Just so a few of you know, the word is lose not LOOSE.
If you don't win, you lose, you don't LOOSE.
If you're not a winner then you're a loser, not a LOOSER.
Loose is when something isn't tight. For example, your shoelaces might be loose.
(It's amazing the number of people who misspell this four letter word.)
Autoplay the only SINGLE move option
Sort:
MrEdCollins wrote:
Just so a few of you know, the word is lose not LOOSE.
If you don't win, you lose, you don't LOOSE.
If you're not a winner then you're a loser, not a LOOSER.
Loose is when something isn't tight. For example, your shoelaces might be loose.
(It's amazing the number of people who misspell this four letter word.)
I dont think they are misspelling , its wrong word usage . It seems the schools don't teach as well as they used to ! I see this error of word usage a lot with : their, they're , and there too ! It seems a lot of people don't know the difference !? sad but true ... I must go put a belt on as these pants are too loose fitting and I don't want to lose them as I am walking around .... 
Thanks for pointing out the corrections MrEdCollins and NM Reb.. Will try to improve in future....
Nov 17, 2014
0
#45
Of course they don't have that feature when there is only one forced move square.
When there is only one forced move or several forced moves. i used the conditional feature. It gives me choices of different responces from my opponent. When he makes a move and it matches what I put in the provisional feature, It responds immediatelly with my moves and tells the opponent that it is his turn again.
In regular play even if there isn't a forces I use the provisional feature to see if i can choose the moves he will respond with. I place 3 or 4 variations just for fun. Sometimes I never see the end of a game. It dissapears if I had a win. I then go and look at the game just to see how it ended and check which variation it went.
Of course they were all my moves.
Another vote for the idea. If I only have one legal move I don't want to waste time thinking what my potential moves are if there's only one and the computer could've done it for me automatically. Also it's pretty annoying if my opponent takes a long time when there's no other possible move to make.
As a programmer, implementing it sounds like it would be pretty straightforward too.
A few considerations:
- If the player is new to the game, would they be ok with the computer making moves for them if they're still figuring out what their legal moves are?
- If someone wants to resign or offer a draw, how would this affect their ability to do that?
- As it would only affect quite a small percentage of moves, is it worth it?
Addressing those concerns:
- It could be turned off for players below a certain score deemed likely to be more confused than helped by it
- If a forcing move is made in a winning position, resigning and draw offering would be a little superfluous. If it's made in any other position, those actions could still be made after the forcing sequence has ended.
- It's the little polish here and there that make a website great. Sure it may not be used that much, but it would make a slightly better experience when it was used.
NathanRodHull, Appreciate your deep thoughts about the issue and thanks for pointing the considerations and their addressing.
About your last consideration, usage of this feature will be proved in MANY of the end games. e.g. where King & `Queen/rook' corner the only King of opponent requires 5-6 moves to conclude. When losing player intends to pull on the game, he can pull on for 5x no of allowed days per move!!! In tournaments of 7 days /move, the result can be delayed for 35 days which irritates the winner... So, I see great advantage of this feature mainly in online tournaments where all participants get affected due to such delays.
Nov 25, 2014
0
#48
Bad idea. It would be upsetting to receive as "information" on your move, rather than the opponent's move - two moves of the opponent with one of yours (!!) in between.
Anybody who ever played OTB chess knows how rude it is when your opponent tells you impatiently - "what are you thinking about? You now need to go Kg8". You want to answer with a heavy Russian accent - "Shut up, patzer!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5Rzh8XjzHI
That might be optional opportunity in online chess - I'd use it.
LongIslandMark wrote:
@RG1951: It's possible, of course, but you are asking the site to do something more and different. For mate, it can respond to the King being in check, and only then determine there is no legal move. And the site computer can stop looking as soon as it finds a single legal move.
For what's being proposed, the site would have to examine all possible moves for each and every move made in every game, and determine there was only one legal move. It can stop looking when it finds two legal moves (The forced move may not have started with a check.)
