@ThunderClap said in #29:
>
@Overcooker Takebacks are about misclicks & are usually ignored even then' . You cannot for example grant a 'takeback' in an over the board rated game it's illegal
@Onyx_Chess said in #39:
>
@ThunderClap #29
>
> The exact same people who invented the touch-move rule for OTB chess also invented the takeback rule for online chess, for the exact same reason, and to serve the exact same purpose.
>
> You're correct.
> They are fundamentally the same thing, but not in the way that you are positing.
>
> There is a very good reason that I've never seen a player intend to trade queens and then accidentally drop it a square short in an OTB tournament. The reason that this doesn't happen is because it would devalue chess and make it irritating to play.
>
> People would quickly give up chess if random accidents routinely destroyed perfectly good chess games.
> We'd want to be rid of these kinds of accidents so that we could move away from non-chess, and towards chess, in order to improve the game.
>
> Just as we saw a problem occurring in OTB play where people touching pieces and putting them back became an issue and we made a rule to prevent the drawback of this activity...so it is with the unfortunate drawbacks of playing chess online where other instances can destroy the experience.
>
> Both rules were made by the exact same people, for the exact same reason, and to serve the exact same ends.
>
> We used to only move up one square, and decided that pawns should move up 2 instead.
> We tried that for a bit, realized that there were some challenges with it, and so we invented an en passant rule.
> We realized that being allowed an infinite amount of time produced drawbacks, and so we invented the clock.
>
> All of these things, and many more, were invented by the exact same people, for the exact same reason, and in order to serve the exact same ends.
>
> When all the chips are down, "non-moves should be allowed/encouraged/normalized/chosen/preferred" is not a hill that any chess player would die on. Nobody thinks that chess works better that way.
>
> Imagine if you were in an afterlife, looking for a game of chess, and in every game of chess you played your opponent accidentally made a non-move that you were obligated to take advantage of.
>
> Imagine that you couldn't help but "win" every single game of chess that you played in your afterlife due to this bizarre happenstance.
>
> How long would you enjoy the game for?
> Would you wake up every morning rushing to go "win" some more games of chess?
> Or would your chess experience be destroyed by non-moves?
> Would you miss playing chess and invent a takeback rule so that you could finally enjoy a perfectly good game of chess again?
>
> Across the last several months, my opponents and I have been making excellent use of the takeback feature.
>
> Of about 20 instances, I believe that 100% of my opponents had the feature enabled and it was used to good success.
>
> Note: This case was made with Classical/Rapid time controls in mind.
> Note: This case was made with obvious non-moves in mind.
@ThunderClap said in #27:
>
@Overcooker You BLUNDERED then had the 'nerve' to ask for a takeback ? REALLY ? Wow / Then got mad at the other player yikes'