Will RHP ever rate Blitz?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Perhaps he was miffed at you for talking for two minutes instead of just finishing the game. Again, I already said that he could have acted more honorably, but I remain sympathetic to his situation, because I tend to disdain lengthy chat in my games. It's just a distraction I don't need. If it takes two minutes of a 10-minute game just to explain how the second or two even after you've completed your move while the software registers the move.

Without context, it is easy to make inaccurate assumptions. I did not chat for two minutes just for the love of seeing my own text. He asked me questions and I answered. It took me an unusually long time to get him to understand my plan. Given that this was all on my time, it was obviously to his advantage. In fact, he may have pretended to be confused specifically to waste as much of my time as possible. Moreover, I think that it's worth spending some extra time to have an authentic game. However, he could have skipped all the discussion by simply ignoring or explicitly refusing my request to takeback the mouse slip.

And yes, it was much worse after Qxh2 because now the king had no retreat squares behind pawns and I was down more material. This is a bit like asking if being down a Queen is really worse than being down a minor piece. Sure, you're objectively losing the game either way, but at least you have a better fighting chance if you're not down the Queen.

However, this is irrelevant. It's not about whether the latter was worse or not. I've lost plenty of games on mouse slips without any ill feelings. No, it's about his dishonest and unscrupulous behavior. This is what bothered me. I have absolutely no sympathy for opportunistic and malicious liars. As much as you play the devil's advocate, I don't see justification for his behavior. All the potential disadvantages from accepting the takeback were of his own accord. Being competitive and honest are not at odds. Just refuse the takeback or ignore it. Problem solved. In any case, I don't really want to spend more time discussing some idiot I'd rather forget.

Originally posted by exigentsky
Without context, it is easy to make inaccurate assumptions. I did not chat for two minutes just for the love of seeing my own text. He asked me questions and I answered. It took me an unusually long time to get him to understand my plan. Given that this was all on my time, it was obviously to his advantage. In fact, he may have pretended to be confused sp ...[text shortened]... case, I don't really want to spend more time discussing some idiot I'd rather forget.

I'm making assumptions only because you didn't give certain details of interest. Also, some of what you are calling 'assumptions' are hypotheticals that are meant to show the difficulty of handling takebacks in situations similar to yours. And yes, they are relevant, because a player's past experience with takebacks can include some of these variations, and thus contribute to his present attitude towards allowing takebacks.

Discussing things on your time is not necessarily to his advantage. Why do you think OTB tournaments prohibit excessive chatter during the game? It's a big distraction, regardless of whose clock is running.

And yes, it was much worse after Qxh2 because now the king had no retreat squares behind pawns and I was down more material. This is a bit like asking if being down a Queen is really worse than being down a minor piece.

Don't be silly. A Q vs. a minor piece is a 6-point difference. All you lost was one more pawn [pawns, as if you had to be told, are worth only 1 point]. Your King was still in the center either way. [Now go ahead and try claiming that your K being on e2 instead of d2 makes 5 points worth of difference! 😀]

Your characterization of your opponent is outrageous and exaggerated. "Malicious liar"? He beat you in one blitz game. Sheesh. There are worse damages a person can take.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I'm making assumptions only because you didn't give certain details of interest. Also, some of what you are calling 'assumptions' are hypotheticals that are meant to show the difficulty of handling takebacks in situations similar to yours. And yes, they [b]are relevant, because a player's past experience with takebacks can include some of these varia ...[text shortened]... iar"? He beat you in one blitz game. Sheesh. There are worse damages a person can take.[/b]

I gave the details that explained the essence of the situation. If those hypothetical or assumptions were valid in my case, I would have made a mention of them. As I mentioned, focusing on the question of takebacks is besides the point. I've reiterated several times that I have no problem with people refusing takebacks for any reason. It is about staying true to one's word. Deception is not OK.