For the idea of a sequence of forced moves there are two possibilities: EIther you have entered conditional moves or the is only one legal move for you after the opponents move has been forced. If those overlap and you have entered conditional moves past the forced move sequence, then it would have to keep track of that and pick up your conditional moves after the forced move sequence was over.
So I was just trying to point out it would be more complex to implement that it may seem as first. That largely is a matter if it makes business sense to implement, which includes how many people like or dislike the feature.
My main objection is how it changes the time you have to spend analyzing the game (assuming the forced move sequence does not result in mate).
This is what I intend to say when I "oppose" the concept ....
Even for online games, the actual decision making time used by the player is never the allotted 1/3/7 etceter days for each move, but practically runs into those last minutes and seconds when we are actually holding the mouse before we make that move ..... "Very few" players actually take the efforts to recreate the situation on a physical board and think for the next moves probabilities ...
For those who need more such features, the liveliness and intellectual fun will be lost, if a forced move will be enforced by the system .... Another point that goes against the concept.
It's one thing to take a few moments to digest the position of the board, and then discover that you can only make one move.
It's another thing to burn off an hour (or days) on the clock on a forced move. To use the heavy Russian accent above, it makes everyone want to say, "Move, patzer!"
How about a compromise, have it as a checkable option. If you want the computer to make any forced moves automatically, check the box. If you want to use the time up uncheck it.
Nov 26, 2016
0
#54
A horrible suggestion - as the player loses control over the game and may become disoriented. This is critical with seconds on the clock.
The basic element of the game - you get to play systematically one out of every two moves in your game (i.e. each time after your opponent plays) is violated.
I hope that this suggestion gets no support.
Nov 26, 2016
0
#55
<SouthWestRacingNews> But I'm not a patzer. I just want to be the one who decides WHEN I make my move. It's 100% my business - as it's MY clock that's ticking.
solskytz wrote:
A horrible suggestion - as the player loses control over the game and may become disoriented. This is critical with seconds on the clock.
The basic element of the game - you get to play systematically one out of every two moves in your game (i.e. each time after your opponent plays) is violated.
An explanatory message like "Only move you can play is .... (move) and computer will play it automatically after ... min (time)" wont make any player lose control over game or become disoriented. Time delay can be discussed and agreed upon.... The only intention of this suggestion is to restrict deliberate delays which are becoming possible with misuse of excellent features of many days per move.
The "basic element" is fine for live games or board games where both players are going to be on the board till the game is over. But for games where we get 7 or 14 days for a move, the basic element is misused many times especially during end game. We should think of intelligent change in "basic element". Imagine a case when `King and Queen' corner the only King of opponent and the only king takes 7 or 14 days (max allowed time) for the only move which is decided by chess rules!!! With the "basic element", loser gets an opportunity to pull on the game for no. of such moves x 14 days even if conditional moves are applied. The suggestion will restrict such illogical and deliberate delays which may run for months for 3-4 such moves.
Dec 24, 2016
0
#58
I agree. What I wrote applies OTB and to live play (even live play with 2 or 3 hours for the game) - it shouldn't apply to any form of correspondence chess - in which the player had plenty of time to analyze and calculate the position before and after the "only legal move".
Dec 24, 2016
0
#59
rooperi wrote:
ajitketkar wrote:
What is the point in keeping an option of delaying the game for days when there is ONLY ONE possible move?
Because that's the way chess works. In OTB play, if there is only one move, your opponent has the right to take as much time as is available to him. It should be the same here. You could always use conditional moves to speed things up from your side.
You sound like a person who would let the time run out in a lost position.
You mentioned in your first comment that my idea was bad for black if he wanted to resign... How does it make difference in the result of match when black is going to be looser irrespective of whether he resigns or not.
You suggested I should play live play and not online... Its not question of my playing.. its for saving time of all genuine players whose win is being delayed by opponent intentionally / unintensionally by taking days for playing the only available move.