Disabling/Enabling Conditional Moves and Analysis should be independent selections

Disabling/Enabling Conditional Moves and Analysis should be independent selections. There is no reason at all for them to be as they are. A player is fully capable of analyzing a position and programming a sequence of moves without using anything more than mental effort. Similarly the analysis feature can be used with no intention to program a sequence of moves.

1 Like

Disagree. Conditional move functionality is basically a form of an analysis board.


The problem I see here is that some players want to play without analysis enabled, and some corr. tournaments are also w/o analysis … but if conditional moves were enabled here, people could use the conditional moves feature to experiment with variations, i.e. they could actually analyse. So, it seems that the conditional moves option is a sub-feature of the analysis feature.

The only possibility I can see here would be an option to allow Analysis, but forbid conditional moves, but not the other way round.


I can’t imagine anyone would choose this. Conditional moves speed up what is already a kind of painstaking number of moves for a tabletop game. The reason given in the sister thread isn’t very compelling, IMO.

It’s funny, because correspondence Go started as a series of letters carried by courier. Of course, those players didn’t have the luxury of saying “If D16, then R4” (which would be dropping hints to the opponent). I think they certainly would if they could (and save on postage).

1 Like

What about limiting conditional moves, and therefore analysis to a limited depth? This would make the tool less useful as a crutch for analysis, but still speed up the game significantly (especially if one were to trade depth with breadth in their conditional moves).

Let’s set aside how the features have been implemented and look at the functions.

(A) I can write a set of if-then-else commands with no need for anything other than the ability to enter legal moves and create a logical structure that can be executed. The move sequences can come my head, a goban, a go program, etc.

(B) I can use a feature that allows me to play out variations from a particular game state with no need for a mechanism that transforms the products of that analysis into an executable program. For instance: DGS has implemented a link to EidoGo that sends over the SGF, you can play out variations until you drop. It all stays at EidoGo.

Therefore these are independent functions. I don’t see grounds for disagreement with that.

Given the fact that Analyze & Conditional Moves operate as Analyze is ON if and only if Conditional Moves is ON, it’s clear OGS has implemented these functions so they are not independent. That’s a design decision.

Can you do (A) on OGS? I’ll bet “No” because the way it has been implemented is that the “program” (a.k.a. executable conditional )move seqeunce is constructed using something like an SGF editor to build game commands from clicks on grid points of a goban. That is not necessary but is a reasonable input mechanism. you could enter moves straight from the mind and you’ll be less likely to enter an erroneous coordinate.

I don’t know if Analyze gives more functionality than playing out variations.

Given the way it is, it seems that we could have something like:
Conditional Moves and Analyze default to Off and are both Available.
If Conditional Moves is selected to be On then Analyze is set On.
If Analyze is set On then Conditional Moves remains Available.
If Conditional Moves is On and Analyze is On then if Analyze is deselected, Conditional Moves is set Off.

Seems you scored a “like” for disagreeing with me. Congratulations. Maybe in cases like that they could send a notification to the other guy with a little hint:
You’ve been Unliked.

“I can’t imagine anyone would choose this.”

I use exactly such a capability at DGS all the time. It is a link that sends the game SGF to EidoGo.

If you are playing blitz or real time I doubt you use conditional moves. If you are playing correspondence, I suspect your game will move right right along if you can play more than one move every day or so. I spend a whole lot of time waiting for opponents to move. If you have to wait so much you get sick of it and resign, conditional moves ain’t gonna help.

" I think they certainly would if they could (and save on postage)."

The term you could’t think of is sealed moves. I wonder if those guys ever exchanged more than P-KR3; I’d want to get my money’s worth out of the stamp. If I was in a rush, I’d use international air mail; there was special lightweight stationary that folded into its own envelope

I think what it comes down to is this:
(A) Do something to improve the flexibility of the the product in a reasonable way.
(B) Do nothing because if I like it the way it is then that should be good enough for you.

