Conditional Move Idea...

Conditional moves are useful sometimes, but if you're playing correspondence chess, why be in such a rush?

When I played Daily, I would use conditional lines in forced or semi-forced variations. Or for lines where I thought something might happen and I had calculated what I thought were the best continuations.

It was a way to not have to keep notes on the games and to not have to worry or think about the game until the conditional line was complete or my opponent did something else.

When playing a lot of simultaneous games, adding the conditional line was a trivial time addition, since I had already been calculating the continuations anyway. So it certainly moved the game along to a new position and saved some time in the process. If my opponents didn't like the use of the moves and then wanted to drag the game out after, that's on them and would have given me more time as well.

Since when is "being polite to your opponent to save him time"  the same thing as "being in a rush"?

Do you also program conditional moves for forced variations in which you lose material?

If you think my arguments are flawed, why don't you deliver any counter arguments? 

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Whatever, many people are enjoying this function so it's a little awkward it isn't integrated into the app for mobiles. 

Actually, I did program forced variation on a mating net against myself when I've seen it coming. But most of the times that wasn't necessary because in such situations we mostly played the game through like live chess.

Edit: Also, I do it it quite often even though I'm loosing material if it is unavoidable. If it is to much and I see no chance to continue the game, I simply resign.

Sure. Except I don't just "think" they are flawed. They are flawed. Here's why:

1. "Nope, you didn't get it, you confused the perspective of who is saving time and who's investing time. That's your first mistake." - I've already answered that earlier and you have failed to acknowledge the fact. First error on your part.

2. "Your second mistake is that you put it into the same rack as Bullet. You can take your time and invest it in several lines of conditional moves." - I don't. You just did. Straw man argument, therefore the second error on your part.

3."Your third mistake is that nobody forces you to play faster by programming moves." - I did not make such a claim. Again, straw man argument. Clearly you do not understand the difference between the verbs "force" and "induce". The only other option is that you actually chose to twist my words. Either way, that was your 3rd error.

4. "Your fourth mistake is that nobody forces you to make use of conditional moves yourself." - Yet another claim which I never made. Straw man argument. Your 4rth error.

5. "To be honest, I seriously doubt that you even understood how conditional moves work at all." - Your personal doubts are irrelevant to a fact-based conversation. Your 5th error.

6. "No, but that doesn't mean it has to be about wasting time. Especially I don't want to waste the time of my opponent." - Again, the "waste of time" argument is irrelevant in correspondence games.

Since you seem so keen on saving time, the question arises: do you also program conditional moves for forced and semi-forced variations that end with you losing material? 🙃

No, I don't think I've ever used conditional moves in positions where I felt I was behind or losing. In such instances, I want to use all the available time given, to try and find resources to equalize or potentially find a draw. So I'll use my time and the time my opponent would give me based in how long it takes to make the move. 

Conditional moves in other games can increase the amount of time spent on those types of positions

No amount of thought will change the outcome of a forced variation - that's why it's forced.  The outcome will be the same, whether it's played over a matter of seconds, hours, or weeks.  Why don't you save your opponent some time when they have the upper hand, just like you suggest you do when you have it?

So, we end up with the essence of my argument. Apart from very specific cases, in which a player may use conditional moves in order to avoid losing on time, this feature is used essentially to flex, or taunt the opponent, also with the hope of inducing fast, potentially inaccurate play. And that is perfectly fine with me, but let's not sugar-coat it with faux arguments like caring about saving the opponent some time and the like.

You misunderstand.

Say I'm playing a 3 day per move game and I'm in a worse position but have decided it's not bad enough to resign yet. Even if there is a forced variation, I'm going to use my available time to make my move, so I can calculate on the later positions. I'm also going to use whatever additional time my opponent gives me while waiting for their reply. If they used a conditional move, then I have only have my three days to continue calculations, but if not, I'll have more.

Sure the outcome of the forced line doesn't change but the additional time spent in calculation of the resultant position may help find saving resources or complications to keep the game interesting. 

If at the same time I had games where I'm doing better and used conditionals, those are games I theoretically don't have to worry about until the.conditinal line plays out. It has nothing to do with flexing or taunting.

I don't.

If you enjoy having extra time when you're in a difficult situation, then the sportsmanlike thing to do is offer the same courtesy to your opponent when they are in trouble. Otherwise, you're simply using conditional moves as a way to add extra pressure onto them. No objection to that since the server includes it as an acceptable tool and it is available to all players; just don't sugar-coat it.

Frankly, considering that we are talking about an extremely simple feature/concept, it is rather funny that its users'/fans' main defense line is that the rest of us "misunderstand" your arguments. It's not rocket science. It's just a simple "if this then that" thing. And it's completely obvious to what purpose certain players are using it.

