3 edits
Originally posted by flexmoreI would appreciate it that if the function gets there, it would be made optional, 'cause I don't want it. I want to make my own moves.
If there is only one legal move then why waste everybody's time, the computer can do it.
of course the player (who had a move made for them) would need to be notified when they next see their game - just to make sure they don't have a heart attack.
Olav
Originally posted by flexmoreHey flex you're pretty lazy!
If there is only one legal move then why waste everybody's time, the computer can do it.
of course the player (who had a move made for them) would need to be notified when they next see their game - just to make sure they don't have a heart attack.
Originally posted by flexmoreThis has been discussed recently.
If there is only one legal move then why waste everybody's time, the computer can do it.
of course the player (who had a move made for them) would need to be notified when they next see their game - just to make sure they don't have a heart attack.
I think this should not come. What get nearly nothing (just save the work of ONE single click) and it's very expensive in terms of server traffic. And it's simply not in the chess rules. If you can't find the only possible move then you should loose (on time).
th
Originally posted by thire
(just save the work of ONE single click)
if the oppenent only makes one move each week - then it is a whole week that is saved.
- and for a very lazy person one little click might help make life better ;-)
i know little of server traffic.
of course it is not in the normal chess rules, but this is not normal chess - this is better!
Originally posted by thireI don't think this would be very expensive for the server. To detect stalemate, you have to test for >0 legal moves, detecting >1 legal moves will not take much longer.
This has been discussed recently.
I think this should not come. What get nearly nothing (just save the work of ONE single click) and it's very expensive in terms of server traffic. And it's simply not in the chess rules. If you can't find the only possible move then you should loose (on time).
th
However, I agree that it is probably not a good idea, or at least should only be enabled if both players agree. For one thing, if there are two or more legal moves and a player can only spot one, the implied information that the server can see at least one other could be an unfair hint.
By the way, server load and server traffic are different things: the first refers to computations, database accesses and so forth, the second to data sent out over the network. An increase in server load can lead to slow responses or the need to upgrade the server; an increase in server traffic leads to increased bandwidth charges (it also increases the server load)
Server load would be increased tremendously. You see, with checkmate, you only check the 0 legal moves when someone is checked, and then only the ones for the king (move, take, putting somthing inbetween). With the one legal move, you would have to check on EVERY possible move EVERY move for EVERY game. That would take a lot of computation time. Therefore not a feasible option.
1 edit
Originally posted by pidermanThere could be a "forced move" button beside move: the server would only check for a forced move if that button was pressed. And to make it worth the bother: only allow the button for subscriber and if it wasn't a forced move after all, disable the button for that user for the remainder of the game (or even loose... nobody is going to force them to press it).
Server load would be increased tremendously. You see, with checkmate, you only check the 0 legal moves when someone is checked, and then only the ones for the king (move, take, putting somthing inbetween). With the one legal move, you woul ...[text shortened]... d take a lot of computation time. Therefore not a feasible option.
etc etc etc you can see how the argument goes.
Clearly, the only point is getting to the end of a game quicker, which is advantageous in tournaments, seige play or when somebody is trying to "win by stalling till they go on holiday" maneuver
Originally posted by ToeNO NO NO. This feature, if introduced could be interpreted as an aid for the attacking player as explained in an earlier post..
There could be a "forced move" button beside move: the server would only check for a forced move if that button was pressed. And to make it worth the bother: only allow the button for subscriber and if it wasn't a forced move after all, disable the button for that user for the remainder of the game (or even loose... nobody is going to force them to press it). ...[text shortened]... s, seige play or when somebody is trying to "win by stalling till they go on holiday" maneuver
Also it removes rights from the defender. The right to offer a draw or to resign and probaly the most important one, the right to make a decision and to then make the move oneself. All these exist in OTB play but 'auto force move' does not. 😠
the skeeter
Originally posted by pidermanNot so fast! I referred to stalemate, not checkmate.
Server load would be increased tremendously. You see, with checkmate, you only check the 0 legal moves when someone is checked, and then only the ones for the king (move, take, putting somthing inbetween). With the one legal move, you would have to check on EVERY possible move EVERY move for EVERY game. That would take a lot of computation time. Therefore not a feasible option.
If the king is not in check, but the player whose turn it is has no legal move, the game is a draw. Therefore, the server already has to check (every turn) that there is at least one legal move; this may involve considering every piece. A check for a forced move stops when two moves have been found, it does not check every possible move.
You might protest that checking for two moves is twice as much work as checking for one, but as an addition to the other things that must be done every turn, it would not come to much.
Nonetheless, even though it might speed some games up, this remains a bad idea, definitely patronising to the defending player and possibly giving him unfair assistance.