I hope you are consistent in opposing conditional moves outside chess e.g. IF it is raining THEN I will take an umbrella. (But perhaps it never rains in Mexico?)
I guess that if that is your view, then you won't be enthusiastic about the suggestion to make conditions moves even more powerful ...
conditional-move---dont-care-option
I never use conditional moves and someone plays 5 of them when I walk in the door to me that isn't right to me that player should explain why they did it in the first place.
wow your opponent guesses five of your moves, you must be a very predictable person to play.
Well I'm still against the idea of conditional moves just because I like to play psycologically and since conditional moves came on to chess.com I always hated them for taking the psycology factor right out of the game.
???? Rather than removing a psychological factor from the game, it sounds to me like conditional moves have become a psychological factor for you, if you really blame them for a drop in your performance. I would think if your opponents knew this they would make it a point to use conditional moves against you as often as possible.
What difference does it make if someone leaves multiple conditional moves? You can still wait your normal time for your next move, even if a conditional move comes back at you.
Basicaly if someone plans his reaction to your moves in advance he can immediately make his reply anyway if he is online. It doesn't matter if he uses conditional moves or not. So the difference only shows if that person is not online when you make your move and thus the game progresses on slower pace. If you want a lower paced game I recommend using longer time controls.
It would be interesting to create a tournament in which you were REQUIRED to use Conditional Moves for every move. It would have to played under Condition of Trust rules since there would be no means of enforcing it.
It would be interesting to create a tournament in which you were REQUIRED to use Conditional Moves for every move. It would have to played under Condition of Trust rules since there would be no means of enforcing it.
Does this mean that you would need to issue a conditional move against every possible response by opponent?! I think that this would be the opposite of interesting. On the other hand, if a conditional response to one move is enough you could just pick some nonsensical move that won't get played anyway and thus the game effectively progresses without any conditional moves.
The way I envisaged it: if at any point a player makes a move and there is no conditional response for that move, that player wins. Think of it as Chess crossed with Battleships!
I always keep track of the mobility of my games for every single move (I count it for the position immediately after each of my moves). Depending on game stage and the health of the position I've seen one side or the other with as many as 60 possible moves, but typically the number ranges from the mid 20s to lower 40s, so that's how many conditional moves would have to be specified for every move submitted if you wanted to cover all your bases. 
I always keep track of the mobility of my games for every single move (I count it for the position immediately after each of my moves). Depending on game stage and the health of the position I've seen one side or the other with as many as 60 possible moves, but typically the number ranges from the mid 20s to lower 40s, so that's how many conditional moves would have to be specified for every move submitted if you wanted to cover all your bases.
You could gamble and cover just a few - and hope your opponent chose one of those lines. This variant would be rough on basic members as they are only allowed one line of Conditional Moves.
The way I envisaged it: if at any point a player makes a move and there is no conditional response for that move, that player wins. Think of it as Chess crossed with Battleships!
lol, now I see your idea. This would require limitting the number of conditional moves as otherwise the best strategy would involve making a conditional response to every legal move. However, I'm afraid that if we make such a limitation this variant would heavily favour black. Maybe allowing one wildcard type conditional move that will be played against any move by opponent as long as legal and then loose if not legal!?
Depending on game stage and the health of the position I've seen one side or the other with as many as 60 possible moves, but typically the number ranges from the mid 20s to lower 40s, so that's how many conditional moves would have to be specified for every move submitted if you wanted to cover all your bases.
You completely lost me. 
I have no problem with conditional moves, especially when your opponent has only one legal move or forceful move, i.e., recapture.
60 possible moves! What does that mean?
Are you saying that it is possible to place variations on your conditional moves?
Example: 1.e4, then if my opponent plays 1...e5, I enter the conditional move of 2.Nf3. If my opponent plays 1...e6, then I enter the conditional move of 2.d4.
It definatly feels like playing chess and battleships and I thank you for all the feedback you have left me whilst I was at work today.
On some openings I definatly feel like people should mix thier moves up instead of playing conditionally and using conditional moves and I would like to play a game of chess in the rain.
It would be fun except that yes it is very humid in Mexico City, quite different in the state of say chiwawa where its a lot cooler
So if anyone wants to join me via friendship we could talk some more about conditional moves and try to see my views on them.
Are you saying that it is possible to place variations on your conditional moves?
Example: 1.e4, then if my opponent plays 1...e5, I enter the conditional move of 2.Nf3. If my opponent plays 1...e6, then I enter the conditional move of 2.d4.
Right-- so after 1.e4 , Black has 20 possible moves (16 pawn moves and 4 Knight moves). In artfizz's scenario, it would require White to submit 20 different conditional moves in order to ensure that a response would be ready for any move Black could make. In most openings some lines open up fairly early for the Bishops or Queens, and the number of possible moves increases into the upper 30s or into the 40s by move 5 or 10.
The problem with this idea becomes worse if you limit the number of allowed conditional moves so that, as was suggested, a player would only submit moves for "likely" lines. Since the goal is to win, it would become a guessing game as to which moves had responses waiting for them, and then if you successfully selected one that didn't have a conditional response, that would be the end. It might be an interesting mind exercise to see what people chose, but I think it would quickly move away from normal chess strategy.
Just to attempt to clear up any confusion ...
White has 20 possible initial moves.
If Black wants to provide a Conditional Move for each move that White can make, he will have to create 20 lines of Conditional Moves.
This doesn't place any restriction on which move initial White can make.
There is no wildcard facility in Turn-based Chess (yet!). You cannot achieve: whatever move you make, I'll do this move.
I never use conditional moves and someone plays 5 of them when I walk in the door to me that isn't right to me that player should explain why they did it in the first place.
wow your opponent guesses five of your moves, you must be a very predictable person to play.
Well I've been on here nearly 3 yrs
By the way, note that in our 1.e4 example where White had to leave 20 conditional moves for Black, if Black responds 1...e5 , he already has to provide 29 conditional moves back to White, and 31 conditional moves would be required for 1...d5 or 1...f5 . It goes up fast!
I will only reiterate what I have said before