Moreover, these are friendly online blitz games. They don't hold much chess prestige or meaning (except to nutcases like this guy). It is common to talk to other players on uChess. Unlike in OTB, the chat also doesn't disturb nearby players. Most importantly in this case, the chat was strictly to resolve an issue in the game that resulted as a consequence of our imperfect medium. It was not just a distraction about the weather. He accepted my takeback offer and we were discussing how it would work given the limitations of uChess.

Finally, had you seen the game, you would realize that my position after the pawn goes and the rook moves to e1 is untenable. Checkmate followed quickly because the king has nowhere to go and is stuck in the center. My example is not unreasonable. To add, these examples are never meant to be exactly the same but are rather for emphasis and thus exaggerated. If they were exactly the same I would just repeat exactly what I said.

BTW: I'm not sure why you're being so combative.

Originally posted by exigentsky
Moreover, these are friendly online blitz games. They don't hold much chess prestige or meaning (except to nutcases like this guy).

You're projecting. The reality is that this loss meant a lot to you, as evidenced by your need to smear the guy's character just because he won one game from you. You're the one coming off as a nutcase here.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
You're projecting. The reality is that this loss meant a lot to you, as evidenced by your need to smear the guy's character just because he won one game from you. You're the one coming off as a nutcase here.

Switching focus to what the game meant to me is a red herring. I'm disgusted with Mitrovica for his deception, not because I lost. Your strawmans are beginning to wear thin. What is your position anyway? Do you endorse opportunistic lying?

Originally posted by exigentsky
No score, just a pocket of delicately contained rage and searing hatred. 😛 No, I'm actually over it but I have lost a bit of my faith in humanity. If he's willing to sacrifice any morals for a win on a random chess site for some anonymous username, I can only imagine what he'll do when something important is at stake. At least I know that a robber was doing it for money and would not act like this normally, but he had very little to gain.

well said.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
You're projecting. The reality is that this loss meant a lot to you, as evidenced by your need to smear the guy's character just because he won one game from you. You're the one coming off as a nutcase here.

They are different things. He's criticising a very pathetic and immoral behaviour, he doesn't act it.

Originally posted by diskamyl
They are different things. He's criticising a very pathetic and immoral behaviour, he doesn't act it.

One somewhat dishonorable act does not a 'opportunistic, malicious liar, and nutcase' make.

You'd think the guy cheated him out of serious $$ given the verbiage used.

The frustration is rightly aimed at the lack of features in the software, not at the opponent.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
One somewhat dishonorable act does not a 'opportunistic, malicious liar, and nutcase' make.

You'd think the guy cheated him out of serious $$ given the verbiage used.

The frustration is rightly aimed at the lack of features in the software, not at the opponent.

Only "somewhat dishonorable"? It is precisely because he has relatively little to gain that I found his actions disturbing. It reminds me of bullies who beat up other people for fun and not for any benefit at all. Moreover, while better software would have avoided the situation, the software is not to blame for his deception.

Originally posted by exigentsky
Switching focus to what the game meant to me is a red herring. I'm disgusted with Mitrovica for his deception, not because I lost. Your strawmans are beginning to wear thin. What is your position anyway? Do you endorse opportunistic lying?

This must be the part where you deny the implications of your own words, and deny the instances where your actions have belied your stated position. You then claim logical fallacies where none exist, because your words exist in a vacuum, meaning only what they say at face value, immune from any further inductive reasoning.

For example, to claim 'malice' you need to show that your opponent intended to at least distress you in some way. I say that he intended to strike a blow to your ego by winning that game. I see no other likely motivation.

My position on online blitz chess games is that I'd prefer that the rules decide disputes, and not individualized, subjective 'codes of honor' that change with the blowing of the wind. I say that he is not ethically bound by a verbal agreement to deliberately play poor moves to effect a takeback. Takebacks are granted at the discretion of the opponent, and that opponent may withdraw permission at any time before the new position, with takeback completed, is reached.

