GameKnot: GameKnot related, Urgent need: Alternatives for the losing side

GameKnot related: Urgent need: Alternatives for the losing side

From

Message

lnrdtroll
01-May-13, 06:45

Urgent need: Alternatives for the losing side

On tactics problems there are only alternatives for the winning side, where there should be alternatives for the losing side, too. I have to open an engine to see why the "human" move does not work for the losing side. It`s annoying to see a queen given away for free when there`s an alternative that preserves material, only to see that giving away the queen the advantage for the winning side is "only" 8.4 while not giving it away it`s 8.9.
The main point is that the "play against the computer" option is bad for thew server, because it uses a hell of overhead to load it. Besides, it`s much faster for the user to open an engine, copy/paste the FEN and see the entire analysis. So why not give the analysis for at least ONE option for the losing side, as you give for the winning side, so the user does not lose time?

Gameknot.com
01-May-13, 12:30

It is unclear why it would be important to provide an alternative branch for the losing side, especially when the difference is half a pawn and they will be down nearly a Queen's worth of material either way. If it is important for you for some reason, that is why we provide "Play vs. Computer" button, so that you can try different moves to see why they work or don't work. And don't worry about it being "bad for the server", we have a fairly capable dev team that makes sure that anything you do on the website isn't "bad for the server".

Gameknot.com
01-May-13, 12:30

Oh, and "urgent need"? Really?!

tobiasverhulst
01-May-13, 13:07

I don't understand the 'urgent' either, bud I do see the potential usefulness of this. I've come across several tactical exercises where I do not understand why some defense doesn't work. Problem is of course that different people might want to see different defenses refuted.

Gameknot.com
01-May-13, 18:12

tobiasverhulst, have you tried the "Play vs. Computer" button in the right upper corner of the Chess Tactics screen after finishing/failing an exercise? That's exactly what it was designed for -- to try different moves (for either side), to see why they might not work.

lnrdtroll
02-May-13, 17:05

yes, very urgent!

Chess has a logic, and sometimes a user does not find the correct move because he sees a defense that seems logic. So he tries something else, and it`s wrong. So, when he looks at the solution, he wants to see only one thing: Why was not the defense that he saw good enough, and not how he (or any beginner) can win if the opponent gives away the queen right on the spot. This happens over and over again.
Even with problems that I get right I get angry sometimes because I just saw the first move and was not really thinking that it would work, just to see a stupid move done and no explanation about what to do against the obvious move that surely many others saw too and seemed good enough to defend the position.
This is already done for the winning side, right? ("move x: +8.00 - alternative: 0:01" )- I just liked to see on every problem the same for the losing side: {move x(say, giving away the queen): -8:00 alternative (say, taking the opponent`s queen instead) #3}. That would save lots of time.
If you want, I can give tons of examples where only one alternative for the losing side can be taken seriously in consideration.

lnrdtroll
04-May-13, 05:39

something that is inexistent in some other "tactics sites"

I will give you only 3 example of this:
Look at tactical exercises #135409 and #135635.
After solving more than 50,000 exercises in other sites I never came across one single case of a stupid move like this. They are edited out, of course. I know that for sure because sometimes I examine them with an engine to look at other lines and the first alternative that the engine gives is not the one shown on the site, but a piece or even a string of pieces thrown away just to delay the mate by a dozen moves, proof that was indeed edited out to force the user to see an inevitable mate in a few moves, as in exercise #141891, for example.
I took my time explaining all this because this IS the best site to play online chess, after all, and you do a great job improving things here all the time. So, if you don`t have interest in improving the tactical problems, fine, but don`t say there`s nothing wrong with them.

« Back to forum