1. Standard member88mph
    Cooler than Chess
    Swindon
    Joined
    14 Dec '05
    Moves
    6686
    25 Feb '06 01:52
    a check position, with only one legal option to defend ones king, should be allowed to be made automatically, with the defending player able to check what has happened in the back history (maybe aided visually as to what happened and why), allowing the attacking player to play through their moves, and maybe end a game where it is, rather than waiting fot the opponent to come to their machines

    this will allow sequences that can take up to weeks, waiting for people to move, to be dealt with as quickly as they would be on a live board.
    , without in anyway infringing on its potential educational value, thanks to 'game history'.

    i imagine as the current system can spot a checkmate, it could spot moves with only one possible move, and react respectfuly
  2. The Great North
    Joined
    26 Nov '05
    Moves
    1278
    26 Feb '06 19:35
    Originally posted by 88mph
    a check position, with only one legal option to defend ones king, should be allowed to be made automatically, with the defending player able to check what has happened in the back history (maybe aided visually as to what happened and why), allowing the attacking player to play through their moves, and maybe end a game where it is, rather than waiting fot the o ...[text shortened]... m can spot a checkmate, it could spot moves with only one possible move, and react respectfuly
    I totaly agree, as long as there are no other options, the game should make the move for you. It will speed up play and allow you to force a mate in 10 moves that could go on for weeks.
  3. Home
    Joined
    29 Apr '05
    Moves
    19877
    27 Feb '06 05:09
    no, I don't agree. It is like letting the server resign a game for you. It is a stupid idea,
  4. Standard member88mph
    Cooler than Chess
    Swindon
    Joined
    14 Dec '05
    Moves
    6686
    28 Feb '06 11:14
    not really, as the opponent has no other options. so its obvious where they are going to move, it's silly having to wait up to a week for a move they HAVE to make.

    And this doesnt necessarily lead to mate, could just swiftly move through an attack passage by an opponent so the game can move on to a section where you have more than one move option, and therefore actually have a discission to make
  5. Standard memberRedmike
    Godless Commie
    Glasgow
    Joined
    06 Jan '04
    Moves
    171019
    28 Feb '06 11:37
    This sort of thing might be viable, but I'd like to see both players agreeing to it.

    ie the 'defending' player would have to have agreed in advance that such forced moves can be made for them. Otherwise they have to play them out.
  6. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    28 Feb '06 15:28
    There is always more than one option how to react to a move, even if you only have one move: You can (1) resign, you can (2) make the move and offer draw, you can (3) chose not to respond at all, you can (4) stall the game by be late with the move of one reason or another - you have always more than one option.

    If let the server move for you - why not letting the server chose the best move alltogether?

    I want to move the pieces myself.
  7. Joined
    28 Nov '05
    Moves
    24334
    28 Feb '06 22:02
    If it already happens in real world correspondance chess, I would be for it.
    Otherwise, I'm against it.
    I'll choose when to resign, thankyou.
  8. Standard memberRedmike
    Godless Commie
    Glasgow
    Joined
    06 Jan '04
    Moves
    171019
    28 Feb '06 22:50
    Originally posted by aging blitzer
    If it already happens in real world correspondance chess, I would be for it.
    Otherwise, I'm against it.
    I'll choose when to resign, thankyou.
    In correspondence chess, it is normal practise to offer your opponent conditional moves.

    So, a move with a forced reply would be accompanied with a note saying 'if you play move x, then I play move y'. Of xourse, the opponent has the option to choose to not play the forced move and resign instead.

    It is also common in the openings eg 1.e4 might be accompanied by a note saying if 1...e5 or 1...c5 then 2.Nf3.
  9. London
    Joined
    28 Sep '04
    Moves
    110329
    01 Mar '06 00:03
    Originally posted by AlpineXazax
    I totaly agree, as long as there are no other options, the game should make the move for you. It will speed up play and allow you to force a mate in 10 moves that could go on for weeks.
    What if the opponant didn't see the mate and would not be able to make it. This would effectivly be like allowing an engine to make your moves for you.
  10. Standard memberRedmike
    Godless Commie
    Glasgow
    Joined
    06 Jan '04
    Moves
    171019
    01 Mar '06 00:201 edit
    Originally posted by Freddie2006
    What if the opponant didn't see the mate and would not be able to make it. This would effectivly be like allowing an engine to make your moves for you.
    He's not suggesting that the site should find and play forced wins for you.

    Just that, when you only have one option (say, you're in check, and there is only move which gets you out of check), that the site plays that automatically.

    If tha 'attacking' side has different options (which they will), then they have to find the best moves themselves.
  11. Home
    Joined
    29 Apr '05
    Moves
    19877
    01 Mar '06 02:39
    Originally posted by Freddie2006
    What if the opponant didn't see the mate and would not be able to make it. This would effectivly be like allowing an engine to make your moves for you.
    You have a very valid point. If one player was able to make another move in the game, because of the automove, then he/she might rethink his/her plan. This would be unwanted aid, expecialy to lower rated players, whom might not know that their move would cause a forced move and might rethink their plan to take advantage of this. It is slower not having this feature, but you can always subscribe so you won't notice a few games taking a long time.
  12. Standard memberXanthosNZ
    Cancerous Bus Crash
    p^2.sin(phi)
    Joined
    06 Sep '04
    Moves
    25076
    01 Mar '06 02:531 edit
    Originally posted by Redmike
    In correspondence chess, it is normal practise to offer your opponent conditional moves.

    So, a move with a forced reply would be accompanied with a note saying 'if you play move x, then I play move y'. Of xourse, the opponent has the option to choose to not play the forced move and resign instead.

    It is also common in the openings eg 1.e4 might be accompanied by a note saying if 1...e5 or 1...c5 then 2.Nf3.
    This is what we need none of this forced move crap. Conditional moves. It could speed up opening play and endgame play, but doesn't remove choices from either player.
    On a funny note there is a story of a correspondence game that went:

    1. e4 b6 2. Ba6 Bb7 3. Bxb7 1-0

    Black had sent a conditional of "Bb7 in response to anything", white took advantage.
Back to Top