PDA

View Full Version : take backs (sf 2006 Australian Internet Junior Chess Championships Discussion)



Libby
13-03-2006, 06:42 AM
I think we need some clarification of this -


Mouse-slips

It occasionally happens, especially if you are new to playing chess on the Internet, that you accidentally let go of the mouse as you move a piece and it drops on a square you did not intend it to go. If it is obvious that that is what has occurred, you can ask your opponent to takeback the last move eg takeback 1 or perhaps even takeback 2 if your opponent has snaffled a queen or something the instant it plopped on the wrong square. Generally, your opponent should allow the takeback if it is obviously wrong and then you make the correct move. If you or your opponent feel that the takeback should not be allowed, you should check with one of our admins who are online – to do so however, is not so easy since as a default we have created these accounts with quietplay set to 1; this ICC option means that you cannot tell to anyone during a game or receive messages – as soon as the game is finished or adjourned, you will then be able to see messages in Channel 1 and channel 369 etc. To enable you to ask for advice from say the admin ausnetchess while playing the game, type on the main console quietplay 0 – this will turn quietplay off – you can then tell ausnetchess – I think I need help about whatever is the problem.

ie we either accept that they happen , and allow a take-back.

Or everyone gets told "tough bikkies" and live with it.

Because ACT players have "allowed" take backs, and are not being afforded the same courtesy. And it places unfair pressure on any child to make a "judgement call" on whether to allow a "takeback" when they have an obviously winning position as it stands.

jase
13-03-2006, 10:07 AM
Because ACT players have "allowed" take backs, and are not being afforded the same courtesy.

Can you cite examples of this? An ACT player last night made a 'mouselip' and requested a takeback. The NSW player was not sure of the procedure (the State reps really need to make sure their squad are familiar with the rules) but the takeback was accepted.

I think the current policy is the right one; a mouselip is comparable to accidentally knocking a piece in the act of moving another during an over-the-board game.

The difficulty is that when the players have quietplay turned on so that they cannot receive tells from others, they also cannot communicate with officials unless they have a good knowledge of the rules. And generally speaking chess players just worry about their games, paying only scant attention to administrative rules, until it affects them.

dunwannapost
13-03-2006, 10:19 AM
Because ACT players have "allowed" take backs, and are not being afforded the same courtesy. And it places unfair pressure on any child to make a "judgement call" on whether to allow a "takeback" when they have an obviously winning position as it stands.
Would you like to cite a particular game?

Libby
13-03-2006, 10:46 AM
Would you like to cite a particular game?

We had takeback requests in last last two games played by our players - not just the last one. It's not actually about the outcome of the games at all :)

It's about having a less grey set of procedures available so that everyone knows where they stand and players aren't left wondering if they should allow a "dodgy" take back (Shervin was having a laugh with me over the weekend about the number of requested - & allowed - "takebacks" in one of our younger member's games - from the opponent) or if they should be more hard line and just say no.

And if someone does say no - because they're mean ;) or because they think it's dodgy :eek: or because they don't know of the provision :doh: then protesting at the time (or raising it as I do now) makes people look like whingers or cheaters or sore losers or whatever.

I guess I'd rather it was less grey and more black&white. Allow them always (but track repeat offenders) or don't allow them at all.

dunwannapost
13-03-2006, 11:16 AM
Because ACT players have "allowed" take backs, and are not being afforded the same courtesy.
In which games did the opponent refuse to allow the takeback?

Rincewind
13-03-2006, 11:38 AM
Personally I think if there is going to be some subjectivity in it then the rule should be "no take backs". If necessary people should use software which helps prevent mouse-slips (double click rather than drag and drop or possibly a confirmation message).

I'm not saying there has been any impropriety in the current tournament but allowing take backs gives an opportunity for the unscupulous player to increase their odds by asking for take-backs but never granting them to his opponents. "No take backs" is fair for all and easy to interpret uniformly.

arosar
13-03-2006, 12:01 PM
The USCL allowed takebacks but your opponent is given extra time. I really hope that this concept can work so that we can have our own league simiar to the US one. And we give ourselves fancy team names too!

AR

eclectic
13-03-2006, 12:36 PM
The USCL allowed takebacks but your opponent is given extra time. I really hope that this concept can work so that we can have our own league simiar to the US one. And we give ourselves fancy team names too!

