Option to disable undo requests?

But yes of course there is intolerance. I am myself intolerant for undo requests based on rethinking a move. Not a problem to me.

You can chose to be intolerant to all kind of undo requests at your will.

The choice is I accept to have some stupid move in the middle of a game so I don’t have to break my mind on undo request
I don’t want stupid move in the middle of a game so I accept to break my mind on a undo request.

You edited this post while I was responding. I will provide you now with a clarification and two examples.

As I just wrote, I think correspondence games are the worst when it comes to takeback requests, and the matter is really not one of whether it was a technical misclick or not. In fact, the worst situations are when there is no doubt the opponent did in fact not misclick. I understand for some people this is then a simple matter of “Well I’ll deny that and be on my merry way”, but for me it is not. I’ll give you now two examples (though I can’t link the games because of forum policy) that I hope shall clarify some things.

The first. In a tense and enjoyable correspondence game against an opponent a couple stones stronger than me, I’m suddenly confronted with a takeback request, along with a chat message along the lines of “Sorry, I’m playing too fast while tired”. I look at the move, a bit nonplussed, and only then realize I can win the game by killing a group through a throw in. If I play the throw in (that I only saw because my opponent brought my attention to the fact that the last move was a blunder) and win, all the joy of that victory is gone. If I accept the takeback… There is no tension left in the game, things are now common knowledge to the players that shouldn’t be, and the rest of the game (I accepted the takeback) felt like a sham of what went before the undo request. Had undo requests been disabled, I would have missed the killing move, he’d have saved himself, and the game would have gone on un-marred.

The second, an example not actually involving an undo request, but it might yet be clarifying. My opponent during the game suddenly floods the chat with variations, having missed the ‘Malkovich’ option. I ask a mod to delete the posts and take a week off to forget seeing them, but the situation for me has similarities to the one described in example one. The game was flawed beyond help at this point, my opponent having shared knowledge that should be kept from me. Do you see this similarity? In a ranked game, when someone asks for an undo, the game loses all of its sheen, and can never return to the state held prior to the request.

I hope these perspectives can help in clarifying where the crux of the takeback during ranked games lies for me. Interested to hear if this makes sense to anyone or if I’m alone on the moon on this one.



If your answer to the question “Should there be an option to disable undo requests” is “Why not?”, I’d say that you are (if somewhat ambivalently) positive towards it, as otherwise you’d answer clearly in the negative. The option would, if implemented as on lichess, allow for one set of players to in all games of which they’re a part, disable undo requests. Saying “Why not?” to that, knowing full well this could have a passive impact on your own ability to request takebacks during certain games, I think is a positive stance. Otherwise, I’d expect a response along the lines of “No that’s a bad idea I want my ability to always ask for takebacks untouched”, which would be your prerogative.

I think there might be a language issue as for your second post. The word intolerant really is very harsh. Could your second paragraph, according to yourself, be rewritten as follows:

“You can choose to be against all undo requests at your will.”

And still be representative of your views on the matter? Making it a matter of tolerance/intolerance sets up a dichotomy in which one side is clearly imbued with positive characteristics, while the other side is imbued with negative ones.


1 Like

I think my last post reveal well the dichotomy involved.

It’s not easy choice but to me I prefer handle situations like you describe and let the door open to accept technical undos.

I can fill a page discribing many cases on my games where this opportunity gave us the chance to continue enjoying the game but I won’t.
Maybe i’m too lucky with the opponents I had, and a bit sad that your experience differs from mine, I hope you get less that kind of undo requests in your game.

Note on linguistics: the negation of a negation is not an affirmation, language is not mathematics. But ok we discussed already far too much, it’s funny to go so far.

We have very different perspectives on the matter, and I get the distinct feeling you don’t quite see where I’m coming from with this. I can only refer to my second-to-last post.

As far as ‘linguistics’ is concerned, the phrase “Why not?” certainly isn’t the negation of a negation. We don’t have to draw logics into the discussion, saying “Why not?” is without the shadow of a doubt commonly understood as an affirmative, and I’ve stated specifically how this stance would relate to the topic under discussion in my last post, with the phrase carrying further positive, affirmative qualities due to the passive implications it would carry.



It’s not because I don’t feel your pain, no worry. I see other pains too.
(Close the linguistics things)

Why not not do it?

Why not is obvious - we’re wasting developers’ time and our time on solving a problem that doesn’t exist. This problem only appears if we overthink undos too much. Occam’s razor states that options should not be multiplied without necessity. So I’ll just go ahead and count why not crowd in against camp.


If I say I don’t want to not go to see a movie, does that mean I want to see a movie?

Yes I believe so.

1 Like

O really? Maybe checking some studies on argumentation may interest you then

If I were you I’d be strongly incentivised by this point to stop discussing linguistics as well, no worry.

