Answers.Body: <p>I think there are multiple reasons not to allow taking back moves in a competetive setting. Of course, what one does in casual games with friends is a whole different matter.</p>
  <p>For one, it takes the weight off the moves. In chess every move is tremendously important, even more so in classical time controls. It is usually possible to ruin a totally winning position by making only one careless move. IMO, this principle lies at the very heart of chess and would pretty much disappear if you were allowed to take back moves.</p>
  <p>Secondly, in a tournament setting, chess is a competition. The best player wins. If you make a bad mistake, for example blundering mate, and your opponent sees it, you lose. That's the whole point of the game. Robbing a player then of his deserved victory, is not only unsportsmanlike , but would undoubetly take a toll on his psyche (chess is intense, the players are invested).</p>
  <p>Of course, with this set of rules exploits would be possible as well.  For example, if you're unsure whether you get mated in a given line - and you just can't work it out (a reason why you would deservedly lose) - why don't you just try it out? It doesn't matter anyways if you can just take the move back afterwards for a little penalty on the clock.</p>
  <p>Lastly, traps - especially those  very tricky, unsound ones - would become a <strong>lot</strong> less effective, as the opponent would get a second chance to see the trick anyway. These would probably just stop being played.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-06-04T13:01:55.353Z
Answers.Text: Hi, thanks for the answer! I didn't mean take back moves unrestrictedly. Just occasionally and with penalty. Truly better players will still win, and blundering in a game will still be punished (eg by losing a fraction of a point or time penalty), and repeated blunders will certainly lose the game, but it may make the game more meaningful if the impact of a top player's occasional blunder is reduced so it doesn't ruin a potentially interesting game. Traps will still be useful if it wins you some advantage by a penalty, but imo it's fairer if unsound traps don't necessarily win you the game.
Answers.UserDisplayName: alices_and_bobs
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-06-04T08:03:13.423Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-06-04T08:03:13.423Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Je Mehr Testo Besser
Answers.Body: <p>What you call a blunder is a questionable definition. So, what is a blunder, is it losing the queen, a piece, a pawn? Is it overseeing a mate in 6 moves ahead? In a game between GMs losing a pawn may be enough to lose the game, while beginners could happily go on playing. In chess, there cannot be a sort of Handicap like in golf where all players with different talents and levels can play against each other in a well-measured balance. Pawn and piece handicaps in chess do exist but have serious impacts on the game ongoing as for being interesting and combative, so even what already exists (handicaps, chess variants) is not very serious and not very popular for a good reason, and now you come with your take-back-moves idea. In German we call it Schnapsidee. More chess and less Schnaps please!</p>
  <p>Of course, in a private game it's totally ok to retract moves, also for training purposes, if both players agree upon. But it should be clear that this cannot be done in any rated or serious game, there cannot be any fair rule for introducing this, not to speak that it would be a denaturation of the game.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-06-04T13:11:13.310Z
Answers.Text: Hi! I was mainly referring to immediate serious ones like mate in 1 or 2, or maybe hanging a queen. Top players do blunder sometimes and may keep on playing for many reasons(even if down a queen), and actually blundering mate in 6 is harder to see for humans and not necessarily game-ending. And I don't think it's fair or practical to let them retract any bad move, but if human top players unavoidably occasionally blunder something game-ending like a quick mate, imo it's better to undo it and let them finish what could be a great game of chess.
Answers.UserDisplayName: alices_and_bobs
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-06-04T16:54:08.510Z
Answers.Text: Well, there is an existing form of retracting moves, although this is not carried out on the chessboard: It's called Advanced Chess where both players can use computers to analyze their moves before making them. This is at least a fair exhibition of the game. But I highly question wether this is still in the realm of classical chess where players must make usage of their own talents.
Answers.UserDisplayName: MikeTrans
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-06-04T17:36:05.637Z
Answers.Text: Sure, using computer to prevent blunders in the first place works too for my first point (nobody has commented on the branching out variations yet - seems everyone is focused on the sacrilegious taking back moves aspect). And if the computational complexity of the rules that determine automatic move prevention/warning are limited (say to not exceed what a typical human player can execute), and if the players themselves are required to program the rules, that could be considered their own talent. To MikeTrans - somehow I am unable to @ you
Answers.UserDisplayName: alices_and_bobs
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-06-04T04:11:10.257Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-06-04T17:02:24.827Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2024-06-04T17:02:24.827Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: MikeTrans
Answers.Body: <p>It will then become a game of poker for the opponent not to let on about the blunder until it is past the point the blunder can be undone.</p>
  <p>But if a game is not rated the players can choose to redefine rules however they wish.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-06-04T13:46:03.130Z
Answers.Text: I'm thinking of the kind that ends the game with an easy win, that ruins the complexity of the game. If the blunder is subtle until moves later, imo it doesn't detract too much from the educational and competitive value of the game to let it stay. In practice top players may not necessarily catch them anyway.
Answers.UserDisplayName: alices_and_bobs
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-06-03T20:23:09.950Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-06-03T20:23:09.950Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ian Ringrose
Body: <p>Sorry if it sounds sacrilegious, you all probably know which move I'm talking about. (Edit: for future readers, it's the latest mate-in-2 blunder by the current World Champion <a href="https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2710723" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ding against Magnus Carlsen</a>. I'm not blaming Magnus, he's absolutely right to take advantage of it under current tournament rules, but I think the incident shows the rules are maybe not in the best interest of chess world.) But almost every great player has blundered mate at least sometimes, right? That doesn't seem to benefit the educational/entertainment value of the game or the prestige of chess. It seems better to just let them take back a move sometimes, maybe with minor penalty.</p>
  <p>Also sometimes players is legit unsure of which variation is better, so it may be beneficial to players and spectators as well if they can occasionally (say, once or twice in a hours-long game) branch out the current position into two lines played on different boards for example, and treat it as a mutual simul from there, and the final score can be an average of all the board's results.</p>
  <p>Why don't we allow doing that?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-06-04T22:26:46.417Z
Comments.Text: Everybody feels sorry for Ding Liren -- even Magnus has said so. But nobody in the whole world, except you, thinks that he should be allowed to take his Rb2 back. (And yes, that 'everybody' includes Ding Liren.)
Comments.UserDisplayName: TonyK
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-06-05T02:15:12.513Z
Comments.Text: @TonyK Not because I feel sorry for Ding, but because this event highlighted limitations of the traditions around chess, that may be outdated and detracting from the beauty and intellectual depth of the game. If anyone blunders repeatedly or plays worse overall, he still deserves to lose, but any human has a chance of blundering, including Magnus, and imagine a long tournament where multiple top players statistically are likely to blunder once, wouldn't it be more sportsmanlike for the results to be determined by overall play strength rather than whose opponents happened to blunder more?
Comments.UserDisplayName: alices_and_bobs
Tags: <analysis><tournament><blunder>
Title: Why not let players occasionally take back moves or try different variations in serious classical games?
ThreadText: # Why not let players occasionally take back moves or try different variations in serious classical games?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2024-06-03)
  
