If you're referring to mine, I was typing a line along the lines of "exf6 looks obvious, but ..." but managed to send it early. The perils of using my phone to post I suppose (as my profile says, I have managed to lose games doing that as well). If you want to go back and use exf6 (which loses instantly, of course) please feel free. And apologies for screwing up.
Originally posted by sim66It was an earlier move. A glitch in the system when GP moved.
If you're referring to mine, I was typing a line along the lines of "exf6 looks obvious, but ..." but managed to send it early. The perils of using my phone to post I suppose (as my profile says, I have managed to lose games doing that as well). If you want to go back and use exf6 (which loses instantly, of course) please feel free. And apologies for screwing up.
No.
My Rd1 when I did not make it clear which Rook. My fault.
If it had been a sealed move I would have lost right away.
The Rook on d6 went to d1. It was played.
The fact I never meant it has nothing to do with it.
Once you start taking moves back or allow moves to be taken back
you might as well give up. What's the point?
Originally posted by greenpawn34It's a bit of fun, a skittles game. No big deal.
No.
My Rd1 when I did not make it clear which Rook. My fault.
If it had been a sealed move I would have lost right away.
The Rook on d6 went to d1. It was played.
The fact I never meant it has nothing to do with it.
Once you start taking moves back or allow moves to be taken back
you might as well give up. What's the point?
If you want to bailout, go ahead, we'll carry on playing. 🙂
Originally posted by greenpawn34Your respect for principles is unimpeachable. I take your point that had "Rd1" been a sealed move, a tournament director would have declared a mis-move and probably have awarded the game to the opponent.
Skittles game or not, the rules are rules. This game is tarnished.
How can you expect me to play for a win knowing we took a move back.
Do we allow Black to take a move back to even things up?
How would such a case have been adjudicated in correspondence chess before the advent of the Internet? Would the recipient of an ambiguous move be entitled to a collect win on the spot? Or would/should the recipient solicit disambiguation (assuming the time limit had not already been breached, of course)? I do not know, it has been too long since I engaged in postal chess.
Perhaps you would consider blgging on what things worked and what needs to be tightened up for future multi-gamers. It is a shame that a system glitch contributed to the unhappy situation; that is one point which certainly needs tightening up. Perhaps a forum-wide notification of this particular weakness in the program would help to avoid a similar grievance in the future. I'm guessing that recoding the program is not on the menu.
"Perhaps you would consider blogging on what things worked and what
needs to be tightened up for future multi-gamers."
I never use the blog to carry on a forum row. That would be unfair.
The rules of chess should stand. Touch move. Glich or no glich.
If I was on the Black team I would have insisted that the original move stood.
I understand the bug is getting fixed on Thursday (19th Decemeber)
we should suspend play till then and see what the system does to my Rd1 move.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Does this mean that a future iteration of the program will recognize and flag ambiguous moves? That would be excellent.
I understand the bug is getting fixed on Thursday (19th Decemeber)
we should suspend play till then and see what the system does to my Rd1 move.
That is what they say, so no more moves till Thursday and we can
take up it from move 20. I'm guesiing the PGN wil be invalid.
Then we treat it as an illegal move like we did when that lad moved our piece.
(BTW if there was a way for Black to take that piece we could have insisted Black took it.)
Originally posted by moonbusI know I'm not playing in this game but to answer the question above, and as I used to play a bit of postal chess, from memory, you sent the card back saying it was an ambiguous move and his "clock" kept on ticking from the date he originally received the move to which he ambiguously replied to, or if you were feeling generous you could send a conditional move i.e "if you meant, for example, rhd1, then I play x". Alternatively if that meant he overstepped the time limit, then I believe you could claim the win on time.
[b]
How would such a case have been adjudicated in correspondence chess before the advent of the Internet? Would the recipient of an ambiguous move be entitled to a collect win on the spot? Or would/should the recipient solicit disambiguation (assuming the time limit had not already been breached, of course)? I do not know, it has been too long since I engaged in postal chess.
[b]
Originally posted by greenpawn34Experienced players think up excuses when the position becomes lost. 😉
“A man that will take back a move at Chess will pick a pocket”
(Richard Fenton 1837 – 1916 )
You lot can caryy on but I am having nothing to do with it.
I do not want the ghost of Richard Fenton appearing on Christmas Eve
rattling chains and howling in my earhole.
Originally posted by moonbusNone of the programmers I know code in MS Word.
SG wrote: "I will write some code and discover in an old program that I had already written some of the same functions. "
You're not the only one. Programmers must have re-invented the wheel a million times.
I still use a DOS-era text editor (called XyWrite) in preference to MS-Word. It does everything Word can do and will run from a USB stick (total ...[text shortened]... kly it boots and opens and closes big files. Once they get over their shock at the CLI, that is.
My personal preference is an IDE or Notepad++.
Ah, that's good to hear. I haven't got to grips with my shiny new piece of Far Eastern wizardry yet. I managed to send an email to my boss at work last week that consisted of the word "Hello". To his credit, he replied with "Hello to you too. Did you want to say anything more?".