Autoplay the only SINGLE move option

exactly, that is a perfect example of what i was trying to say!

Ajttja, I can understand your concern for "deep breath", "clear mind" etc.. but do you feel it will be appropriate to wait for these concerns for max. allowed time say 24 hrs / 3 days etc????? To give due respect to the feelings, a reasonable time delay of say 5 min, 10 min may be introduced before such forced moves for player to over come the concerns. If he fails to play in that period, move should be automatically played. Additinally a message like "computer has played your only legal move / s " may be displayed after the move is played / as soon as "receiving" player logs in.

Imagine black King is in h7, white Rook is in e6 and white queen moves to f7 and gives check. Considering no other pieces on board, if black takes max allowed time say 24 hrs/ 3 days etc to play h8 (just to take deep breath and clear his mind!!!), it will be shear time pass.

regarding complexity of position after 2-3 forced moves, we have ample time to analyse the situation by replaying the game for these moves... but not by making opponent wait for days.

Absolutely.  If someone needs the banked time, let them have it.  But the majority of such delays is just psychological waiting and I suspect it is the rare person who actually uses the 'days' of a correspondence chess actually thinking, my understanding is the 'days' are used living life, not staring at the board for 72 hours straight, such that if the upcoming moves are even more complex, someone could be helped with (gulp!) 72*3 = 216 hours of thinking about one upcoming move in chess.  I hope nobody does this.  And if they really need that much reminition, then to be fair, select 14 days or just go on vacation and paint the position on the wall so you can stare at it non-stop (movable stickers would provide more practicality). 

I suspect the other 99.9% of the time it's just a mad loser making the winner wait as long as possible, hoping that the winner will just give up or forget to move later. 

I think if it were made an option, a filter, then the vast bulk of the rest of us can play chess without the frustration, just like if you're in a line that never moves, it's worse than a line that moves a little.  For those of you smarter than myself who can think about three moves ahead for 200 hours a pop, great, you'll want to filter me out because I just can't play on that level, (nor do I want to be forced to wait while someone else does >> at a point where the next move or two is forced, the bargain was to think about a move x amount of time, not 3x.  If the immediate move is forced, there's no "thinking" to be done). 

My major problem with this is not for once forced move, but a sequence. If I logged in and saw that my opponent gave check and the computer made my only legal move, fine.

If I logged in and saw that the board was now completely different from what I remember because my opponent had a forced sequence of 5 moves, that's a lot of time that I now didn't get to see the situation develop. Even being reasonable and logging in twice a day, that's 3 days of pondering time I'd have used on the final position (if I saw the whole forced line) before I got there. 

Additionally, there are many people who don't use the Analysis board. They get a benefit from spending time during that forced sequence because they now have to calculate fewer moves in advance, because the board is that much closer to the final position.

One more downfall; if I'm leaving to go on vacation soon, I need to finish moving in all my games in order to activate vacation (unless I'm a premium member). I don't want the computer moving for my opponent in this situation, forcing me to spend time I may not have on a move that isn't forced, instead of letting me make a move and then go on vacation before I have to spend time to decide my next move.

You can't force sportsmanship, and trying only ends up imposing arbitrary rules that don't work for all situations, making things worse overall. I'm a firm believer that if my opponent wants to play things out to mate, using all his time to try to find a solution, he's allowed to do that. It may not be the most respectful option (resigning when it's over) but it's also not necessarily rude; it's his right as one of the players. If this got implemented, believe me, it would be abused, and those who used to take a long time to be annoying would still take a long time, or would find some other way to be rude. 

".....that I now didn't get to see the situation develop."

You can use replay and observe the devopments as per your availability. Site has provided such useful facilities here. As such in all the 5 forced moves your "seeing" was not going to make any difference in the game (other than delaying it) as every move was "only legal move". Move is well defined already irrespective of your putting time in seeing and thinking.

