Stop Coddling Us: Let's Call a Loss a Loss

The language used in notifications on chess.com employs a form of "soft language" that seems designed to cushion the blow of losing. When a player wins, the game clearly labels them as "Winner" with green text on their king, and a big popup message declares, "You Won!" However, when a player loses, the language becomes less direct. Instead of simply stating "Loser," the game uses terms like "Timeout," "Checkmate," "Resign," or "Abandon," with red text on their king. Additionally, the popup message doesn't say "You lost!" but rather "Black Won" or "White Won," depending on the opponent's color.

This approach softens the experience of losing, presumably to protect players' feelings. While the intention might be considerate, it also comes across as patronizing. Treating players as if they can't handle losing directly is somewhat offensive. It suggests that we are too fragile to face the reality of a loss. But losing is a natural and essential part of competition and learning. Recognizing losses directly allows players to reflect, improve, and ultimately become better.

Being direct about losing isn't harsh; it's honest. Losing is not something to be ashamed of; it's an opportunity for growth. By not acknowledging it plainly, chess.com might inadvertently create a culture where losing is seen as something negative to be avoided, rather than a normal part of the game that provides valuable lessons.

In conclusion, while the intention behind using soft language on chess.com may be to protect players' feelings, it's worth considering whether this approach truly serves the best interests of the players. Acknowledging losses directly can help foster resilience, encourage improvement, and maintain the integrity of competition. When I lose a game, I want the message to say, "You lost!" I don't need to have my feelings protected from reality. Treat us like competitors, not like snowflakes.

Is the glass half empty or half full?

If you win or lose a game (or draw), then that is just the objective result and I'm sure the player knows what the result was, regardless of the wording chess.com uses. I like the way chess.com has it now. If I lose, I don't need to be called a "loser." Losing already feels bad enough. I view the "You won" as them just being optimistic.

What it comes down to then is perception. Is the "You won" for that result "too nice" or is the losing text "not harsh enough?" It comes down to preference, but if it comes down to sportsmanship, then you wouldn't call your chess opponent a "loser" OTB, but you could humbly acknowledge "you won" to them when you lose. With that being said, I like the way chess.com worded things for now.

When you win a game, there some little green text on your king that says, "Winner", but when you lose, it doesn't say, "Loser". So, the grammatical symmetry is broken. Why? Because feelings? Also, when you win, it says, "You Won!" but when you lose it doesn't say, "You Lost". Again, broken symmetry. Why? It's like when you lose a game, chess.com is afraid to say it, and instead is like, "It's not that you lost, it's just that the other guy won." If you fail to see the problem, listen to what George Carlin had to say about soft language.

the game uses terms like "Timeout," "Checkmate," "Resign," or "Abandon,"

These terms eliminate any confusion about why the player lost. This can be especially useful to newer players.

I do wish there was consistency, but I understand why the site is set up this way.

@erik has said in interviews that a person who wins their first game of chess on the site is 4x more likely to stay than someone who loses their first game. He's also said that studies have shown that people feel like they're winning 50% of their games only when they are in fact actually wunning 80% of their games. It's human perception and facts don't necessarily change how people feel. "Get over it" is often not a helpful approach to take.

Assuming that we know for a fact they directly set out to offend YOU because they think YOU can't handle it... right. It's insane to take such a small detail and blow it up as "I'm so offended because I'm insecure about if people thing I'm strong or not" when it's simply a feature to help new players.

My criticism is about the baby talk. When you win a game, it says, "You Won!", but when you lose a game, it doesn't say, "You Lost!", it says something like, "look, don't get mad at us, please don't shoot the messenger, but ‒ and we really hope we're not offending you, the other person won."

If you don't see what's wrong with this kind of language, there's no point even arguing with you. Also, accusing someone of being insecure when they say they don't want to be treated like a child is illogical.

10% of the players might feel terrible at being hit with the term "you lost" (higher for younger or newer players and lower for older or experienced players) while 0.01% (I'm guessing lower) might be perturbed by what they deem "coddling". That makes the chess.com decision a valid marketplace implementation (probably by a comparison factor in excess of 1,000 to 1).

At scholastic/youth tournaments I verify the color that each player had and then I turn to the person who lost and ask if the opponent won. At a beginners tournament even with adults I'd do the same.

A thing like that really bothers you that much?

"Facts dont care about your feelings" so should say you lost.

but still do you really care? does it affect how u play?

#12 Wrong on so many levels.

#12 God complex

The glass is always full unless certain conditions and in a vacuum.

The optimist says the glass is half full

The pessimist says the glass is half empty

The engineer says the glass is the wrong size

The glass is full of air.

Another way of looking at it that maintains "symmetry" or consistent messaging is to simply announce who won (i.e. who gets a point). Chess.com, Lichess, Fritz Online, Fide Online Arena do it his way consistently.

• "White Won" or "Black Won"
• "White is victorious" or "Black is victorious"
• "White mates" or "Black mates"
• "White Won, Black Lost" or "Black Won, White Lost"

I think any of these are a good and consistent user experience. Some might prefer win over victory or mates. Some might say also stating what colour lost is redundant (not coddling).

All language on the site is intentional. This might not apply to you because it irritates you, but most people will feel slightly better after a loss when they don't have to look "YOU LOST" right in the face. The language, aesthetics, interface, animations, sound effects, etc. of any decent site is designed to make users want to continue playing on the site, viewing ads, and potentially buying memberships.