Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Site Ideas Forum

Site Ideas Forum

  1. Standard member Toe
    27 Feb '07 13:29
    Similar to, if not easier than if-moves.

    Where your permits only one valid move for your opponent, then automatically force that move.

    It's an oldie too.
  2. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    27 Feb '07 14:25
    Originally posted by Toe
    Similar to, if not easier than if-moves.

    Where your permits only one valid move for your opponent, then automatically force that move.

    It's an oldie too.
    It's a bad idea. You need to know your "only move". There was a player who had one legal move, and it was based on a rule they did not know.

    You have to find your legal move, and make it yourself.

    P-
  3. Standard member Toe
    27 Feb '07 15:07
    Consider then limiting such a feature to be active on users under a rating non-provisional rating of 1400 (or whatever). By that time, you should know the rules.
    A message "Your last X moves were forced" should keep them aware of what went on. If you didn't know why, then its a good kick to go find out.
  4. 27 Feb '07 15:08 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Toe
    Similar to, if not easier than if-moves.

    Where your permits only one valid move for your opponent, then automatically force that move.

    It's an oldie too.
    Not at all. The opponent has always several options to make:
    He can move now, or later. He can give up, he can ask for a draw. And he can do whatever he likes of reasons his opponent don't need to know. He just want to be in charge for his wn moves, even if he just have one, and one only, legal move.

    No, this is not a good idea.

    The concept of conditional moves, discussed elsewhere, is much better.
  5. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    27 Feb '07 15:36
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Not at all. The opponent has always several options to make:
    He can move now, or later. He can give up, he can ask for a draw. And he can do whatever he likes of reasons his opponent don't need to know. He just want to be in charge for his wn moves, even if he just have one, and one only, legal move.

    No, this is not a good idea.

    The concept of conditional moves, discussed elsewhere, is much better.
    I forgot about that. I don't want RHP forcing my one move and a player mating me next when I would have resigned.

    Several reasons this is a bad idea.

    P-
  6. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    27 Feb '07 15:37 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Toe
    Consider then limiting such a feature to be active on users under a rating non-provisional rating of 1400 (or whatever). By that time, you should know the rules.
    A message "Your last X moves were forced" should keep them aware of what went on. If you didn't know why, then its a good kick to go find out.
    It's a good kick to find out after you've lost, RHP should not force any move.

    P-

    I've got a game right now where the next two moves are forced, and it is mate. If these moves were forced by RHP the user would be left wondering why RHP forced the moves and the game ends in mate when he's got every right to resign.
  7. Standard member Agerg
    The 'edit'or
    27 Feb '07 17:17 / 1 edit
    Hmm...I agree with the fact that a player that faces forced mate should indeed find such a fate by himself instead of having the game end for them but perhaps another idea is:

    Supposing that a forced mate has been spotted by player A, then player A having submitted this sequence of moves to RHP cedes control of this game to a script that executes a corresponding move for eacher of player B's moves...If RHP agrees that it is a forced mate then player A gets the points he normally would have got anyway whilst B gets to play on. (ie: if a 3 move mate is forced, with mate following in less moves if player B moves incorrectly(?), then player A decides what moves occur for each of player B's moves, (or if a certain move is not made by player B, make such and such a move)) This would only be viable when the number of moves is short, but this is also the time I think when most people who have intentions to string a game out would notice their fate.
  8. 27 Feb '07 17:44
    I must agree with the majority. I would much rather only lose 5 points by resigning rather than 10 points by a checkmate that you can see coming right at you and not be able to resign.

    Rather I say there should be a link next to all the other links that shows you all the legal moves possible but you would still be able to resign whenever.
  9. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    27 Feb '07 18:07
    Originally posted by beatlemania
    I must agree with the majority. I would much rather only lose 5 points by resigning rather than 10 points by a checkmate that you can see coming right at you and not be able to resign.

    Rather I say there should be a link next to all the other links that shows you all the legal moves possible but you would still be able to resign whenever.
    ?

    Checkmate and Resign result in a lost game. Same rating points.

    P-
  10. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    27 Feb '07 18:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Hmm...I agree with the fact that a player that faces forced mate should indeed find such a fate by himself instead of having the game end for them but perhaps another idea is:

    Supposing that a forced mate has been spotted by player A, then player A having submitted this sequence of moves to RHP cedes control of this game to a script that executes a correspo ime I think when most people who have intentions to string a game out would notice their fate.
    See the IF MOVES thread. This would be covered if that goes through. RHP wouldn't need to check and see if it is forced... you just put your desired moves in based on forced or best option moves.

    Thread 63699

    P-
  11. 27 Feb '07 18:23 / 1 edit
    no checkmate and resigning don't result in the amount of points lost,because if you think about it logically,when you resign,it shows a higher level of chess knowlegde because you can see the checkmate coming at you AND you see that you can't stop it from coming. but checkmate happens because you either don't see it coming and it smacks you in the face or you do see it coming and you think 'gee I can stop this' but 2-3 moves later you find out that it couldn't be stopped
  12. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    27 Feb '07 18:37 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by beatlemania
    no checkmate and resigning don't result in the amount of points lost,because if you think about it logically,when you resign,it shows a higher level of chess knowlegde because you can see the checkmate coming at you AND you see that you can't stop it from coming. but checkmate happens because you either don't see it coming and it smacks you in the face o ...[text shortened]... u think 'gee I can stop this' but 2-3 moves later you find out that it couldn't be stopped
    Well, it is better to resign than be mated... but they result in the same score. Sorry. Next you'll have us counting material and figuring that into this equation you've made up?

    FAQ

    (see How is my rating calculated?)

    P-
  13. 27 Feb '07 19:10
    oh,sorry. I never looked into that.
  14. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    27 Feb '07 19:14
    Originally posted by beatlemania
    oh,sorry. I never looked into that.
    I went a year or so with no mates... and someone finally creeped up on me and mated me. I was let down.

    Guess what, happened again about 2 weeks later!

    I think I've been mated perhaps 3 times now.

    P-