Take-back etiquette in a rated game

I've wondered at times what's actually meant by 'mouseslip' too. I can only assume it's the situation I found myself in recently when I had a perfect square to move my Queen to, but instead of that I moved it onto the adjacent square by mistake and was then forced to accept an exchange putting me in a much worse position.

Unfortunately, it probably looked like a beginner simply not knowing what was best and so it would've been difficult for me to argue for a takeback. I would've been very annoyed if I were my opponent in that situation staring at the takeback request. It was a genuine mistake(mouseslip?) on my part but it 'was my' mistake after all.

Even though I put myself in a bad position, I still think it's a little unfair to expect my opponent to suffer for it.

Its your decision whether you will accept it or not. If not, disable the takevack option. But if you give takeback, DO NOT expect that your opponent will accept your ones if he/she is winning the game.

i like it for obvious mouseslips, but expect 8/10 ppl to ask but not give, so disabling is a very sound option if you like your rating

@BuenaventuraDurruti said in #40:
> I asked you for a "definition"

"definition" of "obvious" is, that you notice it without trying.
Don't tell me that it never happened to you, that your opponent made a move and you immediately knew it was a mouseslip even without getting a takeback request.

I never said that there are some universal rules for deciding... but if my opponent makes a move and I immediately think "must be a mouseslip", and a fraction of a second later I get a takeback request, then why would I reject it? What's the point? What is there to earn by rejecting it or not allowing it? I can't see how rejecting it wouldn't lead to a lose/lose situation.

I generally give takebacks for obvious mouse slips. Like kf1 instead of castling.

But i dislike it when a person say they had a mouse slip then plays something completely different.

I think take back should not be encouraged in rated games: in chess one side wins because of blanders, mistakes, oversights, etc committed by the other side. So if one allows take backs for the other side to pursue a perfect game, it kills the essence of chess.

For example, see the amount of takebacks requests in this game: lichess.org/SC1lyRNtBKyO
Amounts to harassment!

@Bena007 said in #46:
"I think take back should not be encouraged in rated games: in chess one side wins because of blanders, mistakes, oversights, etc committed by the other side. So if one allows take backs for the other side to pursue a perfect game, it kills the essence of chess."

Yes, this! The minute a takeback is allowed the game becomes something less than chess as far as I'm concerned. It really does kill any enthusiasm I had up to that point in the game, and I just find myself wanting it to be over so I can get onto playing a proper game of chess. I'm glad I tried it, but it very quickly confirmed everything I'd always suspected about it. It's permanently disabled for me now.

@IridescentMeowMeow
#44

Keeping chess alive is there to be earned.

Chess consists of moves made, if you'd start to take moves back, would-be chess consisted of moves made and moves remade.

Chess is fun (..is great, a joy) because it is serious: We are jollily true to our moves, even if our lack of attention let's us blunder or mouse-slip.
You cannot tinker with that without ruining it.

And you do it for the vanity of playing on an interesting position? That was not in the cards. You two can analyze the position that mouse-slipped away- if it was that intriguing. Or play a new game, if it was not.

Ask for and grant take-back, you earned yourselves a lose/lose position, in chess terms. It's ghouls' play.. Keep chess alive by staying true to the win-win no take-backs etiquette!

While playing anonymously some time ago, I had an opponent who asked for a takeback instead of delivering checkmate. He was playing as black and the position was #-1 when he asked. Not realizing that it was indeed #-1, I granted takeback and went on to win the game. When I saw analysis, I thought I broke the chess etiquette by accepting the takeback more than relief for winning the game

In yet another similar incident, I declined takeback and resigned 10 seconds later when my opponent failed to notice mate in 1.

It is not that I wanted to lose, I deserved to lose having reached that position. It was more about sportsmanship in my opinion.

@ungewichtet said in #48:
"I enjoy Chess when it's serious, when we are jollily true to our moves" - This exactly is at the core of why I accept mouseslip takebacks. "Our moves" - I want to play against *your* moves. If I recognize your mouseslip and a takeback request comes, I will gladly accept and allow myself playing against genuinly *your* moves instead of playing against some random non-sense which occured on the board just accidentally.

(yes, I rephrased your sentence (the one I quoted) to reflect the fact that you were describing your individual subjective perception of chess, while in its original form it tried to look like a statement describing objective reality (which it wasn't... it was something like "Chess is fun because" followed by your personal reason.)

"even if our lack of attention let's us blunder or mouse-slip." - a false presumption that all mouse-slips are caused by lack of attention.

"Chess consists of moves made, if you'd start to take moves back, would-be chess consisted of moves made and moves remade." - Feel free to call it a "would-be-chess" and to not consider it Chess anymore, but thing is, that allowing takebacks or not doesn't make nor break any of the defining characterestics of Chess.
But in that case, to keep true to the way you're reasoning, don't call any games played here Chess either, as the king must be the first piece touched when castling, while on Lichess it can be done the other way around, and also the touch-move doesn't apply here... so we're definitely not playing any chess in here, right?

"You two can analyze the position that mouse-slipped away, if it was that intriguing." - If what I want is to continue playing a game, and I easily can by accepting a takeback, then why exactly would I not go for it, but instead go with your suggestion of doing something entirely different? Did I misunderstand or did you just ignore the fact, that analyzing a game and playing it are two entirely different expriences?

Generally, I don't see anything wrong with what Chess is for you, but it would be narrow-minded to presume that everyone else is experiencing Chess the same way.
Even if one fails to (or doesn't even want to) see chess from other points of view and experience it different ways than one is used to, then one should at least respect the diversity of people enjoying Chess, and the diversity of their preferences...

I believe it would be best, if there was a second rating number computed from both rated+casual games. Or some other feature which would allow matching opponents of similar strength, without playing rated games. So that rated games would be only for people who like to take it seriously and they would not get annoyed by casual players and their takebacks... this way it's annoying for both groups of people as casual players can't play casual games only, because there is no opponent matching feature for casual games.