@krasnaya What? Because white had, I am sure you would call, the "cheek" to ask for a takeback, he should resign? Fair argument, but it isn't good sportsmanship to resign because your takeback was declined. If anything, one could argue it's *bad* sportsmanship, as it implies that you are frustrated that you have not got your own way. Resigning itself is arguably a notion of bad sportsmanship, particularly when there really is no need. I get peed off when people resign for practically no reason other than a slight disadvantage (like White had in the game). Sure, if there is a forced checkmate sequence, resign by all means, save the time. Or if the position is seriously loosing so even if your opponent was to blunder a Queen or something you would still be losing, but as far as this game goes, White would be displaying a notion of bad sportsmanship. Your argument about each player is trying to win is the best I have seen, but the point about a resignation is bullcrap.
Takebacks should be allowed - for me only,
as it stands it works as it should :
you may request it (according to the other person settings)
and he/she might or might not allow it.
case closed :)
as it stands it works as it should :
you may request it (according to the other person settings)
and he/she might or might not allow it.
case closed :)
@SiIverBuIIet said:
> What? Because white had, I am sure you would call, the "cheek" to ask for a
> takeback, he should resign?
I am so sorry that what i said went over your head, but i can repeat it in a way i hope you will be able to understand: the argument that black "should have" granted a takeback was ridiculous. And to point out its ridiculousness i just "inverted" it back: if only granting the takeback shows "good sportsmanship" of the black player then only resigning (not after but instead of asking for a takeback) shows "good sportsmanship" of the white player. If you carefully read again i replicated exactly the sentence in which the "argument" was made to reinforce i was mirroring it.
In fact neither of the two shows "good sportsmanship" at all. Good sportsmanship is not to take advantage of your opponents shortcomings - i.e. when playing a blind player over the table (yes, i had that once) you tell him your moves clearly, help him replicate them on his blind players board if he needs that, etc.. Here on lichess i was asked in a 8+0 game in the chat if i could give 2 minutes on the opponents clock because he needed to go to the toilet - which i did. But after coming back he made a bad move and i won the game. No takeback was asked for and no takeback was given.
I hope that makes it clearer.
krasnaya
> What? Because white had, I am sure you would call, the "cheek" to ask for a
> takeback, he should resign?
I am so sorry that what i said went over your head, but i can repeat it in a way i hope you will be able to understand: the argument that black "should have" granted a takeback was ridiculous. And to point out its ridiculousness i just "inverted" it back: if only granting the takeback shows "good sportsmanship" of the black player then only resigning (not after but instead of asking for a takeback) shows "good sportsmanship" of the white player. If you carefully read again i replicated exactly the sentence in which the "argument" was made to reinforce i was mirroring it.
In fact neither of the two shows "good sportsmanship" at all. Good sportsmanship is not to take advantage of your opponents shortcomings - i.e. when playing a blind player over the table (yes, i had that once) you tell him your moves clearly, help him replicate them on his blind players board if he needs that, etc.. Here on lichess i was asked in a 8+0 game in the chat if i could give 2 minutes on the opponents clock because he needed to go to the toilet - which i did. But after coming back he made a bad move and i won the game. No takeback was asked for and no takeback was given.
I hope that makes it clearer.
krasnaya
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.