AR

hey arosar!

remember that old plane joke about where the engines failed one by one such that the pilot successively increased the delay time leading one passenger to wryly comment ... "if all fail we'll be up here all day" ?

now just take the message within that joke to internet chess games and takebacks?

d'ya geddit?

if that fails then refer back to purdy and his take on takebacks

"expunge them from your visiting list"

jenni
13-03-2006, 12:43 PM
In which games did the opponent refuse to allow the takeback?
Miona Ikeda vs Susan Sheng

pax
13-03-2006, 12:52 PM
The trouble is that if you want a "black and white" rule (as opposed to grey), then you end up with either always allow takebacks (with rorts galore), or never allow takebacks (with people dropping queens because they have a dodgy mouse or a nervous hand). I don't think either of those scenarios is particularly palatable.

I like the idea of an automatic time penalty. Say, five minutes added to your opponent's clock. Perhaps also a limit on the number of takebacks that can be claimed (perhaps two per game). Takeback requests could also be recorded and examined by the opposing team's rep - any suspected abuse can be reported.

There is already a lot of honesty required (e.g all of the rules that are agreed to on the form). Allowing some leeway in takebacks doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch..

eclectic
13-03-2006, 12:56 PM
Allowing some leeway in takebacks doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch..

WTF!!!???

Libby
13-03-2006, 01:08 PM
I like the idea of an automatic time penalty. Say, five minutes added to your opponent's clock. Perhaps also a limit on the number of takebacks that can be claimed (perhaps two per game). Takeback requests could also be recorded and examined by the opposing team's rep - any suspected abuse can be reported.

There is already a lot of honesty required (e.g all of the rules that are agreed to on the form). Allowing some leeway in takebacks doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch..

And I'd be happy with this kind of compromise as well as it seems more like one of the balck & white options I proposed. If a player claims a mouse-slip & wants a takeback then it is allowed - not discretionary - a time penalty is imposed and the arbiter/organiser notes it so "problem" players are identified (or helped if it's a problem with mouse technique ;) )

Otherwise, I'd probably prefer a blanket "tough luck" approach than put kids in a position of feeling awkward about asking for takebacks, resentful of OK-ing them or just plain confused about why it was OK for an opponent last week but not OK for them this time. It's all so subjective you can't tell me that even a disputes committee could identify a "genuine" mouse slip from a "dodgy" one with 100% certainty.

I really didn't want to start pointing at particular games. I wanted to point out that we are putting the kids in a bit of an awkward position by creating a grey area for them.

I had assumed information was distributed and rules were read to the extent players would know what was permissable and, beyond that, good will would prevail.

eclectic
13-03-2006, 01:34 PM
what sign is often seen at a corner shop counter?

please do not ask for credit as our refusal may offend

or words to that effect

where takebacks are allowed on certain internet chess servers they can only be requested not demanded

yet there is tremendous psychological pressure, especially on the young (and naive), to yield to such requests

mitigating circumstances are often made for mouseslips but i believe this is the hole in the dyke which allows other takeback liberties

it's the player's responsibility to have their equipment clean, properly functioning etc and to have full concentration when using that equipment

life goes in one direction and the non allowance of takebacks in chess and the forward direction of pawns are i believe an allegory for this

in the long run juniors, whom you are trying to introduce to chess via this initiative, are not being done any favours if they are led to believe that takebacks are "de jure"

could they please be ruled as being

!!!O.U.T.!!!

PS my unreserved congratulations to that person in that game mentioned by jenni for refusing that takeback ... more power to her!! :clap: :clap: :clap:

arosar
13-03-2006, 01:34 PM
if that fails then refer back to purdy and his take on takebacks

"expunge them from your visiting list"

Who cares about what Purdy had to say? He's dead! Long before the net era.

AR

arosar
13-03-2006, 01:36 PM
!!!O.U.T.!!!


We should have takebacks just to piss off electic.

AR

jenni
13-03-2006, 01:38 PM
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.

eclectic
13-03-2006, 01:43 PM
Who cares about what Purdy had to say? He's dead! Long before the net era.

AR

your word for the day ...

philistine

wear it with pride

:whistle:

arosar
13-03-2006, 01:48 PM
your word for the day ...

philistine

wear it with pride

:whistle:

You know that little tune school kids sing?

Na...na..na-na-na, we have takebacks, we have takebacks, Na...na..na-na-na, nothing you can do, nothing you can do.

AR

Ian Rout
13-03-2006, 02:08 PM
if that fails then refer back to purdy and his take on takebacks

"expunge them from your visiting list"
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.

