@ProfDrHack don't waste time answering his questions. He'll come back and say you made "concessions" or "retractions" or "forfeited your position" no matter what you say. He's that kind of troll :P
@ProfDrHack
Firstly, anyone that didn't read my response to the OP in #7 is completely clueless about what I am actually arguing. Despite the fabrication that this echo-chamber is trying to produce, I'm not someone that started a post to whine about not being allowed a takeback.
That said:
1. "I don‘t know." < - - - Perhaps the question was unclear.
Let me rephrase:
1. At what point would you request a takeback feature, before or after 1000 straight wins due to your opponent glitching/slipping?
*
**
***
2. "No no. They're supposed to be more careful. It's completely confusing that someone did that, whether they voiced a forfeit or not. The game is completely FUBAR and it was their fault. And they should lose the game for accidentally knocking over the king. That just destroyed EVERYTHING. Why should their opponent have to live with their carelessness. Et cetera." - This is the position that is in lockstep with the opposition that I'm arguing.
And the "et cetera" is plentiful and all of it is every bit as asinine as what my sarcasm has outlined here.
This simile is FLAWLESS.
"That's just chess" and "glitches/slips are legitimate chess moves" are not legitimate or honest arguments.
***
**
*
3. No "can of worms" at all. It's not some complicated matter of perspective at all.
The rule, and the reason for it, is completely clear and obvious. The opposition wants to continue to pretend that it doesn't see and can't understand; yet, we see masters routinely knock over pieces and continue on as though nothing happened.
Anyone trying to call arbiters for that would ensure that they would never be invited back.
No. The matter is not ambiguous. The matter is perfectly clear.
PS: It would be annoying to move from a 'Click Drag' site to a '2-Click' system. That was the only point I was making.
First impressions are important.
How we define what "ought" be the case, is important.
PPS: "Ad hominem" means to state that the speaker's point is invalid for reasons that have to do with qualities about the speaker, instead of the the point that they're asserting. e.g., "Obviously what you're saying is incorrect because you're using a 'text wall' to make the point."
I understand that there is a very illiterate and simple faction of internet-land that wants to make "ad hominem" synonymous with "name-calling", but nobody born before 2000 is having it. You'll have to wait until we're dead to make illiteracy mainstream, and fiction, fact.
I already decimated the opposition's claim that "glitches/slips are legitimate moves", and had moved on to the idea that there may be a psychological motivation between why it is that people like me, who've had takebacks disabled, simply read #7 1-8, agree and move on, and the trigger that's causing others to behave as though #7 was some affront to their ego.
Yes. It reeks of cowardice and self-serving ideation. I can't think of too many other reasons for it.
For example, think about what nobody has yet said, and why that may be:
"Look, I do it because it benefits me. End of discussion. I almost never glitch, so turning it off guarantees me a few extra wins every year. I make no apologies. I'm not here to be nice. It's legal to do it. So that's all there is to it.
No, obviously glitches/slips aren't legitimate moves. People wouldn't play chess if they occurred regularly.
No, obviously glitches/slips aren't chess. FIDE has very obvious rules against exploiting accidental contact that we all fully understand and agree with.
But this is online, and I'm allowed to exploit this bit of non-chess to my benefit, so that's what I do." - An Honest and Factual Argument.
And do you know what my counter-argument is to this honest expression of the facts of the matter?
"..."
I fully disagree with the approach...but there is nothing to argue.
The speaker is stating their personal preference to exploit a loophole, and I would actually appreciate the honesty.
This would shut down all argument in one fell swoop.
But we don't see any of this kind of honesty being argued. (legitimate)
We don't see 1-8 of post #7 argued. (legitimate)
All we see is people trying to hide themselves behind illegitimate and illogical claims.
And it is not ad hominem to speculate as to why that might be.
There is nobody that should have taken any contention with post #7.
Those that allow takebacks, and those that do not, are both represented in that thread.
Both are a justified and legitimate position to take.
That matter is open-shut.
No, there is obviously something else going on here, and I think I've done a miraculous job of sussing that out and making it plain as day.
I want to thank the Red-Herring division of Lichess for their assistance in demonstrating as test-subjects in this case-study.
Firstly, anyone that didn't read my response to the OP in #7 is completely clueless about what I am actually arguing. Despite the fabrication that this echo-chamber is trying to produce, I'm not someone that started a post to whine about not being allowed a takeback.
That said:
1. "I don‘t know." < - - - Perhaps the question was unclear.
Let me rephrase:
1. At what point would you request a takeback feature, before or after 1000 straight wins due to your opponent glitching/slipping?
