When you play chess and make a move that is a bad move, you must accept any material loss or check(mate) that comes of it. Nobody can deny this. But the idea of "play banning" somebody who refuses to continue playing against an opponent lacking integrity seems...misguided.
Example: Suppose you are about to move Qd6 but due to your fat fingers, Qd5 gets accidentally selected instead. Lichess has done us the courtesy of adding a Takeback option to our games, and those of us with fat fingers are grateful for it. But what about those times when you play against an opponent who, despite seeing you IMMEDIATELY RETRACT THE MOVE which was done in error, refuses to accept the takeback? Does it seem right that such an unprincipled player should have the ability to put you in "time out"?
Imagine playing chess in the park with somebody and while you are moving a piece to your selected square, the table accidentally gets bumped by someone sitting next to you, causing the piece to move to a square not intended. It would be absurd for your opponent insist the piece must stay at that square, and you would probably refuse to continue to play with against any player who demanded it stay there. Yet this happens often on Lichess!
Suggestion: I think Lichess should add an unconditionally-accepted takeback option if the takeback is selected immediately after the move is made. I'm talking less than 1 second here, fast enough to see THAT YOUR PIECE DID NOT GO TO ITS INTENDED SQUARE and move instantly to correct it.
It seems unnecessary that an otherwise pleasant chess game should be ruined by the selfish decisions of gremlins trying to horde points absolutely any way they can.
Use move confirmation.
"But what about those times when you play against an opponent who, despite seeing you IMMEDIATELY RETRACT THE MOVE which was done in error, refuses to accept the takeback? Does it seem right that such an unprincipled player should have the ability to put you in "time out"?"
It doesn't only seem right, it IS right.
"Imagine playing chess in the park with somebody and while you are moving a piece to your selected square, the table accidentally gets bumped by someone sitting next to you, causing the piece to move to a square not intended. It would be absurd for your opponent insist the piece must stay at that square, and you would probably refuse to continue to play with against any player who demanded it stay there. Yet this happens often on Lichess!"
I thought your example was of you making the mistake? I can't think of an analogous situation to this rather contrived example in online chess.
"It seems unnecessary that an otherwise pleasant chess game should be ruined by the selfish decisions of gremlins trying to horde points absolutely any way they can."
You mean, people who play according to the spirit and the letter of FIDE chess rules, where a (legal) move can under no circumstances be retracted? Yeah, I hate all those people who want to play chess on a chess site.
"Suggestion: I think Lichess should add an unconditionally-accepted takeback option if the takeback is selected immediately after the move is made. I'm talking less than 1 second here, fast enough to see THAT YOUR PIECE DID NOT GO TO ITS INTENDED SQUARE and move instantly to correct it."
Yes, they could call it "move confirmation". This would give you more than one second.
"It doesn't only seem right, it IS right."
You think it's right unprincipled players can negatively affect others. You answer rhetorical questions. Ok, friend.
"I thought your example was of you making the mistake? I can't think of an analogous situation to this rather contrived example in online chess."
It is ambiguous to call it a mistake as that could imply one's skill being the cause. A piece moved to a square not intended is a mistake but the mistake isnt due to skill, it's due to the game processing the move. The park analogy is perfect as it illustrates the piece occupying a square not intended, and the absurdity of playing with someone refusing to allow correction.
"You mean, people who play according to the spirit and the letter of FIDE chess rules, where a (legal) move can under no circumstances be retracted? Yeah, I hate all those people who want to play chess on a chess site."
Only those moves which result in the intended piece occupying the intended square are legal. There, now you've seen it in writing.
Imagine someone telling you they played against and quickly captured Carlsen's queen. That person must be pretty good, right? Now imagine they tell you they won because while Carlsen WAS CHECKMATING THEM, he farted and burped at the same time and found it so unbelievably funny he began to laugh, pausing midway to regain his composure on a square square short of chm, to which Carlsen's opponent then swiftly captured the queen, insisting the pause was a legal move.
Forgive a man his burps and farts, Doofenshmirtz.
Accuracy is a big part of chess. There's no way to distinguish between mouseslips and blunders. And there's no need for it. It'll sharpen your mind to get rid of your "sidewheels" and learn to bicycle using only two wheels so to speak.
Let me get this straight, you will never get your idea approved because:
1- There is already move confirmation, which in bullet and blitz is quietly stupid to use, but in certain rapid time controls and especially in classical might be useful.
2- When it is your move whatever happens on your side of the board is your responsibility. Nobody but you played that move, whether by mistake or mouse/finger slip. So nobody is forced to accept a takeback. It would be polite yes but they have the right to decline.
3- Maybe you don't know that it is actually possible to disable takebacks from settings in the first place, so you might play games where the takeback option is not present. Most people do that to avoid beggars or spammers. Your suggestion is in contrast with this option and therefore can't be approved.
I think that this takeback option would be used to troll people and nothing more. If in chess you accidentally moved a piece to the wrong square you do not have a grace period to take it back so why should you have it in online chess? To be honest I have takebacks turned off constantly, what ever happens on your move is your responsibility and there should be no second chances. I generally do not allow takebacks and have never asked for one. If you mouse slip then it was your mistake and it should be your opponents job to punish your mistakes.
#6 Your first comment sounds reasonable to me! I'm not super motivated to drop all of my other projects in order to submit a patch which Lichess is going to reject anyway.
There is already move confirmation, which in bullet and blitz is quietly stupid to use, but in certain rapid time controls and especially in classical might be useful.
vioiio to gf tu
I do ask for takebacks when I mouseslip but I have no problem with my opponent declining it, it's their complete prerogative. I also accept takeback requests only sometimes when I feel like it, basically--maybe I think I'm better either way, or because they had actually played the best move accidentally, or I am genuinely sorry and believe them and really want to give them a fair shot. No hard feelings either side.
