16 Dec 11
Originally posted by sannevssrWhy not use the analyze board facility where you can move you and your opponents pieces as far forward or as far back as you like?
I would love to see a "pre-move function" where you could make a move which would be played if it leads to a legal position.
Any thoughts?
16 Dec 11
Originally posted by vendaEither you dont catch my drift or I dont understand your humour :-)
Why not use the analyze board facility where you can move you and your opponents pieces as far forward or as far back as you like?
What I meant was a conditional move which would be played in all (legal) positions
16 Dec 11
Originally posted by sannevssrIt would also be cool if you could implement a row of conditional moves as often there is a forcing line of a few moves in almost any game.
I would love to see a "pre-move function" where you could make a move which would be played if it leads to a legal position.
Any thoughts?
16 Dec 11
Originally posted by sannevssrI think it is a stupid idea unless you have been able to comprehend every possible outcome regardless of what move your opponent makes.
I would love to see a "pre-move function" where you could make a move which would be played if it leads to a legal position.
Any thoughts?
16 Dec 11
Originally posted by adramforallEhm, there are quite some positions where one side is clearly winning and has a passed pawn which he will just push no matter what move the opponent makes. This is one example, there are obv. more.
I think it is a stupid idea unless you have been able to comprehend every possible outcome regardless of what move your opponent makes.
16 Dec 11
Originally posted by sannevssrEhm ehm... in this game, [gameid]4524960[gameid] you had a ton of passed pawns and opted for different moves depending on the situation rather than blindly pushing your passed pawn (or perhaps you're not sure what a passed pawn really is)
Ehm, there are quite some positions where one side is clearly winning and has a passed pawn which he will just push no matter what move the opponent makes. This is one example, there are obv. more.
This game too [gameid]4499726[/gameid].
This idea has come up before, and is still a bad idea.
17 Dec 11
Originally posted by greenpawn34That is a damned good idea actually...it could lead to all manner of 'nonsense'...they could actually call it 'hari-kiri' mode 😀
I like this idea.
A global function. A wee box you tick that says play the conditional
move v 'Any Reply'.
This is bound to lead to some hilirious blunders.
[pgn]
[FEN "5Q2/kp6/p5P1/8/8/7q/1PPR4/2K3R1 w - - 0 1"]
1. g7 {White now sets the condition any move by Black and his next move is g8=Q} 1...Qa3 2. g8=Q Qa1[/pgn]
17 Dec 11
Originally posted by PhlabibitTFC Pro Tip #437
Ehm ehm... in this game, [gameid]4524960[gameid] you had a ton of passed pawns and opted for different moves depending on the situation rather than blindly pushing your passed pawn (or perhaps you're not sure what a passed pawn really is)
This game too [gameid]4499726[/gameid].
This idea has come up before, and is still a bad idea.
Look at your post after you make it, to see if linx worx, thx 😕
18 Dec 11
Originally posted by PhlabibitNot quite sure why you would think I would not know what a passed pawn is. Not the most friendly and constructive way of discussing this.
Ehm ehm... in this game, [gameid]4524960[gameid] you had a ton of passed pawns and opted for different moves depending on the situation rather than blindly pushing your passed pawn (or perhaps you're not sure what a passed pawn really is)
This game too [gameid]4499726[/gameid].
This idea has come up before, and is still a bad idea.
I brought this issue up because there are quite some examples where you would play the same move no matter what your opponent's reply would be. e.g. pawn and rook vs lone king.
18 Dec 11
Originally posted by sannevssrFirst I apologize for my sloppy game links that contradict your request to always move a passed pawn forward.
Not quite sure why you would think I would not know what a passed pawn is. Not the most friendly and constructive way of discussing this.
I brought this issue up because there are quite some examples where you would play the same move no matter what your opponent's reply would be. e.g. pawn and rook vs lone king.
Please show us an example of a move you would make no matter what in a pawn rook game, and explain HOW rhp could code that considering that the rook might be on any rank or file, as well as the pawn, and the kings. How could you explain "Always move a pawn" in a game that has billions of possible board positions?
Again, I've seen these threads before... you gave an example of what you would want in future games although you didn't follow your own rules in past games. What I wasn't sure of is if you thought a passed pawn only existed when only pawns were remaining on the board.
So HOW can you show to RHP "I'll always make this move" and show us how "that move" would always be a safe move...
It's a programming nightmare considering the number of positions possible on a board. I think my previous post was constructive, and if you feel it 'unfriendly' that's usually how a person reads a post more so than how someone wrote a post.
P-
20 Dec 11
Originally posted by PhlabibitIt's not a programming nightmare. Many live chess servers are programmed to allow pre-moves.
First I apologize for my sloppy game links that contradict your request to always move a passed pawn forward.
Please show us an example of a move you would make no matter what in a pawn rook game, and explain HOW rhp could code that considering that the rook might be on any rank or file, as well as the pawn, and the kings. How could you explain "Always ...[text shortened]... t's usually how a person reads a post more so than how someone wrote a post.
P-
Simple example:
White to move
Play 1.g5 and set the premove "if any, then g6".
So, RHP would 1) wait for a reply from black 2) try the move g6 and see if it is legal and 3) make the move if so. Simple.
20 Dec 11
No it's not a programming nightmare. Currently conditional moves are done by comparing all 64 squares with a saved position for an exact match of the entire board. If it matches then play the stored move.
This is just a variation where you compare 0 squares, which always matches, then play the stored move assuming it is legal to do so. It may well be stupid to play that move but this is the mistake of the person who recorded the move and they took the risk and have to live with it. To block the feature because the person who uses it may blunder seems wrong as blundering is quite easy without it 🙂.
The value is in easier conditional move setups where the opponent is stalling and you don't care what they do. If there are 5 possible pointless moves for the opponent to do next then you are not going to store all 5 as conditionals just to get one move through.
Another possibility is to choose a particular subset of the 64 squares that are checked for a match before using the stored move. Then you could record conditionals like "play this move as long as opponents queen stays put" - you pick the square his queen is on as the only square to check (that the queen is still there) to trigger the conditional. Then any move except a queen move will match.
I still like the boldness of checking 0 squares though. The opponent would not know that a conditional like this is in there so they would have to boldly assume that it was to take advantage of a risky one.