Hello,
I'm playing here with a new account, but I've used Lichess before. Wonderful site.
As my first topic I want to talk about something that always comes up in my games, and seems to be more frequent now: players proposing takebacks in quick pairing.
I don't ask for takebacks unless the reason I'm playing a game is to study and for the other player it's the same. I feel like takebacks only have a good purpose in those cases. Meanwhile in regular competitive games it's just a way to correct blunders without either player agreeing that it would be part of the game.
Let's say I'm playing a game and the other player whom I don't know asks for a takeback:
* - I accept the takeback, and so I play at a disadvantage because I don't myself use them. I just accept my blunders.
* - I reject the takeback, in which case I appear to be non-courteous, lacking in friendliness, and petty.
It sours a game for me when I'm asked this, for these reasons.
If someone feels badly because they made a blunder to the extent that they want to get a do-over, I'm genuinely sorry that there is that much negative feeling from making a mistake. I wish that wasn't true for some players.
I range from poor to decent performance in games depending on whatever factors affect my chess mind that day/week/month. I'm not a 'good' player. So, I make lots of blunders. But I feel like blunders are just part of the game and the best thing to do with them is to learn from them rather than want to take an eraser to it and start over when, usually, the other player has committed to not doing so.
I understand not wanting to lose rating, also. I always play rated games unless it's with a friend. I feel like all of this applies either way because it's about fairness.
What do you think? When do you feel that takebacks improve the game, and when do you feel like they don't?
I'm playing here with a new account, but I've used Lichess before. Wonderful site.
As my first topic I want to talk about something that always comes up in my games, and seems to be more frequent now: players proposing takebacks in quick pairing.
I don't ask for takebacks unless the reason I'm playing a game is to study and for the other player it's the same. I feel like takebacks only have a good purpose in those cases. Meanwhile in regular competitive games it's just a way to correct blunders without either player agreeing that it would be part of the game.
Let's say I'm playing a game and the other player whom I don't know asks for a takeback:
* - I accept the takeback, and so I play at a disadvantage because I don't myself use them. I just accept my blunders.
* - I reject the takeback, in which case I appear to be non-courteous, lacking in friendliness, and petty.
It sours a game for me when I'm asked this, for these reasons.
If someone feels badly because they made a blunder to the extent that they want to get a do-over, I'm genuinely sorry that there is that much negative feeling from making a mistake. I wish that wasn't true for some players.
I range from poor to decent performance in games depending on whatever factors affect my chess mind that day/week/month. I'm not a 'good' player. So, I make lots of blunders. But I feel like blunders are just part of the game and the best thing to do with them is to learn from them rather than want to take an eraser to it and start over when, usually, the other player has committed to not doing so.
I understand not wanting to lose rating, also. I always play rated games unless it's with a friend. I feel like all of this applies either way because it's about fairness.
What do you think? When do you feel that takebacks improve the game, and when do you feel like they don't?