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.

eclectic
13-03-2006, 02:08 PM
You know that little tune school kids sing?

Na...na..na-na-na, we have takebacks, we have takebacks, Na...na..na-na-na, nothing you can do, nothing you can do.

AR

thanks for verifying your level of maturity

much appreciated

;)

Rincewind
13-03-2006, 02:11 PM
The trouble is that if you want a "black and white" rule (as opposed to grey), then you end up with either always allow takebacks (with rorts galore), or never allow takebacks (with people dropping queens because they have a dodgy mouse or a nervous hand). I don't think either of those scenarios is particularly palatable.

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.

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.


I like the idea of an automatic time penalty. Say, five minutes added to your opponent's clock. Perhaps also a limit on the number of takebacks that can be claimed (perhaps two per game). Takeback requests could also be recorded and examined by the opposing team's rep - any suspected abuse can be reported.

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.


There is already a lot of honesty required (e.g all of the rules that are agreed to on the form). Allowing some leeway in takebacks doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch..

It seems an unnecessary loophole which only disadvantages the honest.

arosar
13-03-2006, 02:11 PM
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.

No Mr Rout. We have to have takebacks. It's hilarious watching electic go off. He's a sick unit this fella.

AR

Rincewind
13-03-2006, 02:16 PM
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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

arosar
13-03-2006, 02:16 PM
I think the dodgy mouse argument is just specious. People should not be playing with dodgy equipment.

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?

AR

Rincewind
13-03-2006, 02:19 PM
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?

I would say, "touch-move is touch-move, better luck next game."

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.

arosar
13-03-2006, 02:24 PM
I would say, "touch-move is touch-move, better luck next game."

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.

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.

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

Rincewind
13-03-2006, 02:31 PM
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.

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.


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.

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.

WhiteElephant
13-03-2006, 02:48 PM
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.

jase
13-03-2006, 02:52 PM
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.

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.

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.

Rincewind
13-03-2006, 02:58 PM
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.

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.

Phil Bourke
13-03-2006, 03:07 PM
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.
No takebacks !! Simple and effective. Otherwise you will end up in the situation of players hanging a piece claiming mouseslip, and then moving another piece :) That is one hell of a mouseslip, picking up another piece rather than the intended one :)
In my time playing on the net, I have never had a mouseslip that wasn't my fault :) In one case, I had picked up the queen to move, and then realised that it was an error, and instead of placing her back on the original square immediately, I began looking at the position again, and when I did place her down, in what I thought was her original position, I had moved her one square along the diagonal, making a legal move and a complete blunder. I resigned and severely chastised myself for my stupid mistake and began another game.
Every other solution just leads to more work for your hardworking team, so make it a simple rule, no takebacks. If it is a genuine mouseslip, they will soon get a better mouse.
It is the equivalent of not enforcing touch move OTB, you will soon see a player try to take advantage of it by picking up a piece, waving it around like a magic wand, then placing it back to pick up another piece. Good players will pick up the fact that the first piece picked up is now on a different square :)

four four two
13-03-2006, 03:15 PM
I cant believe there is even a thread about this.:rolleyes:
"Touched piece" is one of the fundamental principles of tournament play.
If you make an error in piece selection you should just live with it.:hand:
Live and learn.:whistle:

jenni
13-03-2006, 03:18 PM
I cant believe there is even a thread about this.:rolleyes:
"Touched piece" is one of the fundamental principles of tournament play.
If you make an error in piece selection you should just live with it.:hand:
Live and learn.:whistle:
Who is talking about piece selection? Of course you can't change pieces. :lol:

four four two
13-03-2006, 03:28 PM
Some errors in internet chess are due to people moving the cursor on to a piece they didnt intend to move. Obviously once you have touched a piece and if its a legal move then you must move that piece.;)

pax
13-03-2006, 03:51 PM
I cant believe there is even a thread about this.:rolleyes:
"Touched piece" is one of the fundamental principles of tournament play.
If you make an error in piece selection you should just live with it.:hand:
Live and learn.:whistle:

Have you ever gone to play a move with your knight over the board, and accidentally knocked the king with your elbow?? Did you move the king?

I have seen this kind of thing many times and I have never seen a player enforce such an obviously accidental touch. I think it's a shame for serious chess games to be decided by a total accident such as this.

