Originally posted by reinfeldShouldn't the n00b learn to think before they move? How are they ever going to improve if they're given takebacks?
...c'mon folks. ..you know when you are playing a newbie..they tell
you..or they move the knight to the a or h file on the first move or
worse move both in the first and second moves, etc.,...so why not allow this player a chance...you people think a "rating" and a "skull"
are "war"....gosh....that's poor...the ratings and skullls are just images
on an internet screen...
The burnt hand learns best (or something like that)...I am learning to appreciate the need for some opening book repertoire by virtue of the fact that I don't really have any and so almost always reach middlegame at a disadvantage. If one of my deviations leads to complete anhialation in 5 moves time, I don't want the move back... I want to make sure I never do it again!
To make a bad move and get it back is something I may realise was a bit silly at the time
To make that same bad move and have to suffer the consequences is something I will not be doing twice!
I would have thought that depends on the severity of the mistake...If trying to pull something out of a food blender with your left hand turns out to be a bad idea you can be sure it won't happen again with your right!
On the otherhand if I commit a spelling mistake and someone corrects me, I will probably make that same mistake again once sufficient time has elapsed...unless of course that mistake has dire consequences. In that case I'd need to learn it well such that I never mis-spell it again.
..and a recreational chess game on the internet is that type of low
level life mistake that certainly should encourage one to allow another
player to take back a blunder so that a friendly game can continue and the blundering player might learn something and yet continue the
game at the option of the non-blundering player...
but if the consequence of one moments foolishness is that they have to suffer the loss and spend a fair amount of time kicking themselves for it, wouldn't it be reasonable to say they'll think twice before doing something similar again? (though it may be the 5th thought that makes it sink in for some people 😉 )
(??) I see! (??)...so someone with plenty of time on their hands who has such insight that they think hanging a piece is reasonable will of course benefit from getting that move back it seems. That they will not see the true magnitude of their error or be motivated to try and redeem themselves through better play is essentially a bad thing then.
...."magnitude of error" is not an appropriate standard for internet game sites..."magnitude of error" is a something for the rise and fall
of civiliazations or moral decay of personalities....and there is no
redemption in play...there is just recreation at play...
But if not getting your piece back is so mean, spiteful, and emotionally crushing as I am led to believe then surely for the victim 'magnitude of error' would apply pretty well here...and if it isn't the above then they can perhaps just live with their mistake, play another game and notice that certain moves are accompanied with alarm bells.
no redemption in play?...If I make a balls up and then fight better from that point to get a draw I'm gonna feel pretty damned proud of myself
Originally posted by reinfeldThe 'second chance' ought to be the next game.
...one does not improve just with error...one improves with second chances, advice, help, etc....you are all too greedy for an advantage...
Advice and help can easily be given without the crutch of takebacks.
Being 'greedy for an advantage' is an integral part of playing good chess, and should be encouraged, within the rules.
Furthermore, how are you ever going to learn to save difficult or even lost positions if you accept takebacks?