So…it’s like the Analyze feature but on a third-party website? I’m surprised you’re OK with it redirecting you a third-party website, given your posting history here on this forum. At least ours is totally integrated…

Anyway, you can’t have a solution without a problem. It sounds like your problem is not so much with the Analyze feature as it is the Conditional Moves feature. Actually, the problem isn’t the Conditional Moves feature (which you could ignore) but rather your opponent’s use of it that you want an option to disable. Is that a fair characterization? And it’s because making “pre-moves” (to adapt chess lingo) feels impersonal?

Maybe one of the developers can chime in. To me, it feels like such a slight issue to be adding a separate checkbox in the UI over.

I do not “have a problem” You have a problem. One is the way you have phrased your reply. I do not have a problem, I have discussed a problem…in fact, I did not call it a problem, I stated an opinion about how the site operates an how I think would be a better way. I stated a rationale for my comments.

Actually, the problem isn’t the Conditional Moves feature (which you could ignore) but rather your opponent’s use of it that you want an option to disable. Is that a fair characterization?

No, that is a characterization that misses the point entirely. I want the game to be such that Conditional Moves are not enabled for either side. This is simple enough. I can accomplish it by insisting that Analyze be Off. If a prospective opponent does not like that, tough. I want to be able to allow the opponent to use the Analyze feature (because I had one who was going to have a tantrum if he couldn’t use Analyze) but don’t want pre-programmed moves. If the person is going to hold their breath til they turn blue because they want Conditional Moves then fine; I’ll call emergency when there’s no pulse.

DGS does not “redirect”. If you hover on the corresponding icon it is identified as Eido Go Game Player. The FAQ says “(img) : opens <ido|ido>EidoGo Game Player (http://eidogo.com/) for a specific game (on the game-page)”. When I’m redirected it happens out of my control. The EidoGo page says "EidoGo is Open Source — Embed it in your website! " I don’t know how DGS did it. Is an embedding a redirect?

There is a resident Goban Editor.

P.S. By the way, I do not know, does your built in, integrated thing provide the other features available at EidoGo such as joseki, pattern match, pro game database?

I meant “problem” more in the scientific sense of an inferior starting condition that can be improved upon. I didn’t mean the slang intimidation of “You got a problem?!” That was not intended at all.


Let me suggest that you learn how to us the English language properly so that you only insult people when you intend to, not because you’re bing careless with it. I don’t think I can teach you anything about programming; I doubt you can tach me anything about English; I would hope we can engage in a rational discussion about an inanimate object at about equal levels.

When I wrote this I was responding to
Disagree. Conditional move functionality is basically a form of an analysis board.
It was an error that my response somehow got directed at one of your posts which I had not yet read.

A small point, but their implementations are not clearly dependent. It’s entirely possible to design the system such that analysis and conditional moves are two expressions of the same abstraction – placing a stone on the board without it being the player’s immediate move, for example, or being able to place both black and white stones, etc. – and have their dependence be an interface choice. We don’t know how it’s implemented because OGS’s backend is closed source.

I’m inclined to agree with @saxmaam, though. I disable analysis to remove a convenient substitute for visualization. Starting a conditional sequence, in its current form, then canceling it is functionally the same as analysis. No, disabling analysis and conditional moves doesn’t stop an opponent from playing out sequences on a separate board, but it’s like locking one’s car door as opposed to leaving the doors open and the keys in the ignition. It does very little to stop a determined thief, but it’ll stop the lazy ones at least.

The best compromise I can think of is to have conditional moves disappear from the board as soon as they’re placed, but retain the move list in the sidebar. Then the player is still “forced” (out of good sportsmanship or laziness) to visualize future moves.

1 Like

What is the reason for having analysis enabled and conditional moves disabled? The current setup is designed so that if the analysis feature is disabled users can’t use the conditional move system as a de facto analysis system.

What is the harm to the user if the opponent has access to conditional moves while analysis is enabled?

EDIT: The argument that they are functionally independent does not imply that they are feature independent.

Honestly, after slogging through this quagmire, I’m pretty sure it comes down to “it makes Aten feel like his opponents aren’t as invested in the game.”

1 Like

I’ve read through the posts several times and can’t find any argument of benefit for being able to disable them independently.

For what it’s worth, I’m in complete agreement with you that I also don’t see any benefit in such a change.