*
**
***
2. "No no. They're supposed to be more careful. It's completely confusing that someone did that, whether they voiced a forfeit or not. The game is completely FUBAR and it was their fault. And they should lose the game for accidentally knocking over the king. That just destroyed EVERYTHING. Why should their opponent have to live with their carelessness. Et cetera." - This is the position that is in lockstep with the opposition that I'm arguing.
And the "et cetera" is plentiful and all of it is every bit as asinine as what my sarcasm has outlined here.
This simile is FLAWLESS.
"That's just chess" and "glitches/slips are legitimate chess moves" are not legitimate or honest arguments.
***
**
*
3. No "can of worms" at all. It's not some complicated matter of perspective at all.
The rule, and the reason for it, is completely clear and obvious. The opposition wants to continue to pretend that it doesn't see and can't understand; yet, we see masters routinely knock over pieces and continue on as though nothing happened.
Anyone trying to call arbiters for that would ensure that they would never be invited back.
No. The matter is not ambiguous. The matter is perfectly clear.
PS: It would be annoying to move from a 'Click Drag' site to a '2-Click' system. That was the only point I was making.
First impressions are important.
How we define what "ought" be the case, is important.
PPS: "Ad hominem" means to state that the speaker's point is invalid for reasons that have to do with qualities about the speaker, instead of the the point that they're asserting. e.g., "Obviously what you're saying is incorrect because you're using a 'text wall' to make the point."
I understand that there is a very illiterate and simple faction of internet-land that wants to make "ad hominem" synonymous with "name-calling", but nobody born before 2000 is having it. You'll have to wait until we're dead to make illiteracy mainstream, and fiction, fact.
I already decimated the opposition's claim that "glitches/slips are legitimate moves", and had moved on to the idea that there may be a psychological motivation between why it is that people like me, who've had takebacks disabled, simply read #7 1-8, agree and move on, and the trigger that's causing others to behave as though #7 was some affront to their ego.
Yes. It reeks of cowardice and self-serving ideation. I can't think of too many other reasons for it.
For example, think about what nobody has yet said, and why that may be:
"Look, I do it because it benefits me. End of discussion. I almost never glitch, so turning it off guarantees me a few extra wins every year. I make no apologies. I'm not here to be nice. It's legal to do it. So that's all there is to it.
No, obviously glitches/slips aren't legitimate moves. People wouldn't play chess if they occurred regularly.
No, obviously glitches/slips aren't chess. FIDE has very obvious rules against exploiting accidental contact that we all fully understand and agree with.
But this is online, and I'm allowed to exploit this bit of non-chess to my benefit, so that's what I do." - An Honest and Factual Argument.
And do you know what my counter-argument is to this honest expression of the facts of the matter?
"..."
I fully disagree with the approach...but there is nothing to argue.
The speaker is stating their personal preference to exploit a loophole, and I would actually appreciate the honesty.
This would shut down all argument in one fell swoop.
But we don't see any of this kind of honesty being argued. (legitimate)
We don't see 1-8 of post #7 argued. (legitimate)
All we see is people trying to hide themselves behind illegitimate and illogical claims.
And it is not ad hominem to speculate as to why that might be.
There is nobody that should have taken any contention with post #7.
Those that allow takebacks, and those that do not, are both represented in that thread.
Both are a justified and legitimate position to take.
That matter is open-shut.
No, there is obviously something else going on here, and I think I've done a miraculous job of sussing that out and making it plain as day.
I want to thank the Red-Herring division of Lichess for their assistance in demonstrating as test-subjects in this case-study.
"... I've done a miraculous job... "
Just imagine all the time you wasted typing this when you could have been having a good wank instead.
Just imagine all the time you wasted typing this when you could have been having a good wank instead.
Onyx chess you sure can yack man
I disabled takebacks and sometimes I still get people rapping at me about it. One player called me a cheat for not letting him takeback a move and I just laughed. Another player slipped a castle and wasn't mean about it but he went as far as asking me to turn on my takebacks and I just moved my king over one square to match his mistake and replied "there you go happy now?" He wasn't happy. (Edit that was a very embarrassing typo)
@Kanaan92
Proposition takes no issue with anything that you've said there.
In the months that I had takebacks disabled, I was fortunate not to get any pushback for it at all.
I think that most people understand the position.
*
**
***
Also, to this day, I remember the relief of never having to make a federal case out of glitches/slips. I actually found it calming and stress-free to just play the game through and start the next. No guilt whatsoever. No worrying about accepting/denying. Just simply "play on". It was definitely very refreshing.
At the same time, however, I was having to waste my time playing for points that I didn't earn and couldn't keep.
