mctrivia: Pseudo-code is nice in principle but it has this habit of leaving out an awful lot of implementation details and failing to anticipate a myriad problems. Real code is the only answer but you don't have an API to work to. Even if you did, there's only one programmer and I rather think he likes total control, lol, not to mention the "all my own work" satisfaction. I might be wrong about that last sentence but here's a $1000 which I'm willing to risk!

playBunny: For chess it should be a tree structure right off the bat. As for Fencer-hours if Fencer would agree to place it in I would be willing to write the suto code and storage archetecture. All fencer would have to do is adapt the sodo code to what ever language he is using. I am sure there are other programers on here also that would be willing to improve this feature for free also.

I read Fencer's points the last time this came up and I found that each was arguable rather than definitive. Now, having experienced autopass at GoldToken, I'm even more certain that the reasons given against it, from the point of view of the players, are spurious. For instance, there can indeed be startling changes to the board and game position but that's in no way a problem. And yes, messaging does suffer during the autopass period, but BK wouldn't suffer the loss of messages that GT does because BK's messages are always visible.

I do accept that there's a technical difficulty with Backgammon, though. At GoldToken the dice are rolled at the first opportunity. For instance you can make a move and submit it then go back to the game page and the opponent's dice have already been rolled, even though the person may not be online. Here the dice are rolled at the last moment, ie. when the player visits the page. That's a fundamental difference that would need to be addressed before autopass could be added to the gammons.

In chess and other games the conditional moves facility that you're talking about is different from the Backgamon autopass and is possibly even more difficult. The simple case of my-move, his-move, my-move, his-move may be feasible but I imagine it wouldn't really be very effective; as soon as it was available you'd be wanting to add choices at each move thus creating a tree structure. I believe that that would greatly add to the complexity of the mechanism and the user interface required, making it a very expensive feature in terms of Fencer-hours per site improvement.

Fencers points are good though when it comes to chess and derivitives of it do not really apply. Most chess players I know don't talk much during a game. And the ability to put messages for each path could be included if you really want to tant your player. Would be interested in Fencers specific thoughts to chess.

Please... type "autopass" in the search box on this discussion board, and you can probably find Fencer's reasons. It is futile to go on about it. Let's move on please. :-)

Rose: I would like to know why this is a definet no. Would be a great feature to have.

Rose: My last comment on this topic. Opening moves as an option in the setup(probably also mentioned before) since there really are only 2 was of starting the game of Reversi...

tinksbell: Trust me, this has been hashed to death for 3 years. Every idea even yours has been brought up. Bottom line is NO. Doesnt matter how many of us want the feature we aren't getting it.

Rose: That is his perogative, but how about this: When the game is set up(Reversi in particular) have the option of auto moves or not, if the players don't want them(I can understand not wanting it too) they don't have to play that type of game.

mctrivia: My comment was regarding the number of tournaments ... a digression under this thread I know ... but I understand and agree with you desire.

WhisperzQ: If I could afford it I would, but since I have a new baby and had to stop working, I may not be able to even renew the knight membership

WhisperzQ: With a rook membership you can play unlimited games true. But I want to be able to play my girlfriend, and other friends and don't want to have to always wait 5 days per move. If I could program in my next 5 moves then I would only have to wait 5 days for them to make there next 5 moves.

tinksbell: Of course this problem is solved by upgrading to a rook membership where the number of tournaments of each type is unlimited .... and there are other benefits too :)

Rose: Why not. Would be relitevely easy to implement. Specially in a game when the oponent has absoloutley no choice. From a programing perspective all they need to do is add an option to play your oponents move then your move if he does that. May take up a little space especially if you let a chess master program is next 5 moves in with conditions for the oponent doing several moves. I would be happy if they skipped the nice GUI interface and had a text box were you could type in a sequence of coded letters to represent your conditions.

When I am done the project I am working on write now I would even be willing to write the sodo code to do it for chess(minus error checking for wether moves are valid)

tinksbell: ditto, big bummer bu,t the big name says no.

Rose: That's a bummer

tinksbell: That feature has been asked for about 135 times. It wont be implemented on this site.

Similrly for those of us who are dne in a tournament, even if it is still running, it would be nice to be able to sign up for the smae game type, since we are done in that tournament...(...)

Conditional moves or similar would be very nice in reversi, particularly when you or your opponent can't make a move. Right now you have to wait until they get around to looking at the game again to pass the move...(one of the few things one of those(IYT) sites actually does right)LOL

Wee nitpick. It would only be 14 games for an 8-player section.

Eriisa: Yes, that's true; and it's listed on the tournament page how many free slots are needed. But it is not on the page after you signed up to the tournament; it would be nice as a reminder, because the system allows you to sign up with less than the required number of free games but you are thrown out when the tourney starts.

Eriisa: Search for "10 slots" in this board and you'll see Fencer saying so in late 2003. Now, that was for 8-slots-really-needed situations... I've never encountered any real situations with any other scnearios to be sure... I did follow a long discussion about the issue, though, and I was left with the impression that 10 slots are needed in all cases... I might be wrong!

