Even if we are still counting in the same range as how many fingers in two hands, I think it’s important to make the difference between players who request that feature, and players who don’t request it but don’t mind if it exists.
Your way of counting is not fooling me.
1 Like
… Haha sorry, you think people are out to ‘fool you’? We’re just having a discussion about a possible feature. Just to be clear though, saying ‘why not?’, is usually understood as affirmative. If I ask a friend if they wanna grab a coffee, and they answer me “Why not?” I wouldn’t be in two minds to be honest.
And sorry but I find it hilarious that you’d think I’m out to ‘fool you’ why the animosity? ><
Cheers
1 Like
Dear everyone,
I find it really interesting, as a pertinent side-note after having engaged this topic for a few days now, to compare the general attitude to takebacks here in the OGS community with that of the lichess community. Linking a relevant topic from the lichess forums. The general tone I think is really quite different, curious as to the underlying reasons.
Cheers!
1 Like
I don’t think the development process is based on the number of people requesting it, but rather on what our developer feels is the most immediate priority or takes little work to implement in between more urgent things.
Although I’d count myself in the “don’t feel strongly about having this option in either direction” camp, if there is one thing that may be an obstacle to this option becoming implemented, it is that we are already having an overload of options in the settings.
Discussion about undo is far away to be a novelty, as a use of the search button can prove. Instead of a difference of attitude between a go forum and a chess forum, I would rather try to find specificities originating from the nature of the game itself.
I’m curious if the length of the go game and its complexity compared to chess make players more tolerant on undo requests. Like not that much interest to put some hazard in the process.
I find hilarious that you are not fooling me and still argue that to request is the same as I don’t care.
Ok nevermind.
Which is fine, it’s just that I never considered the options very cluttered so I haven’t considered it much of an issue. As stated previously, it was a thread mostly to open discussions about this topic and see what reactions might crop up. It’s a feature that’s been very well received on lichess, and I thought I’d bring it up as I reckoned it might be a nice feature to have available here on OGS as well.
Cheers
1 Like
It seems the meaning of my earlier post alluded you, allow me to try again.
First of all: No one is attempting to fool or otherwise mislead you. There’s no need for paranoia, ok?
I have never argued that ‘to request’ is the same as ‘not to care’, that’s a silly proposition. I stated that the phrase ‘Why not?’ is commonly understood to be in the affirmative, about which there isn’t much doubt. If you are undecided about going for aforementioned coffee, your response will certainly not be “Why not?”, unless you want to confuse your company who’ll be heading off in the direction of the nearest coffee-shop. Does that clarify things for you?
And I’m still amused and a bit nonplussed as to why there’s this weird tone of animosity in your posts, are people not allowed to discuss topics just because you find them irrelevant?
The ‘complexity’ of the game argument I find a bit lacklustre. Draughts, for all intents and purposes, though significantly less complex than either chess or go, is already way beyond the cognitive horizon of any human being (as in, you can’t sit down at the board and pretend you’ve got it all figured out at all times). To what astronomical degree either chess or go is complex beyond the capacities of the human mind I think is a bit irrelevant. Remember that executing a move in a game of online chess is harder than to execute a move in a game of go, so I don’t think go is somehow innately more miscklick-prone, especially with functions such as a required double click or move confirmation available.
Cheers
1 Like
I think, what @Groin is trying to say, is that you use the statistic of 6/14 people responding positively as if that implies that they are requesting this feature, instead of simply not being against it.
@Knyttet, as for animosity, I think the whole discussion is certainly going to be nicer if nobody here assumes other people here are responding antagonistically. These forums are rather loose, we usually try to not do any moderation unless really necessary. This includes that topics tend to go slightly off-topic from time to time (this topic so far is staying pretty well on-topic, compared to most other topics).
3 Likes
I wasn’t thinking of the complexity like that (missclick prone, executing a move).
I was considering simply that in my opinion a go game lasts twice as a chess game. To put it simple.
To put it simply, a game of classical chess (≈30 minutes/player +) lasts longer than a game of blitz go, so that’s more a question of time controls than anything else. Correspondence games likewise comes down to a matter of days-per-move settings. I play both games, and though I rarely ever misclick, when it occurs it’s actually more often during chess games.
Cheers
I thing we should compare tomatoes with tomatoes and oranges with oranges. A go blitz lasts twice as a chess blitz, and a classic live twice as…
To clarify, I am explicitly in favor of this option and would turn it on. I think there is one legitimate point against implementing it, which has been raised: the opportunity cost of doing so. What I don’t get is the people saying they don’t want this option. It’s one thing to say it’s desirable, but they want other features more, but to just say they don’t want it? Why not?
3 Likes
I never stated that “so and so many people are actively and formally requesting for the implementation of this or that feature”. I simply stated that a number of people were inclined ‘positively’ to the idea, including in that tally people of a “Why not?” disposition, as “Why not?” is commonly understood as an affirmative stance.
People going off the wall claiming one only deems ‘earnest’ topics of personal interest to oneself is… A bit so so, wouldn’t you agree? Likewise, if somebody writes “You’re not fooling me”, implying I am actively trying to mislead them, I will have to assume the person’s stance to me is somewhat negative.
1 Like
Or, you could assume that not everybody here is a native English speaker, and that some things may not be as bad as they appear 
1 Like
You can fool ppl in some unconscious way, it’s not like being negative against you but pointing out what I think is wrong in your presentation. I don’t have any animosity against you.
I wonder if this kind of assumption is also linked to the question at hand. I tend to assume that someone asking for an undo is doing so for positive reasons such as misclick or whatever, whereas I guess if you assume negatively that the requestor had nefarious reasons for asking then I can see that blocking all requests has an appeal.
I’m going to comment further are I’ve read the link to lichess and other comments better first.
2 Likes
I think we are of fundamentally different views on this, as, for me, the more consequential a game is, the less I want that game to be tainted by takeback requests. I think the most annoying takeback requests are those during correspondence games, games usually lasting for months. All the effort and tension of the game to me (and others in this thread have stated similar sentiments) is diluted the moment your opponent says “Oh, that’s a bad move, I’d like to pick another one”. And, as stated earlier, I love that on lichess you can just disable this situation before you even start, and have players responsible for whatever move they play. If I want to play a casual game I’ll play a casual game, and I’ll likely grant more or less any takeback you request. For ranked games however, I find it really annoying, especially if opponents hold my decision to turn their request down against me, the playing situation at that point I feel becomes really quite a bother.
Cheers
1 Like
I’m not trying to mislead or fool anyone, I have stated why I found it fair to include the “Why not?” people in the ‘positive to the idea’ camp. I’ve never said all those mentioned are actively pushing for the implementation of anything, simply that they are of a ‘positive disposition’ to the idea under discussion.
Cheers
1 Like
There are misclicks. Without being mind errands, simply technical misclicks. Even with double clicks and submit button.
Now we have two schools: one of tolerance, which keep open the option to undo.
One of straightness, to deny that option and let the misclicker carry his duty and responsibilities.
I think it’s quite an academical debate on marginal cases in the reality of OGS but ok if someone push me on that matter to take a decision I’m inclined to not favorite the second school by giving them a global option to reject undos as I like better that people take the sweet way and make part of their game to correct technical failures.
About length, I translate it into how you are involved in a game so how it’s easier to distinguish between a technical undo and a rethink of a move, and how then a technical undo is just completely in the sense of enjoying the game together.
That’s not what I call a technical undo. In a correspondence game with lengthly time settings, I am pretty sure it’s easy to deny that kind of request.