At the same time, chess games were being needlessly interrupted/destroyed and people were being deflated instead of encouraged.
But even with those downsides, I was still comfortable with my position as being the lesser of two evils in terms of personal preference. Believe it or not, in a vacuum, having takebacks disabled is actually my personal preference.
In fact, if Lichess wasn't as spectacular as it is, I wouldn't feel motivated to be an ambassador for the site, and I would still have takebacks disabled today.
***
**
*
But when I realized how powerful the first impression is of someone coming here to find people who forgive glitches/unintentional contact, and even people who add time to highly tense/sharp positions that deserve to be played through instead of flagged (occurs about 1 in every 500 games, but you know them when you see them) then that is a sacrifice that I'm gladly willing to make, where I can 'give back' a little bit of that same grace that I've received from this community.
I'll never forget the awesome impression that particular members of this community left on me in my first week. It's my opinion that everyone should be privy to that same experience; thus, I've made the personal choice to pay my experience forward to others in hopes that they do the same for others.
But I don't fault people who didn't have my same experience and have resolved that the ease of simply disabling takebacks is the way that they want to go.
I have no issues with not allowing takebacks.
With that said, this argument includes an unfortunate necessity which chooses the lesser of two evils, where 'lesser' can be argued ad infinitum and is subject to personal taste.
This does not include a pseudo-argument about how "glitches/slips are a part of chess", or that "gltches/slips are legitimate chess moves", or that "people who accidentally contact pieces should be punished for daring to disrupt the concentration of their opponent and fubaring the game", and every other excuse that people are using to justify their not allowing takebacks.
The people who don't allow takebacks for legitimate and logical reasons do not feel any need to make any excuses; and I have no interest in being confused or conflated with those that do.
Proposition takes no issue with anything that you've said there.
In the months that I had takebacks disabled, I was fortunate not to get any pushback for it at all.
I think that most people understand the position.
*
**
***
Also, to this day, I remember the relief of never having to make a federal case out of glitches/slips. I actually found it calming and stress-free to just play the game through and start the next. No guilt whatsoever. No worrying about accepting/denying. Just simply "play on". It was definitely very refreshing.
At the same time, however, I was having to waste my time playing for points that I didn't earn and couldn't keep.
At the same time, chess games were being needlessly interrupted/destroyed and people were being deflated instead of encouraged.
But even with those downsides, I was still comfortable with my position as being the lesser of two evils in terms of personal preference. Believe it or not, in a vacuum, having takebacks disabled is actually my personal preference.
In fact, if Lichess wasn't as spectacular as it is, I wouldn't feel motivated to be an ambassador for the site, and I would still have takebacks disabled today.
***
**
*
But when I realized how powerful the first impression is of someone coming here to find people who forgive glitches/unintentional contact, and even people who add time to highly tense/sharp positions that deserve to be played through instead of flagged (occurs about 1 in every 500 games, but you know them when you see them) then that is a sacrifice that I'm gladly willing to make, where I can 'give back' a little bit of that same grace that I've received from this community.
I'll never forget the awesome impression that particular members of this community left on me in my first week. It's my opinion that everyone should be privy to that same experience; thus, I've made the personal choice to pay my experience forward to others in hopes that they do the same for others.
But I don't fault people who didn't have my same experience and have resolved that the ease of simply disabling takebacks is the way that they want to go.
I have no issues with not allowing takebacks.
With that said, this argument includes an unfortunate necessity which chooses the lesser of two evils, where 'lesser' can be argued ad infinitum and is subject to personal taste.
This does not include a pseudo-argument about how "glitches/slips are a part of chess", or that "gltches/slips are legitimate chess moves", or that "people who accidentally contact pieces should be punished for daring to disrupt the concentration of their opponent and fubaring the game", and every other excuse that people are using to justify their not allowing takebacks.
The people who don't allow takebacks for legitimate and logical reasons do not feel any need to make any excuses; and I have no interest in being confused or conflated with those that do.
If you give them an inch...
Oftentimes doesn't end well mate! Unless you know the guy!!
And you're going to have trouble if you're assuming you're playing against an "8 year old girl who just lost a parent" or any reason lol. Play chess for chess. You don't give your opponent takebacks in tournaments do you?
Oftentimes doesn't end well mate! Unless you know the guy!!
And you're going to have trouble if you're assuming you're playing against an "8 year old girl who just lost a parent" or any reason lol. Play chess for chess. You don't give your opponent takebacks in tournaments do you?
Just say no to drugs and takebacks._. Seems like every year theres multiples of this post ._.
@dooeyDecimal Every year there's "multiples" of every post I bet the mods can confirm that.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.