The argument is sound; it's a slippery slope towards making a bad game because you will need to accurately specify the definition of a blunder. Where do you draw the line? You can't. Thus no one is interested. Use your idea for practice sessions.
Why do chess players like blunders?
Sort:
"The argument is not sound..." is what I meant to write.
@1
"Do you feel that to blunder is an integral component of chess?"
++ No, you should blunder check yourself before you move. 'Sit on your hands' - Tarrasch
I understand chess.com used to have a version of setup chess where the game would be played out by engines. It was called automate or something like that?
That would be an extreme version of what you're suggesting.
As for now; the matches against computers can allow hints and/or takebacks if you enable them. These can effectively operate as blunder checkers.
But learning from your blunders is just part of how you learn. I don't find them frustrating and I'm much lower rated than you so blunder much more often.
It's also worth noting that for the absolute beginners, blunders are kind of necessary to get anywhere at all in a game. Without a blunders that make tactic obvious, a very low-rated player may not know what to actually do. I know I used to resign games not because I was losing but because it felt like a game had kind of ground to a halt and I had no idea what to do next. In computer games you can do blunder-checking but the computers themselves still blunder at low ratings.
I don't think bumpers for bowling are good for bowling either really; and in some way it transforms bowling into a different game because it causes you to play completely differently if you get a split. Their main reason is so kids still pay to go bowling; and to prevent repetitive gutters every round. Even if you blundered every move, you won't have the same vibe in chess because if you're playing someone at the same level they won't capitalise on most of your blunders.
Chess players often value failure because it highlights the complexity and unpredictability of the game. Failure can provide learning opportunities and demonstrate the importance of strategy and vigilance. It can also level the playing field, making the game more exciting and unpredictable, and enhancing the thrill of competition.
I'm genuinely curious why so many players are so against some kind of blunder-prevention system being used in a variant of chess (for both players). I offered such an idea on the chess communities of reddit and got getting down-voted to oblivion (<8% upvote-downvote ratio) with some comments such as "Awful idea... Dumb" and "This idea is idiotic".
I'd consider this variant to be analogous to "bowling with bumpers". Mainly for newer players or fatigued casual players that are more blunder-prone.
Why are people so agitated by this idea? What's wrong with helping some players avoid their trivial mistakes?
From my discussions with them, here are the main reasons:
I'm offering blunder-prevention for both players in a variant. So I don't think it would be cheating. Both players would play as before, but just without the worry of making a careless mistake.
People say that we should just deal with blunders since they're part of the game. I would agree only if it wasn't such a common issue that players are dealing with all the time. Why not keep the fun and learning of chess while eliminating the frustration of blunders?
I also don't see why we can't both prevent blunders and learn in chess. They are not mutually exclusive. We can still learn from mistakes and a blunder-prevention system could also just explain to you why your move is wrong.
What are your thoughts? Do you feel that to blunder is an integral component of chess?