"....using all his time to try to find a solution"

There is no question to use time to "find solution" when there is only one legal move. Such time used will be just to delay the game and nothing else.

As for getting to see the situation developing, I mean that I think about my games often during a day, even when I'm not logged in. By making one or two moves a day, I get an extra day or two to ponder the situation as it's happening, rather than only getting one move's worth of time to think about it.

The second part of your quote...Perhaps I should have been more clear; that section of my post was referring to people taking their time on their moves in general, not necessarily when it's forced, but any time.

To summarize, if the only legal move is played automatically,

• I don't get extra time to think about my first non-forced move
• Those that don't use the analysis board don't get the benefit of having their game progress one move at a time, making their analysis progressively easier
• I may be forced into making extra moves before being allowed to go on vacation simply because my opponent's reply is forced
• If the variation leads to checkmate, I may be deprived of the opportunity to respectfully resign, which should be my choice

Having the computer play the only legal move can save some time, but I think the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.

EDIT: One more reason not to implement this--you could conceivably complete either 50 moves or a 3-fold repetition which would allow your opponent to claim a draw, but because there's only one move, the computer makes their move for them, and they lose their chance to claim the draw. 

I would have no problem limitting the forced move to one move.  As for the draw by repitition, that can and should be programmed not to happen.

Also, I would have no problem with both players having the option to opt out or opt in through a check box, the same way both players have the option to play a three day game or up to a 14 day game.

I'd choose the forced move and only play those who agree, just the same way I play three day games and not one day games.

I think the chess world should consider using the doubling cube for multiple games between the same two players, but that's another story. 

anyone from the chess.com administration listening to this.....???

If it was an option people had to agree with then fine, but I would not agree to it. I cant move my opponents pieces otb, even if I am lost I want to make my own moves

        Re the above, the computer has no difficulty seeing that checkmate has been achieved. Why then would it be a problem seeing that only one legal move is available and making it for the player involved? My only reservation would be that the player in this situation might wish to resign, rather than make the forced move - or indeed offer a draw, which is a possible scenario.

ah true, taking away the chance for a draw is a problem

LongislandMark,

        I appreciate your point, but would it not be relatively simple for the computer to see the only move possible if the King were checked? I realise that the situation would be more complicated if this were not so.

Thanks to all members who contributed their views on the issue. Quite a lot views are available for chess.com to think about this issue. May I request the honourable administrators of chess.com / authorities to close the issue by declaring their conclusion whether it is logical to implement the suggestion or not. If yes, then the technical experts may think about "how".

yes sir, THIS is the main reason of my total rejection of the idea of forced move.... it is not economically viable for the system administrator, the programming team and the others to waste their time, money and efforts in dealing with a very small percentage of possibilities where it is required to find the exact ONLY MOVE, which is a near-impossible task for any computer system !!

see, ajit, how non-issue is this that none of the administrators are even responding to this discussion .....??? :P

Deepak,

1. "None of the admin are responding to this issue" does not mean it is not acceptable idea. Many responses have been in favour of this idea.

2. You said you totally rejected the idea from commercial / programming point of view. It means your rejection is due to anticipated difficulties in programming .. which I feel should be left to programmers. We as users should only give our views if idea is logical or not. Administrators and programmers are there to give their views about its feasibility in implementation. Why are you taking care of their role? I think you are mixing "logical acceptance of idea" with "feasibility of implementation of idea". The idea can be logically acceptable even if it is not feasible to implement.

        I see no logical objection to the proposal as a means of thwarting those who would waste others' time needlessly. I do think, however, that in short time control games, it should be left to the player to realise that there is only one legal move available.

Dear Pal :)

I loose. You win.

Implement the idea.

Regards.

Obviously, if a programming upgrade makes a site more enjoyable, that gives a competitive advantage and value to the site.  

Viabhav, not very clear about your exact opinion.. can you clearly give your view if you agree with the idea or not.. if not why? pl dont give long quotes by others... all those are already countered earlier.