WhiteTower: I didn't know that. Do you mean, if someone created a tourney with 8 players per section, 2 games each, a Pawn needs only 10 slots and not 16???

WhiteTower: You need as many games slots as there are possible games to be created. On a tournament that has a max of 4 players per round, you'll need 3 free slots (single game between each 2 players) or 6 slots (2 games between each 2 players).
These values are maxed at 5 and 10 respectivelly. So, in case of a tournament with max 8 players per section and only 1 game between each 2 players you'll only need 5 free slots.

Luke Skywalker: Until the policy is changed, the standard number of required empty slots for all tournaments, regardless of games per round, are 10.

it would be nice to see the number of needed free game slots (for pawns) in a tournament when already signed up (it's shown before one signs up)

grenv: The more options the beter. But time would be saved because as soon as your oponent makes his move he will see it is his turn again. Does not save time if you are both online but would save a lot of time if you average 1 move a day.

mctrivia: But yor way still requires the opponent to make all the moves, so time is not saved. Therefore I would like both these options available.

grenv: That is very true. But in Chess a good player will predict his oponents moves several turns in advance. And some times for your move to work all it needs is for that player not to see the one whole in your plan. The problem with the secound type is the player may look harder to see the whole now that you have showed it to him. If you just programed it assuming he would take those moves then the blind way works just as well. And you should be able to program in multiple different paths.

I.E. if there is 3 posible ways he can go program all 3 ways.

When reviewing past games (I haven't played any yet, so I only review) it would be nice if it gave the players' name above the boards. Currently it says "Your opponent's board" and "Your board" but I'm an observer and don't have a board.

It would also be nice, given that the game is over, to see the boats in place right from the start.

mctrivia: You misunderstood. There are 2 types of conditional moves:

1."If my opp plays x then I play y. This may be useful, but how often can you predict the opponents move?

2.Propose to your opponent the next few moves. If he or she agrees play continues from that point. This is very useful in many "semi-forced" continuations. Against a weak opponent you may be hoping for a silly error, but a good player is likely to see the same continuation and agree.

example.
After
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5, black could move 3...a6 with the proposal 4.Ba4 Nf6

If white accepts he can play move 5 immediately. If not he may play an alternative to 4.Ba4.

That is basicaly what I sugested. Have the ability to say if the oponent does this I will do this. Or if he does anything but this I will do this. I also think that ability should be extended to multiple turns. So if my oponent keeps moving were I think he will the computer will automatically do the moves I pre told it I would do. Yes would not be very usefull in dark chess. Though I would love to see an AI version of dark chess.

mctrivia: On many chess sites it is possible to propose moves for both players. For example you may check your opponent and there's only one place to logically move.
This is very useful for some variants like anti and atomic chess. Not so useful in dark chess, lol.

In chess there are a lolt of opening moves which have been names ... I am sure others with greater chess knowledge can give the correct details. I suspect there is the same in checkers too.

It could be that when a game is set up then the opening could be stated too so that people may accept a game already a few (standard) moves into the game.

I can't see why you would want them to see your moves. Now have it tell you that you are in checkmate in 3 moves because they have programed every posible way might be cool.

alanback: The advantage of letting the opponent see, is that by them accepting you can jump ahead that many moves all at once. This wouldn't be used much early, but can be very useful later when there are forced moves for a few moves.

fungame: Of course the opponent should not see conditional moves until the opponent has committed himself to the respective prior move.

In case they will be implemented, then there should be an option to let the opponent see your conditional moves or not, as in some cases it might be kind of spoiler :)

grenv: 'gameknot (for just chess) has introduced conditional moves. in games like pente, they would save a lot of boring moves.

mctrivia: I second the conditional moves suggestion. Though I somehow think a firestorm is coming.

When creating a game with yourself as the first player you should have the option to put your first move in. This wouldn't be shown to the oponent until after he accepts the game. Would also be nice to be able to set conditional moves in. If you have already planed your next 3 moves why not tell the computer them so it can play them for you if your oponent does what you thought it would. Would speed up game play a lot.

Purple, Thanks. :)

Dryznik: The Purple World Fellowship will be offering some excellent Halma tournaments in the next few days with some very good players.

Purple=I need to play the Halma tourneys here and do some lo0oking at the set up, other than than I think I should close my mouth! ;)

Purple: yes, very poetic, lol :)

alanback: Yes indeed. LOL.

Purple: Poetic justice, if you ask me!

In games like checkers and chess the IYT tournaments are fine until you get to the final round. There you often find two programmers left standing and as most people know when one program plays another you can get 25 draws. IYT won't declare a winner and keeps generating endless final matches..and it can go on for years. LOL.

Dryznik: Aye, it's a round-robin. So, like Czuch asks, how is that different to here? (Except that there can be joint winners of the final section.)

Diogenes, Correct idea.
Czuch Chuckers, I am so used to IYT Halma 10 tournaments! Go to iyt.com, left menue column, tournament area, then click on tournaments in progress and choose one (or more) and take a look at jow they are set up. More than 1 player can win a section but play continues in next subsequent section until only one player emerges as the winner of that tournament. ;~)