I mouseslip but cant takeback because ive disabled it. I must deal with it. Shouldnt mouseslip in the first place. If opponent wants to takeback: CASUAL- who cares. RATED- never. If i cant takeback you cant either haha. Im sure Aronian looked at Nakamura in the candidates tournament and said its okay if you touched the king ill let you win. Sure.
@donbruce @avakar, I completely agree. You have to learn to handle all aspects of chess and, for obvious reasons, with online chess misclicks will always be a part of it. You must learn that just like any other part of the game and as I saw it said in this forum, there is no better way than to learn from your own mistakes and mishaps.
I have them disabled. The beauty is that while a misclick by an opponent doesn't get a takeback, neither do my misclicks.
I have them turned off. I don't mind in a casual game if someone asks for a takeback, the problem comes when everyone starts asking for one after every mistake. Over the board, if someone has the guts to ask if they can take back a move then I let them (unless it's rated, or they ask repeatedly).
I think takebacks are only ok for casual games. Otherwise deal with it.
@CafeMorphy, it's also not required for someone to hold the door open for you or generally be a nice person... chess is a game, meant for fun. I sincerely don't understand your attitude. None of us here are competing for money or fame or for a world championship. If my opponent makes an obvious mouseslip, I would help him or her no differently than if they fell on an icy sidewalk.
Obvious mouse slips are granted takeback... not in all circumstances (requester short on time, not in bullet games, ...)
Annoying: i feel this kind of sportsmanship is often not rewarded. You allow takeback of a blundered queen, only to see the opponent trying to win on time 100 moves long in a dead drawn ending with opposite colored bishops...or refusing *your* takeback request after you misclicked obviously....
Annoying: i feel this kind of sportsmanship is often not rewarded. You allow takeback of a blundered queen, only to see the opponent trying to win on time 100 moves long in a dead drawn ending with opposite colored bishops...or refusing *your* takeback request after you misclicked obviously....
That's a topic that comes up all the time.
So, the first argument that always people come up with is that "in over the board chess there are no takebacks".
True.
And given that without mistakes the result of chess is probably a draw, giving takebacks would make the game meaningless since there would be no way to win. However in over the board chess there are no misclicks... The analogue in over the board chess would be someone's nail touching the piece next to the one he was trying to move and being forced to move the neighboring piece. Technically that's what the rules say. But in this case you have to understand what the point of this rule is. The point is not that chess players should cut their nails nor that people who suffer from tremor should not play chess. The reasoning behind this regulation is to determine when the final decision of a move has been made and is no more revertible. So when you touch a piece then your final decision is considered to have been made and you have to move it.
But more importantly if you force the other player to play a move that he never intended to then you have destroyed chess. The essence of chess is choices. No physical characteristics matter nor any other exterior factor besides the players' thinking. By forcing someone to play a move that he didn't intend to you remove exactly this characteristic of chess. In principle I think that chess should be played the same way no matter the means of transmission of one's choice. One could use a mouse, do it manually, recite it or ideally somehow transmit their decision directly from their brain to the board. Even if the rules were saying the opposite then I would be an advocate to change them. Just imagine how would that game be if according to the rules at any point of the game a random move could be played for any player determined by some random algorithm! I would definitely not want to play that game!
But here the problem arises from the fact that practically there is no way to determine when a move was made intentionally or not. That's the reason I guess that the takeback feature is optional and it is up to the player to decide what to do. If one decides to disable the takeback feature then he has decided to play a game where random moves can happen depending mainly on the player's ability to control their body movements and their familiarity with the interface and the equipment they use which apparently is not even the same for everyone. Leaving those weird people aside, the takeback feature delegates the players to decide whether their opponent's move was intentional. So here a moral issue arises. When someone understands that the move was not intentional but doesn't give the takeback then it's like breaking the mechanisms of chess trying to get a win. An interesting question that one should ask one's self is what kind of win is this and against whom since the other player never decided to play this move. So given that one has the possibility to fix this mistake which occurred due to our inability to transmit one's decision to the board, by not giving the takeback is similar to moving your opponent's piece and apparently breaks the rules. So the conclusion is that morally not giving the takeback when one knows that it was a mouseslip is equivalent to cheating, a possibility that one is given by the means we use to play chess.
Here I would like to stress a similarity to the over the board chess. In over the board chess again the players have the option to not call a "touch-move" violation, and we have numerous occasions where this behavior has been observed and more recently in the world championship match. At some point Carlsen touched a pawn for unknown reasons before moving a rook and Karjakin didn't call the arbiter. That was a wonderful example that demonstrates exactly my points. Technically Carlsen should have moved the pawn. Actually in this case it turned out that it would have been a better move but just imagine how meaningless the world champion title would have been if it had been determined by this incident! Fortunately Karjakin respected chess and at the same time himself by not trying to force his opponent to do a move that he didn't intend to.
