chess again?
Across the last several months, my opponents and I have been making excellent use of the takeback feature.
Of about 20 instances, I believe that 100% of my opponents had the feature enabled and it was used to good success.
Note: This case was made with Classical/Rapid time controls in mind.
Note: This case was made with obvious non-moves in mind.
The exact same people who invented the touch-move rule for OTB chess also invented the takeback rule for online chess, for the exact same reason, and to serve the exact same purpose.
You're correct.
They are fundamentally the same thing, but not in the way that you are positing.
There is a very good reason that I've never seen a player intend to trade queens and then accidentally drop it a square short in an OTB tournament. The reason that this doesn't happen is because it would devalue chess and make it irritating to play.
People would quickly give up chess if random accidents routinely destroyed perfectly good chess games.
We'd want to be rid of these kinds of accidents so that we could move away from non-chess, and towards chess, in order to improve the game.
Just as we saw a problem occurring in OTB play where people touching pieces and putting them back became an issue and we made a rule to prevent the drawback of this activity...so it is with the unfortunate drawbacks of playing chess online where other instances can destroy the experience.
Both rules were made by the exact same people, for the exact same reason, and to serve the exact same ends.
We used to only move up one square, and decided that pawns should move up 2 instead.
We tried that for a bit, realized that there were some challenges with it, and so we invented an en passant rule.
We realized that being allowed an infinite amount of time produced drawbacks, and so we invented the clock.
All of these things, and many more, were invented by the exact same people, for the exact same reason, and in order to serve the exact same ends.
When all the chips are down, "non-moves should be allowed/encouraged/normalized/chosen/preferred" is not a hill that any chess player would die on. Nobody thinks that chess works better that way.
Imagine if you were in an afterlife, looking for a game of chess, and in every game of chess you played your opponent accidentally made a non-move that you were obligated to take advantage of.
Imagine that you couldn't help but "win" every single game of chess that you played in your afterlife due to this bizarre happenstance.
How long would you enjoy the game for?
Would you wake up every morning rushing to go "win" some more games of chess?
Or would your chess experience be destroyed by non-moves?
Would you miss playing chess and invent a takeback rule so that you could finally enjoy a perfectly good game of chess again?
Across the last several months, my opponents and I have been making excellent use of the takeback feature.
Of about 20 instances, I believe that 100% of my opponents had the feature enabled and it was used to good success.
Note: This case was made with Classical/Rapid time controls in mind.
Note: This case was made with obvious non-moves in mind.
In the same way that nobody comes to the forums to make a post about how they just played someone who they were certain didn't cheat...it's the same way that people who enjoy the takeback function don't usually come to the forums to announce how well it works.
In the past few months, there's been about 7 games where non-moves would have destroyed the game.
In about 6 of those 7, my opponents and I made good use of the rule and saved the games.
In one instance, my opponent had the function disabled.
Of the last 20 takeback requests, I think 3 of them were because of blunders.
It took a few seconds to deny their requests and play on. It's been no big deal.
Many, many, many people make very good use of the takeback feature, because it saves chess games that deserve to be played through instead of hinging the outcome on some random accident.
In the past few months, there's been about 7 games where non-moves would have destroyed the game.
In about 6 of those 7, my opponents and I made good use of the rule and saved the games.
In one instance, my opponent had the function disabled.
Of the last 20 takeback requests, I think 3 of them were because of blunders.
It took a few seconds to deny their requests and play on. It's been no big deal.
Many, many, many people make very good use of the takeback feature, because it saves chess games that deserve to be played through instead of hinging the outcome on some random accident.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.