Played a game v Swiss Gambit where we tested everything.
That E.P. bug appears to be fixed.
It would have been funny if the under promotion routine had a flaw.
If your opponent had a pawn on the 7th you could send a condition that
he promoted it to a Knight. Unfortunately the system does give you a choice.
Soon some horror stories will start emerging,
The main drawback will be weaker players seeing a quick reply,
may move too fast and blunder.
(wait a minute - that is how I win my games - ignore that last bit, it's not a drawback).
I like the idea that you can be fast asleep and still setting traps.
It gives the impression that the other guy is playing live.
So you send him a hello message. No reply.
You send another, no reply. and another and another...
You wake up in the morning and find some bloke is calling you
an ignornat dog on the chess forum.
Originally posted by AttilaTheHornEdit: original post deleted - I misunderstood your complaint.
You're opponent does not get to see what your conditional move is, and vice versa. That means you have no idea that a conditional move has been attached to a move, and that is not the way CC is played. I hope this is fixed soon.
I am curious why the current system does not at least show the triggered conditional instantly - right after the opponent hits 'submit move', he should see the conditional move response, IMO.
I am not so sure that the opponent should be forced to show you 5 moves of his analysis just to get them played as conditionals - why should he be made to tip his hand?
In snail-mail CC, he had no choice but to tip his hand in this situation, if he wanted all 5 moves played instantly.
The one thing that's lost in RHP's implementation is that the game does not speed up for BOTH players when a long conditional sequence is accepted, as it would in traditional CC. On the other hand, perhaps it is more fair to force each player to come up with their own analysis, rather than borrowing the opponent's analysis through conditional moves?!
I don't see anything wrong with the way CC is played by snail mail. It's worked well since the days of the telegraph in the 19th century. I say, "My move is x, and if you respond with y, then I play z," and so on. If a conditional move is attached to your move, your opponent should be entitled to see it before he decides on a reply. The opponent can accept the whole string of conditional moves or only up to a certain point. Currently, this is not the case on RHP, and I think it should somehow be corrected.
Originally posted by AttilaTheHornNo, it should not. It kinda defeats the purpose of setting a trap, don't you think?
I don't see anything wrong with the way CC is played by snail mail. It's worked well since the days of the telegraph in the 19th century. I say, "My move is x, and if you respond with y, then I play z," and so on. If a conditional move is attached to your move, your opponent should be entitled to see it before he decides on a reply. The opponent can ac ...[text shortened]... n point. Currently, this is not the case on RHP, and I think it should somehow be corrected.
Originally posted by AttilaTheHornI'm not sure why you think if someone sets a conditional move his opponent is now somehow at a disadvantage. If, like Swissgambit suggests, you want to speed up the play then you could simply message your opponent letting him know you have preset conditional moves.
I don't see anything wrong with the way CC is played by snail mail. It's worked well since the days of the telegraph in the 19th century. I say, "My move is x, and if you respond with y, then I play z," and so on. If a conditional move is attached to your move, your opponent should be entitled to see it before he decides on a reply. The opponent can ac ...[text shortened]... n point. Currently, this is not the case on RHP, and I think it should somehow be corrected.
Originally posted by clandarkfire>There are no traps. Everything is right there on the board in front of the players for both to see. The truth is there on the board somewhere. It may be very hard to find, but it's there. If one misses something, and falls into a mess, I don't call that a trap. He could have seen it coming earlier and prevented it.
No, it should not. It kinda defeats the purpose of setting a trap, don't you think?
>The player who makes the penultimate mistake wins. It seems to me if there are no mistakes (which never happens), it's a draw.
Originally posted by AttilaTheHornWas hoping for something more than a mere appeal to tradition. 😕
I don't see anything wrong with the way CC is played by snail mail. It's worked well since the days of the telegraph in the 19th century. I say, "My move is x, and if you respond with y, then I play z," and so on. If a conditional move is attached to your move, your opponent should be entitled to see it before he decides on a reply. The opponent can ac ...[text shortened]... n point. Currently, this is not the case on RHP, and I think it should somehow be corrected.
In the online age, with server and computer's capabilities, are there actually good reasons for keeping conditional moves as they were in snail-mail?
Originally posted by SwissGambitWell, I guess I'm just a traditionalist, probably because I played a lot of CC in the days before computers and the Internet. I guess you have a point though.
Was hoping for something more than a mere appeal to tradition. 😕
In the online age, with server and computer's capabilities, are there actually good reasons for keeping conditional moves as they were in snail-mail?
I found the conditional move very fun last night, but this morning I found it disappointing. I had my opponent in a difficult spot, so I thought of all the possible moves that could be used to fight out of it. I had thought of four possible tries and came up with replies for each.
I check the game this morning to see which one he chose and he didn't make any of the moves I thought of the night before. He chose a move that gave me a forced mate in 4.
Game 5698768
Last night I was looking for his possible responses after 20. hxg6.
I'm rather proud of the game, but I'm not as happy as I thought I'd be after thinking about and planning for all the possible ways he could have responded to make things more difficult. If it wasn't for this new feature, I don't think I would have gone through all the trouble. I suppose I would have been ignorantly bliss about how much of a lock I had on the position and the forced win.
Originally posted by EladarThey're more fun to use once you have the mate in 4 [provided there are not too many variations to it].
I found the conditional move very fun last night, but this morning I found it disappointing. I had my opponent in a difficult spot, so I thought of all the possible moves that could be used to fight out of it. I had thought of four possible tries and came up with replies for each.
I check the game this morning to see which one he chose and he didn't make ...[text shortened]... e been ignorantly bliss about how much of a lock I had on the position and the forced win.
Originally posted by AttilaTheHornSure, but don't you think there is a smaller chance of makeing a blunder, when you can see your opponents winning responce?
>There are no traps. Everything is right there on the board in front of the players for both to see. The truth is there on the board somewhere. It may be very hard to find, but it's there. If one misses something, and falls into a mess, I don't call that a trap. He could have seen it coming earlier and prevented it.
>The player who makes the penultimate mistake wins. It seems to me if there are no mistakes (which never happens), it's a draw.