Now the second argument is that "it is the player's who had the mouseslip fault".
Indeed it is.
Precisely it is a transmission error.
But I don't see how not allowing the player to correct his fault corrects it!
Of course nobody thinks that this way the mistake is corrected but this statement actually reflects the simplistic perception that people should be penalised for any mistake they make.
But what is the point of penalising an unintentional action as the mouseslip is?
It is like penalising someone for sneezing in public places!...
So, to sum up if someone considers the online chess a different game than over the board chess or blindfold chess depending on the means of the transmission of the players' decisions and wants factors as one's ability to accurately transmit their decisions through the given interface and equipment to matter for the game then it is reasonable to not give takebacks at all.
From any other point of view it is equivalent to cheating but unfortunately not provable...
So, the first argument that always people come up with is that "in over the board chess there are no takebacks".
True.
And given that without mistakes the result of chess is probably a draw, giving takebacks would make the game meaningless since there would be no way to win. However in over the board chess there are no misclicks... The analogue in over the board chess would be someone's nail touching the piece next to the one he was trying to move and being forced to move the neighboring piece. Technically that's what the rules say. But in this case you have to understand what the point of this rule is. The point is not that chess players should cut their nails nor that people who suffer from tremor should not play chess. The reasoning behind this regulation is to determine when the final decision of a move has been made and is no more revertible. So when you touch a piece then your final decision is considered to have been made and you have to move it.
But more importantly if you force the other player to play a move that he never intended to then you have destroyed chess. The essence of chess is choices. No physical characteristics matter nor any other exterior factor besides the players' thinking. By forcing someone to play a move that he didn't intend to you remove exactly this characteristic of chess. In principle I think that chess should be played the same way no matter the means of transmission of one's choice. One could use a mouse, do it manually, recite it or ideally somehow transmit their decision directly from their brain to the board. Even if the rules were saying the opposite then I would be an advocate to change them. Just imagine how would that game be if according to the rules at any point of the game a random move could be played for any player determined by some random algorithm! I would definitely not want to play that game!
But here the problem arises from the fact that practically there is no way to determine when a move was made intentionally or not. That's the reason I guess that the takeback feature is optional and it is up to the player to decide what to do. If one decides to disable the takeback feature then he has decided to play a game where random moves can happen depending mainly on the player's ability to control their body movements and their familiarity with the interface and the equipment they use which apparently is not even the same for everyone. Leaving those weird people aside, the takeback feature delegates the players to decide whether their opponent's move was intentional. So here a moral issue arises. When someone understands that the move was not intentional but doesn't give the takeback then it's like breaking the mechanisms of chess trying to get a win. An interesting question that one should ask one's self is what kind of win is this and against whom since the other player never decided to play this move. So given that one has the possibility to fix this mistake which occurred due to our inability to transmit one's decision to the board, by not giving the takeback is similar to moving your opponent's piece and apparently breaks the rules. So the conclusion is that morally not giving the takeback when one knows that it was a mouseslip is equivalent to cheating, a possibility that one is given by the means we use to play chess.
Here I would like to stress a similarity to the over the board chess. In over the board chess again the players have the option to not call a "touch-move" violation, and we have numerous occasions where this behavior has been observed and more recently in the world championship match. At some point Carlsen touched a pawn for unknown reasons before moving a rook and Karjakin didn't call the arbiter. That was a wonderful example that demonstrates exactly my points. Technically Carlsen should have moved the pawn. Actually in this case it turned out that it would have been a better move but just imagine how meaningless the world champion title would have been if it had been determined by this incident! Fortunately Karjakin respected chess and at the same time himself by not trying to force his opponent to do a move that he didn't intend to.
Now the second argument is that "it is the player's who had the mouseslip fault".
Indeed it is.
Precisely it is a transmission error.
But I don't see how not allowing the player to correct his fault corrects it!
Of course nobody thinks that this way the mistake is corrected but this statement actually reflects the simplistic perception that people should be penalised for any mistake they make.
But what is the point of penalising an unintentional action as the mouseslip is?
It is like penalising someone for sneezing in public places!...
So, to sum up if someone considers the online chess a different game than over the board chess or blindfold chess depending on the means of the transmission of the players' decisions and wants factors as one's ability to accurately transmit their decisions through the given interface and equipment to matter for the game then it is reasonable to not give takebacks at all.
From any other point of view it is equivalent to cheating but unfortunately not provable...
No takebacks.
I figure that if it's a mouse slip, then my opponent will immediately be aware of that. As such, if my opponent immediately requests a takeback, then I'll grant it. If they wait until they have surveyed their new (presumably inferior) position, or if they wait until they see my move, then I won't.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.