I love premoves, and here's why

Premoves could take .1 of a second. Is that a reason to dislike?


Like the vast majority of posters on these forums, you say what you like and what you don't like and then don't give shred of evidence for WHY you dislike or like a point. Such declarations of opinion are worthless.

@Eleuthero The bois who I tagged already gave a lot of evidence, and I gave evidence and reasoning in my #1 post as well as my first reply to you, the #10 post.


Responding to #22

Humans can't always give a reason for emotional preferences. All reasoning about some opinions is worthless. Liking or disliking premoves is only a matter of taste b.e..

Emotional statements are worthless is what you're saying. Is the offence in this idea (against any human including yourself) intentional or incidental? As this is not my problem any answer is all right and not even worth ignoring. ;)

@Neustart #24 I agree that liking and disliking is a matter of taste. But debating whether or not to keep or change existing rules requires a coherent argument. Rule changes should be sound and based on the timeless structure of tradition - just like any evolving system. Otherwise the game becomes "something else". So it's important to put premoves in their historical context to argue persuasively about them and to ensure that rules are not eroded by the biases and whims of the time.

It's reasonable to propose a minimum time-per-move. As an evolution of correspondence chess, online chess became something unique. In a sense, correspondence chess became faster and faster (postal > email > online) generating a "moving picture" of a game in real time - acquiring the realtime characteristic of OTB play. As such, it might be argued that certain additional contraints be imposed - specifically with regard to defining each move as a time-event, not just turns (transmissions of one or more moves).

A counter-argument might be that the apparent similarity of online chess to OTB chess doesn't mean it's no longer a form of correspondence. Hence, just like corresondence chess, the time of the game should still be defined by move-transmissions, not the moves themselves. If one is able to include extra moves within a given transmission, the time expenditure should be concurrent, not consecutive.

Either way, it's an interest argument. I appreciate the arguments on both sides. And I respect @Eleuthero's cantankerous spirit. He genuinely gives a shit about the game.


Agree with #25 enough to have only one point. You talk about evaluating changes and development. Online chess is a change. When I entered first time a chess club ~53 years ago electronic clocks didn't exist. No Database, no engines, no training with electronic devices, CC by post and teleservices. This happens and will continue.

So I have only one question: Why "But" as first word of the 2nd sentence? ;)

@Neustart That's intended to express an exception for those who wish to share more than their like or dislike. Those arguing about actual rule changes need to bring more than personal opinion to the table. Of course, that's my own personal opinion. hehe

The reasons given for supporting premove are these arcane philosophical points. My argument is based on a bedrock of facts. Fact #1 is that premove is touching your pieces before your opponent has moved which is illegal OTB. Why you young people suddenly think it's legit online is beyond my comprehension.

Fact #2 is that premove makes the clock itself halfway toward being meaningless. I can't tell you how many games I've lost where I had 15 seconds and my opponent had 2 and I lost on time. If a clock actually doesn't tell the real time, then it's not a frigging clock.

Fact #3 is that premove makes the most shallow forms of chess, bullet and hyperbullet, seem legit. Why would chess players play a form of chess that's so shallow that even GMs drop pieces like total patzers??

Premove removes meaning and adds chaos. It ruins games. It's so counter to the idea of fair play that it's a joke.

" I had 15 seconds and my opponent had 2 and I lost on time. If a clock actually doesn't tell the real time, then it's not a frigging clock. "

If it was an OTB game, you had 15 seconds, your opponent had 2 seconds, but then you think for 15 seconds, you would lose on time. How does that make the clock not real? If your opponent manages to make all his moves within the 2 seconds and you don't manage within 15, then you lost because you were much slower, not because of premoves.