Conditional moves in daily games are essentially cheating, but easily fixable

Daily chess is based on correspondence (or postal) chess. That format has conditional moves and players that play that style of chess expect conditional moves. They help the games move on more quickly which is very important for games that can take months to play, even at 1 day per move.

If someone already knows what they're going to play, in response to their opponent moves, or some subset of moves, then it allows the game to continue, without additional input, until the game deviates. It save player effort and time.

In addition, in any daily game, it should be expected that you'll have at least the time control to think about moves, even without conditional moves, as your opponents can make their moves almost immediately after you make yours, which is not functionally different.

This is not helpful Martin. Not relevant to the conversation at all. We all know what conditional moves are and how they're helpful. Your explanation is just a waste of space. Please get with the conversation or be quiet

The question was "Why is it 'legal' in daily chess games to recreate your game on a different board or website and explore how different move pathways will turn out, whereas in live/regular chess it is not, and all that analysis has to be done in your head"?

Why are the rules different, instead of just having daily chess be the same rules as live/regular chess but with a longer time to mentally think about your game?

Again, it's because Daily Chess is Correspondence (postal) Chess, just online. Using an analysis board in correspondence (offline) has always been allowed so it's also allowed here. The only real difference is that some correspondence organizations allow engine and table base usage and here you can't use either.

That said, even if it wasn't technically allowed, it's unenforceable and not possible to catch someone doing it anyway.

There are some clubs where players agree to treat daily like live games. Joining one of those would be an option for those that want to play by those rules/restrictions.

that isn't an accident, they also have analysis.

So, to summarize your answer, it's different because two reasons:

1. It is that way because it's always been that way.

2. It is hard to enforce a rule of no recreating games on the side, so we allow it.

Why is it harder to enforce that in daily vs in rapid? It isn't. It looks like the rules are different for daily vs rapid because that's just the way they've always been, nobody has a good reason for it.

Actually the "good reason" for these rules, as everyone's explained repeatedly, is precisely because "that's just the way they've always been." This kind of chess was literally created to be played this way, from the very start. If you don't like it, as many have suggested, you can find others who also prefer to play without analysis mode and conditional moves. You're right, you're not the only one who prefers it that way. But you are in a minority, so you'll have to "find your tribe" if you want to play using that specific set of "house rules" so to speak.

Honestly I remember feeling annoyed and a little insulted the first time someone played a conditional move against me too, but then I accepted it as the pre-existing rules of the game and took on the responsibility of learning about it, rather than demanding that the game so many people have played for hundreds of years should suddenly change the rules just for me(and the few others who would presumably agree with me). You can take on a crusade to change people's hearts and minds if you choose, but I can tell you right now that you don't seem particularly qualified for success at such an endeavor, just based on your communication style as displayed here.

Personally, I now greatly enjoy exploring all the different moves I could make before deciding which one to choose. Compared to standard games, Daily chess can be more about slow deep analysis than brute intelligence. I've only been playing chess for a year, and intellectually I'm generally a frustrating combination of smart but slow most of the time. So daily chess suits me best because I can take my time and often find some pretty good moves. That makes it more enjoyable to me, because even as a beginner I can just put in more time analyzing and get better results, even against strong beginner and lower-intermediate players sometimes. You may say that's cheating, but I put in a ton of time to figure these moves out sometimes, and nothing I play comes from anywhere except my own mind. It's a different way to play than standard short games for sure, but it has a lot to offer to many people for many different reasons.

One last point is, if you enjoy playing it the way you play, what does it matter how other people play? You can play with people who use the analysis tool and still not use the analysis tool yourself. It may give them an advantage over you, but so what? You'll win or lose playing how you want to play, and that should be enough. You can even imagine nobody else is using the analysis tool either, if it helps. After all, we're all just playing for imaginary points here. At our level of playing just for fun, cheaters really do only cheat themselves(assuming they're not cheating you out of opportunities to be one of the top players ever or anything like that). If you're not able to simply enjoy playing how you like to play, why are you even playing? If it's about feeling "better" than people who can't beat you without using analysis mode, that's sad. Just play, man.

You're not that quick on the uptake after multiple explanations...let's try again to break it down for you.

Daily chess (and correspondence chess) allow for games that can take up to years to complete. Games are up to 14 days/move. Books are allowed, YouTube videos are allowed, etc. How could they not be allowed? Would you propose that a daily chess player stop all chess study for several years until their game completes lest they accidently cheat by learning something applicable to their current game? The analysis board (real or virtual) just follows. If you can read opening books, you can set up positions and play lines, if you can play lines, you can analyze the line you are currently pondering. It would be ridiculous to try and write some ruleset to control this piecemeal. Either you allow all analysis but not outside help/recommendations, or you forbid all of it and force players to sign some binding contract that they will not learn anything during the duration of the games they play that may last years. Which do you think is feasible and reasonable?

So, to summarize your answer, it is that way because it's always been that way.

So, to summarize your answer, It is hard to enforce a rule of no recreating games on the side, so we allow it.

Bad summary. It's allowed because it would be foolish and not enforceable anyway to cater to weenies who don't understand what daily chess and correspondence chess are created for...that is, playing better games and learning as you go. Daily chess achieves these as-is, and as designed. Some players do use daily chess as a kind of poor man's time control where they cannot lose on time. Then they complain that they lose to players that are playing daily chess as it is meant to be played, as if their personal convenience is paramount and overrides other players'.

If you want a longer time control, then you push for a new variant (and good luck coming up with a ruleset to handle the problem I mentioned, given your summary). What you don't do is try to change an already working variant for your own selfish reasons.

So, to summarize your answer, it's "not enforceable anyway", so we allow it.

Don't be purposefully obtuse, it's unbecoming.

Don't use circumlocution to obfuscate your point, it's unbecoming. Just say what you mean in a concise way. You don't need 6 paragraphs to say "it wouldn't be enforceable" and "it's always been that way".

Not only that, but everyone (except the very small minority you represent) has always wanted it to be that way, which is why this variation was created to be played this way in the first place. You are free to find or create other variations. I don't personally think "it wouldn't be enforceable" is a necessary argument for the existence of the rules as they are, so I'm ignoring your argument against that point. The crux of the issue is, that's how it was created and how we all like it. You don't like it, you've made that clear. We're not going to change it for you. If you want us to, you'll have to do a better job of convincing us. The burden is on you to justify the proposed change, not on us to justify what exists and why the majority prefers it this way.

You seem to need step by step handholding...and to learn to count paragraphs, apparently.

Bottom line: you are complaining about something that is working as intended. If you don't like it, the burden rests with you to push for something else that fulfils the experience you are looking for. Until such time as that comes to fruition, your posts are just whining for its own sake...because the reasoning has been adequately explained to you by several mods and members.

This is a you problem.

this is approximately the correct answer, although the real reason to do so is to strengthen your powers of calculation... shifting your focus from 'winning' to 'learning' is the solution to your underlying conflict.

Easy fix. Dont play correspondence chess. Leave it the player that enjoy playing it.

Its the same with speed chess. I have a choice:

To play.

Not to play.

I would certainly not play a form of chess I dont enjoy playing just to complain about it.

Now that Columbo has weighed in, I think we can say "case closed"

Oh...One more thing...