Conditional moves

---

HAW!

This guy didn't get any wiser while the thread was on vacation, that's for sure. 

Seriously.  Spoiled your holiday?  What a jerk.

I especially like the part about asking your opponent first.  Maybe you should tell them they have to ask you for permission before they can put you in check. 

---

If you take a vacation at another country, then use your "vacation" time- problem solved.

???

His opponent can still leave conditional moves for when he comes off of vacation.

But he will still have all his time left when he comes back.

What does that have to do with anything?  Zhane's complaint is that he doesn't like anyone using conditional moves at any time for any reason.  Read his previous posts.

Of course they did! That's why they have the feature! Zhane wrote: trysts wrote: Zhane wrote: I find the whole concept disturbing towards me. In my honest opinion chess.com should've called them "what if" moves, because nobody can correctly predict an entire match. For example if I was white my opponent has a 1/20 chance of guessing my correct opening line. Well, they are called "conditional moves". If they don't guess your moves, then you don't see them. Am I missing something?  You are missing something because every time I ask why they always answer "I did it to speed up the game." This really bugs me as they do not have a valid reason if I walk into "conditional moves."

That is why when people make conditional moves, they make sure that they aren't missing anythig. Zhane wrote: Right then I shall make this statement as clear as I can. CONDITIONAL MOVES KILLED A THINKER I am a chess thinker, and I have NEVER used one on this site.

Yes, you would bother- you would respond to the conditional move(s) just like you would a normal move. Zhane wrote: I shall try this one scenario with all of you idiots. You start a vacation, pack your bags, leave for another country after logging out. Then when you return to this site 99% of opponents may have made a CONDITIONAL Move against you. That has spoiled many a holiday for me. If only you can ask your opponent if its alright to make one, then I respect that view, however if your opponent is predictable and has entered "X" amount of CONDITIONAL Moves then why would you bother to play chess?

+1 theprez98 wrote: In a forced line or exchange, there is no reason *not* to use conditional moves, other than just slowing the game for no good reason. I use conditional moves all the time, and appreciate when my opponents take the time to use them, too.

I think I gave a perfectly valid reason why one might not use conditional moves, even for obvious or only moves. Just because you can't think of a reason doesn't mean there isn't one, theprez98 and cmibu.

It's okay to not use conditional moves, but there is no reason to be anti-conditional move.

Dude but you're backpedaling. You +1'd an incorrect statement. And now you're following that with a perfectly reasonable and true statement.

I've had opponents blunder when they used conditional moves. Then they are really fun! Plus they speed things up...

I had them malfunction once too. The game was unrated, against a guy I knew, and I made something like 7 or 8 knights to just his king. I entered a conditional line really long, when his king was down to only two squares. When I came back, somehow chess.com had him in a stalemate.

Conditional moves have been a normal and accepted part of correspondence chess, haven't they?

They absolutely have, whirlwind. Everything, no matter how obviously acceptable, is subject to critisism. There are people who think castling is cheating.

Yeah, I always get a kick out of the people who boast that they play without "resorting" to castling, like it's an underhanded move that slipped through a rules loophole and should be shunned by dignified players.  You know those guys aren't going very far in their chess careers with that attitude.

---

That's incredible! I would hope these players would try to play lots of games with closed positions, for their sake.