Mouseslips are akin to this kind of accident, only more common.

arosar
13-03-2006, 04:02 PM
Btw, this here thread isn't about the "touch piece" concept. We're talking about mouse slips and how to handle them effectively. So no need to hyperventilate over moving one piece then claiming slip and moving another. I mean just think. With both sides having mate in one, W on g7 and Black on g2 and Black is to move. Black slips and drops the Q on g3 instead of g2. Should he lose? It's unconscionable!

AR

shaun
13-03-2006, 04:59 PM
The other approach is of course to NEVER ask for a take back. If a mistake occurs be responsible for it and live with the consequences.

Garvinator
13-03-2006, 05:26 PM
The other approach is of course to NEVER ask for a take back. If a mistake occurs be responsible for it and live with the consequences.
oh come on Shaun, cant expect that to happen in internet chess when it doesnt happen in real life;) :P

Libby
13-03-2006, 05:48 PM
Wow - look what I started :lol:

My position (much as I think people think I'm on the other side of the fence) is to have no takebacks - tough luck.

It is different to touch move but can be similar to other OTB situations.

I was watching a game at the Juniors in Adelaide a few years ago. A player was in a winning position, offered a Queen swap, wrote down a move first (:naughty: ) so the intention was clear in both the play and on paper. But had two bishops on adjacent squares. One could make the recapture and the other - obviously - could not. Player picks up (not knocks) wrong Bishop.

Player was only 8 or 9 at the time (and not mine BTW), was obviously shattered by the mistake, but took a deep breath and played on and lost graciously.

The problem I have - and what generated this thread - is a "grey" position that exists at the moment. A group of players are operating with a set of "subjective" conditions. Although I would rather we had no takebacks, I can accept a different interpretation so long as the climate allows for consistency.

Consistent application of a rule/playing condition can be accepted by all players - even if they don't always reap an advantage from it.

BTW - we had one ACT player struggle all the way through Round 1 after a mouseslip lost a piece and he managed to pull off a win. I don't think it occurred to him at the time to ask for a takeback.

dunwannapost
13-03-2006, 09:13 PM
Miona Ikeda vs Susan Sheng
isnt that ACT v VIC? has that game occurred already?

jenni
13-03-2006, 09:19 PM
isnt that ACT v VIC? has that game occurred already?

yes it was played early.

dunwannapost
13-03-2006, 09:29 PM
The Organisers, Alan Goldsmith and Alex Saint have decided that there will be no takebacks for future rounds and events.

- Alex Saint (through nswrep)

jenni
13-03-2006, 09:35 PM
This seems a very sensible decision and will take away a potential conflict point.

Libby
13-03-2006, 09:40 PM
This seems a very sensible decision and will take away a potential conflict point.

I hope it's what the player's actually want :eek: since we have run about creating a storm for them. I'm not sure if their perspective would put the storm in a tea-cup or a crock-pot;)

(Just another little barefoot and in the kitchen reference for my good buddy fg7 :P )

Vlad
15-03-2006, 10:59 PM
In one of the recent issues of "New in Chess" there was an article about "mouse slips" OTB - what different people do when they accidentally touch a piece.

Bobby Fisher when was young had experience playing some other GM. Deep in thought he accidentally touched one of his pawns. Suddenly he realized what happened and without showing any emotions, made a loosing move by that pawn. The author of the article was claiming that this experience made him even tougher for the future games.

Garvinator
16-03-2006, 03:12 AM
Fide Laws of chess for over the board play regarding touching pieces:

4.3

Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move deliberately touches on the chessboard

1. one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved, or

2. one or more of his opponent`s pieces, he must capture the first piece touched, which can be captured, or

3. one piece of each colour, he must capture the opponent`s piece with his piece or, if this is illegal, move or capture the first piece touched which can be moved or captured. If it is unclear, whether the player`s own piece or his opponent`s was touched first, the player`s own piece shall be considered to have been touched before his opponent`s.


The word deliberately is the key part here. You dont have to move a piece or pawn if you accidently touch it.

Vlad
16-03-2006, 09:47 AM
My interpretation of "deliberately" is when you touch a piece without saying "adjust".

Lucena
16-03-2006, 09:57 AM
My interpretation of "deliberately" is when you touch a piece without saying "adjust".

I believe it's not as simple as that. For example if a player's hand is clearly heading towards one piece and another piece is brushed in passing, I understand that is normally not considered an intentional touching of the brushed piece and so touch move does not apply to it.