Wrong with online chess

In this game, my opponent, lost for lost, tries a desperate attack that could succeed in an OTB (real life) Rapid or Blitz game, when one can be bluffed and resign or so, believing they just got checkmated.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/117853754169

But with the online chess, an external "person", yells at Black "No! it's NOT checkmate!". So, in case one missed it, one then do look up, and sees BxQ (White resign).

A player is NOT supposed to get external help, and nothing should hint one wether it's mate or not, check or not, if that's a legal move or not, etc.

I'm not sure it's only possible to fix that issue. But because of such issues, this is no true chess. Players receive external help that makes some mistakes impossible to happen. And that ruins the essence of chess games imo.

Amazing schizo tilt rant. 10/10

I accept your view

Hhu

Well, this is online chess. You also can't make an illegal move and get penalized here, which I think is fair. With the website's or app's interface and the specifics of user input devices (touchscreen, touchpad, mouse), you can sometimes make unintentional mistakes. There's no perfect solution (except maybe for showing an 'Are you sure?' dialog a couple of times for every single move and then penalize). You can't allow a user to attempt an illegal move because it might have been unintentional. So, when there's a check, the system has to indicate that a move is not possible. Is it a big secret that there's a check or checkmate? No. This is basic and easy to verify. Such an indication doesn't provide a significant advantage. This isn't poker where bluffing matters, at least not in the final step

if the argument is that you want to be able to trick people, you're 100% losing me. this isn't poker. bluffing isn't part of the game.

online chess offers a very clean expierence. no accidental illegal moves, no badly placed pieces, no manually operated clock and ideally little distractions. I think there is an argument to make that it is how chess is supposed to be.

and I'm not just saying that because I can't concentrate OTB for the life of me

Well, GermanNerd, if it bugs you that chess is foremost a game based on illusions, and what we don't see that we should see since it's right in front of our very eyes, there is nothing I can do for you.

And I insist there is no way it'd be right one gets help in order to evade an illusion. If the position is winning or losing has just nothing to do with it.

you should try close-up magic, oh great illusionist Kaeldorn.

You may mock me, but yes the game of chess is based upon the fact we don't see everything, in spite of having it right in front of our eyes.

Besides, your mockery is unworthy of your claims. You both claim to have a more rational stand than me, then can't sustain your point of view with anything better than a buffon's speech...

jeez, lighten up a little.

I never heard anyone describe chess as a game of illusions and bluffs before, that's all. I'm sure you can admit it's a rather unique take.

I wouldn't say "game of illusions" but "game of perception", as if you have a 500,1000,1500,2000,2500,super gm look at one board position they may all see completely different things, from "there is nothing here", to "white loses" or "black loses" or "it's a draw".
The "outside help" already starts at tournaments where arbiters make sure rules are adhered to, so it's not an inherently online thing but an inherently fair play thing.

Mark that: it's you alone who said bluff. But truth is, if you don't risk anything, it's hard to generate chances to win. The higher the level the truer it is. And you may also want to consider what is the meaning of gambit.

Also, tell me this: how many games of chess have you lost in your life, where you could not identify by yourself out of what fault you lost? My bet is that your answer would be somewhere between zero and not many. So, can you see now what it would change if you had a prompter hitting you on the shoulder every time you are about to play a faulty move?

When I was still young, as I had Chessbase, I checked on my 400 first games, and discovered that about 25% of games did not end the "logical" way: when a player has a significant advantage, 25% of the time, the game will end in a draw, or a victory for the weaker side. Because faults and blunders happen all the time, and the capacity to avoid playing these is a part of the player's strenght and value.

This is why, I do claim, this should not be messed with, or you're changing the game into something I'd qualify of less human. And probably less fun. A game that is chess yet not chess.

There's a big difference between something hitting you on the shoulder at each and every move vs something saying the game is now over. Nobody wants the former whereas I think the vast majority want the latter.
Btw if you look at your first post you'll find the first use of the word "bluff" in this thread

is this some weak attempt at gaslighting?

maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but to reiterate my point: if online chess avoids some of the "unlogical" results you describe, I think that's for the better. doesn't it feel kinda bad to get an arguably undeserved result that way?

Mwell, okay, my bad. Just so: to be bluffed is a thing, to bluff is an other.

You don't feel so bad to get undeserved good results once you've had as many undeserved losses. Try to be fair to them, you won't be paid back. It's sad, but it's so.

we certainly don't disagree there.

But how do you improve upon self control when a machine does it for you?

There's plenty of opportunities in chess to improve on self control apart from knowing when the game is over, I'd even say that's a rather small part of it. At the top level all the players will exactly know when a checkmate has been achieved yet the game is still a major mental challenge for them.