A: “Would you like to go see Transformers 27?”

B: “Why not?”

Commonly, person B would be understood as being positive (if not over the moon) to the idea of watching Transformers 27.



(I said I stop linguistics between us)

1 Like

Just because you don’t see a problem, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The necessity part of your involving ‘Occam’s razor’ is down to simple, personal preference lacking arguments not resting on said personal preference. You go on right ahead and count whatever you want as whatever you feel like you want :slight_smile:


1 Like

(And I said I understand why you’d want that.)

(I felt like you still want to claim a win after a cease fire when my last words were intended as a some meditate incentive Let’s close!)

1 Like

(As far as I’m concerned discussions are not about winning or losing, neither do I find military lingo such as having a ‘cease-fire’ appropriate, as I don’t view exchanges of different opinions comparable to shots fired or bombs dropped. PS. This is technically not a discussion about linguistics any more. The bucket of wheat has reached the grocer’s, I repeat, the bucket of wheat has reached the grocer’s! End transmission.)

1 Like

I’m now unsure of adding to this thread but I have thinking about (too much…)

This is a really helpful example in understanding where you are coming from. I never thought about the undo request itself affecting the “game information” in some way - i.e. knowing that a move was a mistake makes you see the game differently - regardless of whether or not it is accepted.

I have thought through a lot of implications and tangents and my open other threads for some of them but here I will try and stay on topic. Should there be an option to disable undo requests?

This got quite long

I can see that in most cases undo requests are basically not needed - in blitz it’s really part of the game if you misclick and in correspondence there is not much excuse since there is zero time pressure and even in live, there are already setting to minimise misclicking. In terms of undos for other reasons - brain farts, I suppose is maybe a reason to ask for an undo but really things like “I just realised it was a bad move after I played it” shouldn’t really qualify for undos anyway. And I think that is the gist I got from the Lichess discussion. So it is east to conclude that there is no need to undos.

However, it is also clear there there is a level of community acceptance of the “right” to ask and that this is balanced by a right to refuse. Which also seems very reasonable.

Now, the option to limit the “right to ask” feels quite challenging given the existing policy - if it is really seen as something like a “right” then giving individuals the power to curtail the “rights” of others needs to be approached very carefully. This is what led me to suggest that I would be happy for this option to exist if there were clear warnings for the opponent (an “unusual settings” thing for custom games and such). And this has a lot of UI consequences beyond the immediate further “overloading” of settings (which I think are too many currently). Would there be an extra automatch setting? an extra line in the game information? and in tournaments, would there be undo request allowed or disabled touneys and how would this be indicated? Would the undo button in such games be replaced with some kind of indicator that undos are not allowed and would the opponent have the chance to cancel the game?
Not all these things are needed but I think it all needs careful thought.

On the other hand, maybe we could move away from a culture that accepts requesting undos as a “right” and have a general presumption against them. I honestly would be fine if the undos were not permitted for any ranked games (I think they are needed for unranked when they are teaching games - like having analysis on to share vars).

I think there is a difference between Go and Chess here though - it does seem that it’s easier to misclick with single click to move settings in go. I note that Lichess forum talks a lot about “mouseslip” rather than misclick. And that maybe it’s easier to distinguish between a misclick and the realisation of a blunder in chess - in Go the stone could be placed at any intersection on misclick whereas in chess there is talk about asking for takeback and then moving a different piece as a sign that it wasn’t an honest misclick. Therefore, there seems to be more of a case of giving the benefit of the doubt about a misclick in Go.

This is getting too long but the other element that was already discussed was that there are solutions in terms of zen mode and switching off the ? on the stone. Or calling custom games “no undos” and such. I can see that these are not perfect solutions but might help.

Anyway, I need to finish so my conclusion is that I think adding this option seems simple but has various implications. I would like to see it done as part of a bigger overhaul - for example by having more categories of games where some could be subject to this option and others not - e.g. serious games, casual games, relaxed games and teaching games as four types where serious games have no undos, no analysis, se etc, causal are like current ranked - with options to enable or disable all the things, relaxed enable all the things are are like current unranked and teaching enables further tools (like even AI analysis and review features)

Slightly OT question about annuling

After the sandbagging discussion I understood the general OGS policy to be that any game which is not reasonably accurate in indicating the relative strengths of players should be annulled. Therefore, is it right that a game where an undo for a game losing misclick is refused should be annulled (at least where the misclicker was winning or seemed likely to win)?
My opponent left, I waited 29 min - #20 by Vsotvep


To prevent this you also need an option to remove chat, I think.


Yes, that did occur to me but I’d gone on too long already! There are many implications!

It’s probably too off topic but given the other example

Made me wonder about the possibility of messing with opponents by making false comments and pretending they were meant to be Malkovich…