lichess.org

Takebacks

@Sarg0n

3 out of my last 3 opponents had takebacks enabled.

Anyone that can count, even if they have to use their fingers, fully understands that you're still trying to posit illegitimate claims into the forums.


"Tail is convinced of wagging the dog" is not a point that speaks in your favour, sir. That is a point that you should be hoping that I don't bring up myself.

The empty-can, echo-chamber, windbag-windtunnel that produces itself in these forums from time to time, is not necessarily representative of the Lichess body as a whole.



It's been this way throughout this post. People try to make an illogical/illegitimate point, and therefore the facts of the matter place that "point" squarely on my side of the argument.

This post has been one massive exercise in 'self-mate' for everyone trying to argue that glitches/slips are legitimate chess moves.



Look, Sarg0n, this debacle of logic and legitimacy is not usually emblematic of you.

But once you start with the illogical, illegitimate, non-factual, unrealistic claims, it's like you have to get it all out of your system at one time before you say something real, factual, logical and legitimate again.

You'd let us all know that it's mid-June right now if that fact would win an argument that caters to your point of view.

Leave this thread alone and bring back the Sarg0n that talks good sense in another.

Arguments don't get better if you surround them with walls of text telling on repeat that they are right and that everyone else involved in the conversation is being illogical, you know.

... but I can't even find the argument why dragging is a better default than 2-click at all (not to mention that "either" is the actual default). Must be buried somewhere in there.

@giorgii11

Hey takebacks are pathetic, its a chess. every mistake counts, does not matter its a mouse slip or whatever.

i never accept takeback offers and i never request.

turn it off in the options

@sameartist The problem with that is that you're playing for rating points and not for an enjoyable game of chess. Winning because your opponents mouse is of a lower quality does not make you a better player and the argument that this is somehow related to your skill in chess is just ridiculous.

This whole takeback discussion is getting ridiculous. If you want to take the easy win, just refuse the takeback requests, you have that right. But if you want to play chess based on actual skill in chess, accepting mouse slip takebacks seems like the right thing to do.

@sameartist @Stefanxd I did turn it off. Days ago. I never imagined some people would blather on about it for so long. I can't tell when someone mouse slipped, or when they rolled their chair over their cat's tail, or if they need to buy a new mouse.

Move along, y'all. Nothing left to see here.

@Onyx_Chess
["You are factually incorrect to say "the same people"."]
No, I am not.

["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."]

What do you want, a cookie? Your experience is completely irrelevant to my statement. Also, the giving of takebacks is not even the same as flagging. Try and read next time.

"This is good news because it decimates your statement to smithereens"

No, it merely shows you like talking about yourself and have a penchant for hyperbole.

"and it's also proof-positive of how minor and insignificant the whole entire issue actually is."
Just imagine being so full of yourself that you think your own little anecdotal experience is "proof-positive".

@ProfDrHack

You said: [[[(not to mention that "either" is the actual default)."]]]

Congratulations, ProfDrHack. This might be the first actual attempt at a counter-argument in this entire post.
That's the thing about echo-chambers; the substance can be as erroneous as it is vacuous, whilst the "text wall" resembles a 'sky-scraper'.


I don't digress my point because it is set on 'click-drag' as a default as was stated, but finally someone actually tried to argue a logical fact.


The argument was that clicking and dragging is default on every other site; therefore, if someone coming from somewhere else were to experience a 2-click setting here, even with an option to change it, it would be considered an annoyance and leave a bad first impression. Given the amount of people playing fast-clock time controls, this is amplified all the more.

The point that was being made, was that it's nonsense to promote a setup as being logical and legitimate, when that same setup is one that people don't only "not like", but one that people literally wouldn't tolerate for more than a minute.

So same questions for you ProfDrHack:

1. 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?

2. Why isn't accidentally knocking the king over considered a loss?

3. 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?


1-8 in post #7 deal with these three questions in a logical and legitimate way.

But trying to argue that it's in any way "legitimate chess" is illogical and illegitimate.



You said: [[[("Arguments don't get better if you surround them with walls of text")]]]


It's not lost on the judges that when the opposition leads with ad hominem, that logical fallacy is the best that they could produce. If they had better, they would have produced better.

When people are arguing someone who states that "2+2=5", they don't focus any attention on the words used to make that assertion, they simply ask change for 2 twenty dollar bills.

'Asking change for 2 twenty dollar bills', is what I've been routinely doing since people butted in to protect their weak ego with fallacious, illogical, and illegitimate arguments in response to post #7, which perfectly explained the 2 different schools of thought that OP was asking about.

When faced with those 3 questions, all of a sudden everyone has wanted to change the subject extra-fast, except for the one yokel that guffawed some lie about how 'he'd enjoy winning every game on a glitch/slip'.


Throws around ad hominems left and right(„weak ego“ is the latest), then asks to stop ad hominem arguments.

My kind of humour.



But you wanted answers. Fine.

1)
I don‘t know. I have takebacks enabled, actually, but I have not had the opportunity to grant one for legitimate reasons for over a year. Just some occurences where the opponent tried to obviously weasel themselves out of a blunder, which I declined. So much for the sportsmanship of takebacks.

2)
Why would it? The game is a loss if the player communicates that they want to resign. Knocking over your king is a widely accepted way to do that, yes. But it is not by itself the reason for the loss. It has to be part of that communication. Intent is an essential part of this. No intent, no communication, no loss.

3)
Objectively, because the rules say so.
And it opens the same can of worms that we can observe here, with both players arguing whether there was intent in their case or not. Especially funny (and by this I mean ridiculous) if there are no unbiased witnesses.
But at least, all of this happens before the player presses their clock, in their own move. Takebacks on the other hand happen after that finalization, thus disturbing the opponent during the time allotted for their thoughts. That‘s a different quality of disturbance, especially with the general philosophy of the rules in mind (that the player who is not to move is not allowed ANY actions. For example, you are not allowed to offer or claim a draw during your opponent‘s move either). Thus unintentional touching is more easily forgiven than unintentional finalization of a „wrong“ move (and as said, if you want to press your clock yourself, enable move confirmation).



PS: Which other big platform doesn‘t allow 2-click moving?

Reconnecting