it seems this is going to have its passionate supporters on both sides.![]()
I don't care which it is, as long as it is fair and easy to implement and asking kids to decide when to allow take backs and when not seems fraught with problems.
it seems this is going to have its passionate supporters on both sides.![]()
I don't care which it is, as long as it is fair and easy to implement and asking kids to decide when to allow take backs and when not seems fraught with problems.
your word for the day ...Originally Posted by arosar
philistine
wear it with pride
![]()
.
It's not the same thing, is it? Purdy was taking about people changing their mind after realising their deliberate move was inferior, not a slip of the mouse which causes an accidental move.Originally Posted by eclectic
Having said that, it probably has to be no takebacks for consistency if some people are so desperate to win by any means. At least then everybody knows where they stand and understands that part of the time management is ensuring you spend that extra half-second on playing your move carefully.
thanks for verifying your level of maturityOriginally Posted by arosar
much appreciated
![]()
.
I think the dodgy mouse argument is just specious. People should not be playing with dodgy equipment. If they do then they must accept the consequences that follow. Likewise that someone with a nervous hand can take precautions to avoid slip ups. A double click interface or confirmation message before transmitting a move would mitigate both problems.Originally Posted by pax
You can't assume everyone is honest as this just plays into the hands of the dishonest. Any system which relies on honesty will be rorted.
Two take backs per game is two too many. Allowing a systrem where abuses need to be reported and I assume therefore investigated is just making a rod for your own back. Then it calls into question the motivations of the investigators, the possibility that an injustice might be done in the name of stamping out take-back abuse. It just gets messier frmo there.Originally Posted by pax
It seems an unnecessary loophole which only disadvantages the honest.Originally Posted by pax
So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein
I agree the two media are very different and trying to apply the rules written for OTB play to net play is not always obvious. Even in OTB play it is possible to pick up a piece deliberately and place it on a square accidentally. (If it drops out of one's hand in transit, for example). In this case the player would have a difficult time convincing anyone that the move was not made deliberately.Originally Posted by Ian Rout
The other problem is sometimes people do sometimes make a gross blunder and move a piece to an enprise square which in net play would look very much like a mouse slip. OTB there is no right of reply, I can't see why there should be one over the net.
Exactly. Or configuring your interface to ensure these sort of slips are less likely, which may involve spending a small amount of extra time per move.Originally Posted by Ian Rout
So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein
Look, it's just one of those things. It just happens at random. For some reason, instead of going to e5, you drop the Queen on e4 where it can be taken gratis. Wouldn't you say that it's unconscionable to allow a disaster when you know deep in your heart that it was a mistake?Originally Posted by Rincewind
AR
I would say, "touch-move is touch-move, better luck next game."Originally Posted by arosar
Outlaw takebacks and I think you will find the occurrence of mouseslips will drop dramatically. If there is no penalty, people will not be motivated to avoid them.
So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein
I understand where you're coming from. But it feels a bit odd to allow it. It's sort of ungentlemanly. In bullet, I never allow it cos that is the nature of it. But at G3+ (on ICC), I make a judgement call on whether it was a genuine blunder or just an obvious slip. If the latter, I allow takeback. No one wants to win so cheaply. It just feels terrible.Originally Posted by Rincewind
Even in OTB blitz, albeit only casual, we sometimes point out the loss of a Queen, say, and help the opponent a bit. It's the honourable thing.
AR
I see no reason why you feel it is ok at bullet but not a blitz. People make mouseslips in both forms. This just seems to be a subjective rule which helps you sleep at night.Originally Posted by arosar
What you do in casual games is not relevant. At all time controls, serious OTB chess strictly enforces the touch-move rule. Allowing take backs only seems to disadvantage the honest since we cannot assume that only gentlemen play chess.Originally Posted by arosar
So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein
This is the 'Intenet' Junior Championships and mouseslips are a part of internet chess. If you make one, live with it.
Having all sorts of rules about adding and subtracting time; if condition A occurs, we have one rule and if condition B occurs we have another rule - can only lead to argumants. And, as some have said, the application of these rules is often subjective. Not to mention, where do you draw the line when someone claims a 'mouseslip' which may or may not be one?
So long as everyone knows the 'no takeback' rule in advance, I believe this is the fairest way to go and true to the spirit of chess - I personally consider the idea of a takeback abhorrent.
Perhaps you do not understand bullet. The time controls are such that merely accepting a takeback, much less offering one, may cause a material shift in the relative staus of the clocks, and therefore the result of the game.Originally Posted by Rincewind
At slower time controls (and anything slower than G3 fits this bill playing on ICC or Playchess) time is a less dramatic factor, mouselips are far less prevalent, and it is reasonable to request a takeback in the case of an obvious mouselip. Make such a request at G1 and you'll give your opponent the chuckles.
I have never felt attracted to playing bullet it is true. I assumed that were take-backs allowed there would be some way of adjusting the clocks such that the take back (if accepted) would not temporally disadvantage the one granting the request. Somewhat like what was mentioned earlier for the USCF net competition.Originally Posted by jase
So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)