There is no touch-move rule in online chess, so what's the point of using that rule as an argument?
There are sufficient safety ropes one can enable to prevent mouseslips from happening: Move confirmation and the "Click two squares" method of moving. The last one doesn't even consume significantly more time than "Drag a piece".
Why would anyone need a "right" to bother their opponent instead?
The 'mouse slip' is unique to online play...it is up to the opponent to accept the takeback its not a hard and fast rule unlike the 'touch piece' rule in OTB...so please people be kind if its an obvious mouse slip...I remember once on ICC in about 2003 or so when I was very serious about chess I was rated around 1900 and did a mouse slip, my opponent refused a takeback so I disconnected adjourning the game, I then lost lots of games on purpose to get to around 1300 then I resumed the game so he got no rating points for winning lol
What is a mouseslip? There’s a move, nothing else. It is not possible to determine if this move was intended or not. Posing moralizing questions to your opponent is perfidious (the more that you could have prevented it easily by various measures).
The majority of players therefore: Takeback? Never ever!
At long time-controls there really is no excuse for mouse-slips. Use move-confirmation or own your own mistakes.
At bullet and lightning, mouse control is part of the game and I would argue slips are a price you pay for haste/speed. The same people slipping and takeback-ing are happy to flag you 30s later.
Obvious (e.g. king move instead of castle) takebacks in blitz or longer I will grant, sometimes even offer (if they slip but are too proud to ask). Bullet never. Generally, however, I feel takebacks are more trouble than they are worth.
@box_boxed it's a good investment of my time though. I invest 2 minutes for a post and @Onyx_Chess spends 20 minutes in a reply. I read the first few sentences of their first post before skipping the rest.
@Onyx_Chess I believe I'm right that I don't allow takebacks because mouse slips are a part of online chess.
What does 'perfidious' mean?
[[["There is no touch-move rule in online chess, so what's the point of using that rule as an argument?"]]]
The example of not being held to the touchmove rule is a perfect simile in terms of the argument regarding of what to do with accidental and unintended movement of pieces.
The case in online chess is even stronger, because often times it's an independent variable (software/hardware glitch) that causes the accident/unintended move.
This would be akin to a gust of wind causing your piece to move, and the arbiter saying, "Play on, that's chess!" instead of simply placing the pieces back where they were before the gust.
But in FIDE tournaments, EVEN IF someone intentionally reaches for a piece, but accidentally knocks over another one, (we are talking dexterous and kinetic influence), they are not held to having to move the piece that they accidentally touched first.
They are not told, "Pay the price for speed."
They are told, "Put the piece back that you accidentally touched, and simply make the move that you intended."
The entire "should someone get their soccer kick back?" argument circles the drain.
The entire "pay the price for speed" argument along with it.
What do you mean, 'you can't find the comparison'?
What do you mean, 'what does it have to do with'?
In debate, when the opposition/proposition gets so wrapped up in their position that they can't find blatant and obvious comparisons in what amounts to 'case-law-precedent', judges tend to frown severely on that.
Both dependent accidents/unintended moves and independent accidents/unintended moves are covered by this logic, and it's a necessary logic or else you have people being responsible for moves that they did not intend (slip), and sometimes responsible for pieces that they didn't even touch at all (glitch). This is not chess. There are rules created against this in chess.
ALSO, since online chess carries it's own unique challenges, I think that every time someone asks for a takeback in a rated game, that there should be an auto-spam message in the chat and in their PM that directs them to the settings preference where they can select the "Click Two Squares" method of movement, which would be almost certain to prevent the issue in the future.
ALSO, I think that in/beside the takeback request box, it would be perfect if it would show the person's frequency of asking for the request so that the person that's granting the request can easily accept/deny it if it's someone acting outside of good-faith parameters. I fully agree that if glitches/slips is a big problem for an individual, that the person should be engaging preventative measures instead of disturbing their opponents every second game with takeback requests.
None of this is an 'either-or'.
Everything can be salvaged to best effect. There is no necessary 'either-or'.
[[["There are sufficient safety ropes one can enable to prevent mouseslips from happening: Move confirmation and the "Click two squares" method of moving. The last one doesn't even consume significantly more time than "Drag a piece".
Why would anyone need a "right" to bother their opponent instead?"]]]
So then people should be forced to move a piece that they accidentally touch when playing OTB?
"When this happens they've annihilated the game so it's FUBAR and they should be made to pay for it," right?
"They should just be more careful and then games wouldn't be needlessly destroyed," right?
"Who do they think that they are reaching around the board all 'willy-nilly' and carelessly. The rest of us are super extra careful not to touch the rest of our pieces, well they should be too. And if they're not, then they should be forced to move the piece that they accidentally touched! Speed destroys chess!" right?
It's obvious why the default settings of the site are set to click-drag instead of click-2-squares. It needs to stay that way for very obvious reasons.
So here is another idea: How about we just create a rule for that event where the game can continue instead of being destroyed, and the accident is forgiven?
Wait a second...
...NOW we actually find a necessary 'either-or' without needing to invent it first...
...EITHER official FIDE rules reflect my position OR they reflect yours.
["The same people slipping and takeback-ing are happy to flag you 30s later."]
You are factually incorrect to say "the same people".
I've had one instance in the past months and months and months and months and months and months and months where someone had takebacks enabled and didn't allow me the takeback.
This is good news because it decimates your statement to smithereens, and it's also proof-positive of how minor and insignificant the whole entire issue actually is.
[[["The majority of players therefore: Takeback? Never ever!"]]]
Stop lying. The majority of players have takebacks enabled.
The fact that they're all busy playing good games of actual chess, instead of sitting up here in the forums trying to justify their illegitimate 'irrationales', is not a point in your favour.
1. Why isn't accidentally knocking the king over considered a loss?
2. Why is it that if someone accidentally knocks over their king, they do not have to move it and are exonerated from the touchmove rule?
3. How many games would you have to win in a row, due to your opponent having accidental glitches/slips, before you would want someone to program a 'takeback' rule so that you could finally enjoy a good game of chess again?
Disclaimer: My laughter does not endorse or condone 'said' behaviour.
In this post, you're now on record proving that the logic has reduced you to arguing that:
"You can't REALLY tell if when everyone expects QxQ to be played, and the Q lands a square short, that it was an accident. It may have been an intentional move, an oversight, a blunder."
Notice how every time this topic is brought up, my logic becomes more and more salient?
Almost like a won position...
Notice how every time this topic is brought up, your logic becomes more and more desperate?
Almost like a forced mate lurks against the logic in your position...
No? You don't admit to noticing that?