Step by step:

»1. "Nope, you didn't get it, you confused the perspective of who is saving time and who's investing time. That's your first mistake." - I've already answered that earlier and you have failed to acknowledge the fact. First error on your part.«

You didn't answer to that before and got clearly confused in post #16, in which you wrote: »It should take about 1 second of your time to play the move manually. Say 10 seconds if you have to fire up the app or navigate the menu in your browser. It takes way more time to preprogram the move.«

You make your answering move anyways, independently if you program further moves or not. 

»2. "Your second mistake is that you put it into the same rack as Bullet. You can take your time and invest it in several lines of conditional moves." - I don't. You just did. Straw man argument, therefore the second error on your part.«

Not a straw man, you came up with this comparison all by yourself – see #18.

»3."Your third mistake is that nobody forces you to play faster by programming moves." - I did not make such a claim. Again, straw man argument. Clearly you do not understand the difference between the verbs "force" and "induce". The only other option is that you actually chose to twist my words. Either way, that was your 3rd error.«

So let's say nobody "induces" you to play faster. Doesn't change anything in my argument. 

»4. "Your fourth mistake is that nobody forces you to make use of conditional moves yourself." - Yet another claim which I never made. Straw man argument. Your 4rth error.«

I give you that, you never claimed this in your posts. I just inferred it from your vocal opposition against conditional moves. I take that back.

»5. "To be honest, I seriously doubt that you even understood how conditional moves work at all." - Your personal doubts are irrelevant to a fact-based conversation. Your 5th error.«

See your post #16 again. You're wildly confusing conditional moves with vacation time. So it's a reasonable conclusion you're not understanding what you're talking about.

»6. "No, but that doesn't mean it has to be about wasting time. Especially I don't want to waste the time of my opponent." - Again, the "waste of time" argument is irrelevant in correspondence games.«

In my experience everyone likes to see the response to their move rather sooner than later. Of course in correspondence games you don't expect the answer straight away – usually – but you wouldn't mind to see your opponent's move rather the next day than in three days. So I do them the courtesy to react to my move straight away if it's a clear situation. See my example in #17.

As for your last question »Since you seem so keen on saving time, the question arises: do you also program conditional moves for forced and semi-forced variations that end with you losing material?«

Yes I do. When I'm sure what I have to play. And for a forced mate, certainly. 

This proves again that you don't understand how conditional moves work.

You don't get any extra time by using conditional moves!

This proves that the only thing you do is post straw-man arguments. (see? I too know how to put words in bold 😄)

So if that's a straw-man argument, please explain to me how you can possibly gain extra time by using conditional moves. 

1. Once again, what you're saying is irrelevant as you cherry-pick my arguments.

2. Again, straw man. I did not set up a comparison between daily and bullet. You did.

3. The point here is not your argument but your attempt to twist my words.

4. Glad you admit to twisting my words.

5. You are again twisting my words.

6. Again, you are assuming people want to see your response sooner than later. Your assumption is based on nothing more than personal preference. Perhaps they don't, in which case you're not doing them a courtesy, but actually putting pressure on them.

As for your final remark about using conditional moves even when you're losing, I say this: you may be unable to form a solid argument, but at least you are consistent in your use of conditional moves. Bravo!

Since you have already admitted to twisting my words, I will not be engaging in any further serious conversation with you unless you publicly apologize for your conduct. You cannot seriously expect me to... waste my time (see what I did here?) explaining stuff to someone who is then going to twist my words to their liking.

I don't care if my opponent uses conditional moves but if they don't, I get more time for calculation on their turn. It's simple really. If someone doesn't like to use them, they don't have to. Using them doesn't force them to move and they can still use their full allotment of time on the game if they so desire, just like I can.

It's a level playing field and if someone thinks it is a taunt/flex that's completely on them. I won't discount that some players may use them more aggressively but that doesn't mean they are, in and of themselves. In addition, Daily chess is essentially, for all intents and purposes, correspondence chess and conditional moves are part and parcel of that (designed mainly as a cost and time savings feature but it's still part of the game).

They have their full allotment, but they don't have whatever extra time would take you to manually play your move, which you admitted that you enjoy having when you are in trouble.

The only non-aggressive implementation of the conditional move feature would be if the move is made at the end of the player's time window, essentially acting as a failsafe against timeout.

I did not twist your words, I haven't admitted to doing so and therefore I don't see any need for any kind of apology to you for my "conduct". Our posts are public so everyone can decide for themselves if I'm nitpicking or twisting your words.

Let's just agree to disagree.