Free online Chess server. Play Chess now in a clean interface. No registration, no ads, no plugin required. Play Chess with the computer, friends or random opponents.
Create a game Tournament Simultaneous exhibitions
Chess basics Puzzles Practice Coordinates Study Coaches
Lichess TV Current games Streamers Broadcasts (beta) Video library
Players Teams Forum Questions & Answers
Analysis board Opening explorer Board editor Import game Advanced search
Sign in
  1. Forum
  2. General Chess Discussion
  3. Be a sport and accept a takeback or two ---to before the blunder.

I play as a guest on my mobile unrated games. I like lichess app for quick pairings.

I play unrated, that is "Casual" rounds. Why not accept a takeback in an unrated round? It's called 'casual' for a reason. If you choose to take it seriously anyway, or if you are in a hurry or dislike the particular round or whatever, fine so be it.

The douchey behavior that I find annoying is when my opponent will accept a takeback but only to one halfturn past the point where I made a blunder. For example, I move my knight to a square that allows one of my minors (that knight or a bishop or a couple pawns) to get captured for free or lose an exchange in 4-5 turns. I don't realize this blunder until three turns later and request a takeback; accepted. Request another takeback: accepted. One more to go; denied. Douche. If he is feeling extra douchey he will then add a bunch of 15sec increments to my clock.

And by the way I don't ask for takebacks all the time or even every round. But they are a nice option in casual rounds, which is one factor that I opt for lichess over other pvp chess apps.

Asking to take back 3 moves at once is a little much...

I consider myself to be fairly generous with takebacks in casual games, but if my opponent is trying to back up multiple moves at once and take the game in a whole different direction, I'd get annoyed and start denying the requests.

To be fair, most moves can "take the game in a whole different direction". And asking once to go back three turns to right before a critical blunder in a causal game is not that absurd. Five or more would be a bit much. Usually it is only two turns. The point is, more than one is required, but not an absurd many, but denies right before the critical mistake can be rectified.

Forget the takebacks. Resign the game and play another one, or defend your current "really bad position" to the bitter end; in fact that can be great practice for playing accurate defense.

The worst case = you lose, so what. Play another and don't blunder.

Asking for takebacks, especially in the way you describe, I find unsportsmanlike. It is even worse to suppose you are entitled to them.

Don't play in a way that requires takebacks. Problem solved.

@zaterra: When I am losing by a lot I usually do resign. I play for fun and practice, and "playing to the bitter end" against an arse is not particularly fun nor especially helpful practice compared to restarting against a friendlier adversary. Worst case for me is that I lose, but the same can be said for the other player (who was winning); worstcase scenario he ends up not winning (drawing or losing) thanks to letting me do-over my blunder.

@BigGreenShrek: How exactly did I describe it? I don't feel entitled to a takeback; that is why it is a request and not a demand. (Although there ought to be an option disable takeback requests for players who are so averse to them. Otherwisse they should anticipate a few requests.). But do you not agree that accepting a takeback one turn but that denying it to go back one more to before a big blunder is douchey? "Don't play in a way that requires takebacks."; in other words, play perfectly, or at least play accurately enough not to fall victim to a tactic under nn-moves deep (4? 5?). Every human makes blunders at relatively shallow depth (especially in complex positions; accurately considering threats two-ply deep is impossible in midst of a position that requires a full depth of 5+ ply).

I have takebacks turned off, therefore my opponents therefore can not request them, but neither can I.

I really like this method.

I've mouse slipped and lost a Queen before, but I've also had an opponent mouseslip a failed castle which left them positionally lost for the rest of the game. I think that they are the only two times I've ever thought about takebacks.

#4 is accurate.

Also, if you want / need long sequences of takebacks regularly, just play the computer or use the study tool with a partner.

It's also weird because although I have them off, my opponent can still request them. In a slower game I could explain that I can't accept because they are turned off, but in anything else I could be seen as a 'douche' whilst in reality having no possible alternative.

People that give you one or two but stop before the blunder are agreeably pretty crude though, also.


Thank you for your replies. I was not aware of the way that the disable-takebacks works apparently. I will consider this possibility before passing judgement.

On a tangential note: What is up with these automated texts like "You too!", "Good luck!", et cetera)?

Just disable all takebacks folks! This should teach chess players to take responsibility for their own bad moves and resign. Resigning is like taking back all the moves to the starting position. The only problem is some players refuse to resign and wait until their time runs out. Does anyone have any tips on how to deal with players who do this?

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.