  Sorry if it sounds sacrilegious, you all probably know which move I'm talking about. (Edit: for future readers, it's the latest mate-in-2 blunder by the current World Champion [Ding against Magnus Carlsen](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2710723). I'm not blaming Magnus, he's absolutely right to take advantage of it under current tournament rules, but I think the incident shows the rules are maybe not in the best interest of chess world.) But almost every great player has blundered mate at least sometimes, right? That doesn't seem to benefit the educational/entertainment value of the game or the prestige of chess. It seems better to just let them take back a move sometimes, maybe with minor penalty.
  
  Also sometimes players is legit unsure of which variation is better, so it may be beneficial to players and spectators as well if they can occasionally (say, once or twice in a hours-long game) branch out the current position into two lines played on different boards for example, and treat it as a mutual simul from there, and the final score can be an average of all the board's results.
  
  Why don't we allow doing that?
  
  **Tags:** analysis, tournament, blunder
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Everybody feels sorry for Ding Liren -- even Magnus has said so. But nobody in the whole world, except you, thinks that he should be allowed to take his Rb2 back. (And yes, that 'everybody' includes Ding Liren.)  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 Not because I feel sorry for Ding, but because this event highlighted limitations of the traditions around chess, that may be outdated and detracting from the beauty and intellectual depth of the game. If anyone blunders repeatedly or plays worse overall, he still deserves to lose, but any human has a chance of blundering, including Magnus, and imagine a long tournament where multiple top players statistically are likely to blunder once, wouldn't it be more sportsmanlike for the results to be determined by overall play strength rather than whose opponents happened to blunder more?  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2024-06-04. Score: 5
  
  I think there are multiple reasons not to allow taking back moves in a competetive setting. Of course, what one does in casual games with friends is a whole different matter.
  