Originally posted by exigentsky
Only "somewhat dishonorable"? It is precisely because he has relatively little to gain that I found his actions disturbing. It reminds me of bullies who beat up other people for fun and not for any benefit at all. Moreover, while better software would have avoided the situation, the software is not to blame for his deception.

What do you think 'malice' means? It means 'intent to cause harm or distress'. The distress you suffered pales in comparison to the harm suffered by a kid beat up by bullies, an old lady swindled out of her money, etc.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
This must be the part where you deny the implications of your own words, and deny the instances where your actions have belied your stated position. You then claim logical fallacies where none exist, because your words exist in a vacuum, meaning only what they say at face value, immune from any further inductive reasoning.

For example, to claim 'malic thdraw permission at any time before the new position, with takeback completed, is reached.

More ad hominems and empty claims without substance? You have long left the realm of rational discourse. Your style is reminiscent of eldragonfly. It's as if you search an entire post with no regard for context just to find something, no matter how tangential, to attack or twist against me. Then, when called on your behavior and fallacious arguments, you obfusticate matters with insults or more distractions like a silly battle of semantics.

When one lies to win a game, it is clear that he will distress me. To give one's word and then a few seconds later do the opposite is completely unethical. There is nothing subjective about whether or not one should keep true to his word, barring extraordinary circumstances. Moreover, most people value honesty quite highly and they do not sacrifice it "with the blowing of the wind." In fact, if I can't trust anyone's word, I'd say society itself is lost.

Are you claiming that it's acceptable to promise a takeback in a stated manner and then, while the opponent is following the agreed plan, suddenly decide that you didn't mean what you said? If in the process of rearranging the pieces per the agreement, your opponent exposes himself to mate, would you play it? According to what you've said so far, this would be ethical. To me, this would be a huge violation of trust and good will.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
What do you think 'malice' means? It means 'intent to cause harm or distress'. The distress you suffered pales in comparison to the harm suffered by a kid beat up by bullies, an old lady swindled out of her money, etc.

You are missing or ignoring the point again. I don't like having my words misinterpreted or distorted. It wastes my time and energy. My position is quite clear and I have been patient enough given your lack of respect or just basic decency. I only hope that most of the players on RHP have a different view on the importance of honesty. If not, then that would certainly explain the cheating problem. 🙁

Originally posted by exigentsky
More ad hominems and empty claims without substance? You have long left the realm of rational discourse. Your style is reminiscent of eldragonfly. It's as if you search an entire post with no regard for context just to find something, no matter how tangential, to attack or twist against me. Then, when called on your behavior and fallacious arguments, you ...[text shortened]... , this would be ethical. To me, this would be a huge violation of trust and good will.

Sir, I'll have you know that I have never obfusticated in my entire life. 😛

You're still not addressing my rebuttal. Before you can properly call someone malicious, you need to show that they have distressed or damaged you in some non-trivial way. So, how exactly were you damaged or distressed?

Again, when it comes to chess, let the ethics primarily be decided by the rules. Change rules only when there is good evidence that they lead to an unethical situation.

If I had been in your opponent's situation, I would not have allowed a takeback in the first place, so your question to me is moot.

Good advice for you, if you have not already heard it: Do not blindly believe what you read on the internet. There's a lot of fakers out there, and it's very easy to do online. I think society will survive despite them.

Originally posted by exigentsky
You are missing or ignoring the point again. I don't like having my words misinterpreted or distorted. It wastes my time and energy. My position is quite clear and I have been patient enough given your lack of respect or just basic decency. I only hope that most of the players on RHP have a different view on the importance of honesty. If not, then that would certainly explain the cheating problem. 🙁

So why aren't verbal agreements enforced under some TOS of some sort?

Does RHP/uChess not care about 'malicious, opportunistic liars' taking advantage of its morally upright players?

If it is so clearly unethical, why not let game mods read the chat logs and boot the guy off the site for failing to uphold his binding verbal agreement?

Don't just dismiss this as distortion. I know what your point is, and I've already made it clear why I disagree with it. Now, humor me and try to think about these questions - try to see things in a different light.