If we were able to change our votes, then discussion would make so much more sense! That way, votes wouldn't be finalized until our time was up, which would allow you to show support for one move by voting for it, and then changing to a different vote later as you follow along with discussion.
It encourages participation much more if you know that your vote isn't final yet!
Also, without the ability to change our votes, there is no way we're going to be able to compete against GM Davies.
I agree that it would heighten the quality of the vote chess games, something which has been slightly lacking. Comparing it with the "touch move" rule is inaccurate, the move has not yet been executed officially so voting is more like stating an opinion than a definite decision. The possibility to change votes later on would also make the team aspect shine through clearer since the discussion and common analysis increase in weight with the possibility to actually swing votes, as well as minds. The change-vote option exists already at chessgames.com and is one of many parts that has allowed that team to win all games against top players. (white vs corr GM Arno Nickel, black vs GM Yuri Shulman, now pressing hard against former corr. world champion Timmerman) That team is no individuals playing touch-move, but a well-oiled and highly efficient entity. Furthermore, the possibility to change a vote would mostly benefit weaker players, since their initial oversights can then be cured, once it has been pointed out by someone else thus providing them a potentially better learning experience.
Thus, I'm all in favour of making it possible to change one's vote.
Although i disagree with it being more like an opinion than a definite decision (since currently it is a definite decision), having the ability to change one's vote does have its merits.
Funny thing. Just the other day a friend was telling me about teaching his kid to play chess. He allowed his kid to take back moves, but we wondered if that was beneficial or a hinderance. Ultimately i thought that there should at least be a few games where no moves were allowed take-backs.
I disagree.
I think people will have to get into discussion more before voting. Discussing their ideas and ideas from other people. Some people just vote immediately after they think they have found the right move and don't participate in any discussion at all. But it's the discussion that makes you lean more..,
I don't think letting people take back their move back helps. People should take a longer time of thinking, considering options, discussing options before they vote at all. In the vote-game against the GM i didn't have a good idea what to play..., so I didn't vote. I didn't want to waste the votes of people who invested a lot of time in exploring openings, just by randomely thinking..*well that looks good to me*. You don't *have to* vote, just for the sake of voting.
When I do have a good idea, I share it, discuss it and have people tell me if it is good or not...,whether they agree or not.
Vote-chess was meant to learn and share ideas, not to let your ego do the voting. I think it's a ridiculous idea to vote before getting in the discussion..., ( in a real game, you wouldn't ever have a chance to reconsider an option after playing ..)
I think allowing a kid to take back moves is good in the short term since it may help keep the child interested. Though in the long run, allowing it constantly will cause problems.
Dinkydoe elaborated on my thoughts against allowing people to change their votes.
I can see it played either way, but my preference is against allowing it since not allowing it provides more long term advantages. For the player that realizes they want a different choice, it teaches them 1. to be patient, 2. to think things through before moving, 3. to work as a team. The only short term advantages i see is that it allows people that have been playing on sites to continue playing their way and it can provide a better game by fixing mistakes.
It's not at all analogous to taking back a move. Once a move is made, it is set in stone. The problem is allowing truly meaningful discussion before the move is made. Discussion is not meaningful when there is no choice to be made because half of the players have already voted overwhelmingly for one move without discussing it.
Your argument seems to be that "people won't learn unless they are punished for making mistakes." The problem is that it punishes the good players as well as the poor players, and seems to go against what vote chess should be about--collaboration.
You don't think vote chess would be more fun if people could change their votes?
EDIT: Another problem is that people may be tempted to vote just so that they can see the current vote score.
It is like asking to take back a move. A move isn't set in stone. I've had requests to take back moves in online play, and i've taken back moves against a computer. Vote chess being more like an election is a better analogy.
The problem isn't allowing meaningful discussion before a move is made because the meaningful discussion is already there. The problem is people moving before looking at the discussion.
There were already many posts asking people to discuss before making a move, but we're in move two and it seems like it has hardly changed. Why would allowing a takeback change whether someone decides to view the discussion? The people that are not collaborating are the people that have either not viewed the discussion or have viewed it and ignored the request to hold their votes. The former can't be fixed with allowing them to change their votes because they're either unaware or don't care that a discussion is taking place. The latter can be fixed simply by having them sit on their hands if they really want to collaborate.
The difference is that when you can't change your move, then once you've moved, you have absolutely zero incentive to look at discussion, because it is a moot point--you've already moved. However, if your move is tentative, then you have a reason to read the discussion: "Did I vote for the best move, or should I change it?"
I agree that the current problem with vote chess is people not reading the discussion. If votes weren't set in stone, then more people would have a reason to read it.
Then it's a lucky thing that you're able to consult the discussion before you move, isn't it?
Phew.
My point is that so few players do so, and that those of us who like vote chess will be more encouraged to play if others join us in discussing.
Which they will be more likely to do if they can change their votes.
Any players interested in seeing if their votes coincide with the rest would look whether or not they were allowed to change their votes. This doesn't mean they will add to the discussion. Players interested in comparing votes may not even look at the discussion since they can see the votes chart. The allowance to change votes mainly helps to fix mistakes. What could also happen is that there may be people having fun with votes which can mess with the discussion and future plans.
i dont agree,its waste ur time,a vote game need many player vote their move,if they can change their move then how much time will be taken to move a piece!!
addition:tought move can make the game more interesthing and more memory when move a wrong move,so no need change,dont too much care about win and lose ,find out the solution when make a mistake move.
Surprisingly, this question have largely become forgotten over time. I still, 10 months later, want this possibility to be added to Vote Chess. The group matches have further emphasized this, as the teams can be of very different size and strength. I have given this system a lot of time (10 months) to see if the aforementioned problems would go away when everyone got more accustomed to it. They didn't, no matter the size or rating of the teams. Something must be done about Vote Chess and the only solution I see is to enhance it by implementing the suggestion made here. After all, creating a more fluent discussion can only be good.
Even I, to my shame, have sometimes voted early in order to get to see the standings so that I may know what blunders that are in danger of getting voted in. Otherwise it is hard to know what refutations to post. Whether or not to display current voting standings is another controversial issue, but I won't open that box here.
Maybe every team can have a choice on whether to allow the changing of votes or not. In this way, a compromise could be reached.
Sometimes in vote chess, you aren't sure if you are going to have time to come back, and take another look at the game or not. You place your vote, come back later, read the discussion, and decide that want to change your vote, but can't.
If we were able to change our votes, then discussion would make so much more sense!
If you don't vote straight away, discussion makes a lot more sense as well.
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.