  For one, it takes the weight off the moves. In chess every move is tremendously important, even more so in classical time controls. It is usually possible to ruin a totally winning position by making only one careless move. IMO, this principle lies at the very heart of chess and would pretty much disappear if you were allowed to take back moves.
  
  Secondly, in a tournament setting, chess is a competition. The best player wins. If you make a bad mistake, for example blundering mate, and your opponent sees it, you lose. That's the whole point of the game. Robbing a player then of his deserved victory, is not only unsportsmanlike , but would undoubetly take a toll on his psyche (chess is intense, the players are invested).
  
  Of course, with this set of rules exploits would be possible as well. For example, if you're unsure whether you get mated in a given line - and you just can't work it out (a reason why you would deservedly lose) - why don't you just try it out? It doesn't matter anyways if you can just take the move back afterwards for a little penalty on the clock.
  
  Lastly, traps - especially those very tricky, unsound ones - would become a **lot** less effective, as the opponent would get a second chance to see the trick anyway. These would probably just stop being played.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Hi, thanks for the answer! I didn't mean take back moves unrestrictedly. Just occasionally and with penalty. Truly better players will still win, and blundering in a game will still be punished (eg by losing a fraction of a point or time penalty), and repeated blunders will certainly lose the game, but it may make the game more meaningful if the impact of a top player's occasional blunder is reduced so it doesn't ruin a potentially interesting game. Traps will still be useful if it wins you some advantage by a penalty, but imo it's fairer if unsound traps don't necessarily win you the game.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2024-06-04. Score: 3
  
  What you call a blunder is a questionable definition. So, what is a blunder, is it losing the queen, a piece, a pawn? Is it overseeing a mate in 6 moves ahead? In a game between GMs losing a pawn may be enough to lose the game, while beginners could happily go on playing. In chess, there cannot be a sort of Handicap like in golf where all players with different talents and levels can play against each other in a well-measured balance. Pawn and piece handicaps in chess do exist but have serious impacts on the game ongoing as for being interesting and combative, so even what already exists (handicaps, chess variants) is not very serious and not very popular for a good reason, and now you come with your take-back-moves idea. In German we call it Schnapsidee. More chess and less Schnaps please!
  
  Of course, in a private game it's totally ok to retract moves, also for training purposes, if both players agree upon. But it should be clear that this cannot be done in any rated or serious game, there cannot be any fair rule for introducing this, not to speak that it would be a denaturation of the game.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Hi! I was mainly referring to immediate serious ones like mate in 1 or 2, or maybe hanging a queen. Top players do blunder sometimes and may keep on playing for many reasons(even if down a queen), and actually blundering mate in 6 is harder to see for humans and not necessarily game-ending. And I don't think it's fair or practical to let them retract any bad move, but if human top players unavoidably occasionally blunder something game-ending like a quick mate, imo it's better to undo it and let them finish what could be a great game of chess.  
  > **username_3**: Well, there is an existing form of retracting moves, although this is not carried out on the chessboard: It's called Advanced Chess where both players can use computers to analyze their moves before making them. This is at least a fair exhibition of the game. But I highly question wether this is still in the realm of classical chess where players must make usage of their own talents.  
  > **username_0**: Sure, using computer to prevent blunders in the first place works too for my first point (nobody has commented on the branching out variations yet - seems everyone is focused on the sacrilegious taking back moves aspect). And if the computational complexity of the rules that determine automatic move prevention/warning are limited (say to not exceed what a typical human player can execute), and if the players themselves are required to program the rules, that could be considered their own talent. To username_3 - somehow I am unable to @ you  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2024-06-03. Score: 1
  
  It will then become a game of poker for the opponent not to let on about the blunder until it is past the point the blunder can be undone.
  
  But if a game is not rated the players can choose to redefine rules however they wish.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: I'm thinking of the kind that ends the game with an easy win, that ruins the complexity of the game. If the blunder is subtle until moves later, imo it doesn't detract too much from the educational and competitive value of the game to let it stay. In practice top players may not necessarily catch them anyway.  
  
  ---
  
  