About unethic players

Makes sense for Lichess. I will not play full length in person tournaments since one game lasts a long time. Any chance of figuring out how to stop time shifters? Also I believe in playing a fair game. Chess has always had a sense of sportsmanship. Cheers.


Speaking about wasting everyone's time and energy...

Relevant Fact #1:

The default and MAJOR misperception out there is that:

"If I don't take advantage of other peoples' slips, and they take advantage of mine, then I'm losing points. That's not right."

The fact of the matter is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to lose points that you didn't deserve to lose.
The fact of the matter is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to win points that you didn't deserve to win.

Lichess will always only reflect your objective rating.

For instance:

If you play 10 cheaters in a row, presto-chango, you're now about 100 points less, right?


You will immediately conquer most people playing at that level, and you'll be right back to where you were.
You will have lost nothing.

Likewise, if you encounter 10 opponents in a row who all blunder their queens, "congratulations" you are now up 100 points, right?


You will now have to compete with people who have earned and can keep those 100 points.
You will be swiftly placed back in your objective rating bracket. You have gained absolutely nothing.

The only things that not allowing takebacks achieves is:

- it wastes everyone's time and energy.

- it is a wasted opportunity to provide some positive social-capital/social-purchase by showcasing the grace, generosity, good-sportsmanship, and quality of character of the average member of this site.

- it wastes a chance to make a friend and improve the atmosphere and collective strength of the Lichess family.


Relevant Fact #2:

To those of you who do not allow takebacks:

Let's say that you were condemned to have the worst luck in the world.

Everyone that you play, from now on, will at some point or another glitch/slip a piece.

How long would it take you to start allowing takebacks so that you could finally enjoy a good game of chess again?

This is not a rhetorical question.

I will accept silence as complete resignation.



Needlessly making little kids cry, instead of not, whether actively or passively, because it's your right and subjective preference to do so and not against any not of any objective benefit to the Lichess community or online chess in general. It is of objective deficit. The amount of direct and indirect objective drawbacks to this misbehaviour are numerous. The objective advantages are nil.

When you are facing a losing position and your opponent glitches/slips a piece, it takes character, dignity, integrity, good-sportsmanship, strength, honesty, and grace in order to do the right thing and allow that takeback...even though you know that you're signing your own checkmate in doing the right/best thing for the Lichess community and online chess in general.

But guess what? You're deluding yourself if you don't think that of the 100,000k unique visitors daily, there isn't one of them smiling with a little gap in her front teeth where she just lost her first tooth, because you had the decency to act civilized, with good character, and took the energy and "sacrifice" to represent the Lichess community in it's best light, where you opted to not take points that you didn't earn and can't keep, while wasting everyone's time and energy in the process.

There are MANY people out there doing the right thing, right now as we speak, and it is a needless, slanderous, slanted, and self-serving stain that anything about these forums would suggest otherwise.

The forums make it look like 100:1 don't allow takebacks and jeer and mock anyone that does.
The reality is MUCH closer to 1:1.

It's worth the time to inform and correct the masses on these points because it will help effect a better Lichess tomorrow.

@Onyx_Chess said it all.I think I would enjoy having a beer with you at my local pub.There is no higher approval than that in Australia.


Some time ago I disabled takebacks and my experience of this site has improved a lot after this decision.

I get the point that there are occasional, obvious slips that can ruin a game. Most obvious in the case of failed castling, where the King was dropped one square too early. When I had takebacks still enabled, I always allowed this type of slip to be corrected.

However, overall I prefer to play without the takeback option mainly because of two reasons:

1) Takeback requests are a massive distraction. For me, finding good moves is very hard work (you wouldn't believe this with my pretty bad rating...). I am amazed by streamers like Rosen who can chat with their audience while executing complicated tactics, but for me this doesn't work. Takeback requests and the -resetting of the board creep into my mind and destroy my concentration, and quite often I just blundered after granting a takeback.

But more important is a rather philosophical point
2) - I'm a fan of the touch-move rule, also because it makes every game a unique, un-repeatable experience , like a piece of music. If a musician slips with his finger and plays a wrong note, he can't "undo" this either, the audience already heard it. It's exactly this inherent risk and un-reapeatability (is this a word?) that makes it so amazing if everything goes right - a fabulous trumpet solo, or a great game of chess.

But I get it, there are just different legitimate views about takebacks in online chess. One pragmatic way would be to have the choice in the pairing algorithm to be paired with players who either have takebacks enabled or not.

@Panagrellus I like your music example. The problem with me personally is that chess is a sport, it is a competition in which two players play against each other to see who is the better one, who has the better strategy in his head. Emanuel Lasker says that the chess is a struggle between two minds in the process of generating ideas.

If you win because of a glitch in the hardware/software of the other guy than you did not proove to be the better strategian or to have produced the better ideas. Therefore for me there is no real value in such a victory.

In the @georgt case, I seems like he had produced the better ideas in the endgame - he managed to get to the point where he can take his opponent's rock, which in my eyes was a turning point in the game (in his favour) - having a queen and a bishop against just a queen,

But you are right, there are different legitimate views.

@Onyx_Chess While I generally agree with your novels I must say, I think you are quite wrong on this one.
If a player makes a habit of grabbing points he does not "deserve" e.g. claiming victories in a dead drawn position after disconnect, disproportianaly benefiting from mouse slips etc. He will not get any stronger and not play any better in the long run but he will be, most of the time slightly overrated. And while overrated players will lose the extra points in the long run, they will also gain them back. I view rating as a function of skill, internet connection, reliable equipment and the willingness to gain rating (by whatever means).

A one time rating gain via non chess methods will vanish over time but if its a habit, it will be a constant factor.

I agree, there's this competitive aspect to chess.

But from that point of view, consider a hypothetical example: Let's say we're in the Olympic final over 100 meters sprint. Unfortunately, Usain Bolt has not tied his shoes properly and slips one meter before the finishing line. The runner-up, with much inferior speed, gets the gold medal because of a slip which had nothing to do with Bolt's true performance on the track.

So what now? Would you re-run the race? For sure not. Yes, the win for the runner-up has a bit of a sour taste, but it was an honest win nonetheless. Because tying your shoes properly is one of the basic things you just need to do before the race.

@Panagrellus but, on the other hand, there are examples in tennis - like Roger Federer calling own serve out ( ).
Or the famous ex- football player Di Canio:
In 2000 though, he showed himself to be a truly sporting player during a match for West Ham against Everton. The game was in injury time when Everton keeper Paul Gerrard went down injured after a clash with a West Ham player. As the ball spilt towards the touchline, Trevor Sinclair collected it and sent a cross over towards Di Canio – who promptly caught the ball rather than firing it into the net, and then pointed at the downed Gerrard:
Now, no one is obligated to do so, and if you dont do it - thats ok, but it shows some character...