|
|
|
Topic: Turn order for the think mode
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
I can more or less get why any move goes in the think mode, even if only to go on a brief power trip from a position that has been lost. But is it possible to tweak it so that white and black moves must always alternate? Giving yourself or the opponent an accidental move extra when trying out variants can cause serious mistakes!
|
|
|
Try castling and capturing en passant in think mode and you'll see why extra moves are desirable 
|
|
|
Hi Onceupon,
Yah, I get that, but that just begs the question why that wasn't factored in to begin with. If it works for the game screen, then why not for the think mode? Think is like playing on a real board. If you are analysing, you might forget to put that one pawn back where it was in the game, thinking that your next move is winning, but being very disappointed when you forget to look twice next time you hit the 'Move' button.
Being able to do illegal moves is fun enough already. Even if castling and en passant still would not work, that can be arranged with a quick pawn cha-cha, e.g.: h7-h5, g5-h6, g7-g6, h6xh5, g6-g7, h5-h6, black to move. Or: Ke1-f1, h7-h6, Kf1-g1, h6-h7, Rh1-e1 (=0-0), black to move.
That's why I'm for factoring in a strict move order, if anything. Misanalysing costs a game quicker than difficulties with castling or e.p., given these tricks.
|
|
|
Think of Think mode as a standard chess set you might have at home. After all, you can do what you like with that and it isn't programmed with the rules. It's really that simple.
In fact, in one way Think is better than a real board since you can confidently step back through your lines. Maybe you should try that. However, we can't add pieces to the board (upon promotion) and I will agree that in this way it is inferior to a real one.
| e.g.: h7-h5, g5-h6, g7-g6, h6xh5, g6-g7, h5-h6, black to move. Or: Ke1-f1, h7-h6, Kf1-g1, h6-h7, Rh1-e1 (=0-0), black to move. |
What's the point of all this?
|
|
|
The point of the e.p. and castling examples is this: due to the possibility of making illegal moves, one can still castle and en passant *within* the limitations of the strict move order imposition that I suggest, given that these legal moves are not factored in as such (yet).
Aye, of course I step back through the lines in Think. It is a great feature to use. My suggestion would, however, hopefully spare someone from forgetting a double move or non-retracted move from a previous analysis. Speaking for myself, I'd prefer to make my human errors based on analyses that are not faulty because the Think programming prevents this.
|
|
|
The current 'think' allows a nice ideal squares analysis. Put all your pieces on the squares they want to be on at once and then work out a plan from there...
|
| 1 2 3 4 Next |
|
|
|
