Here is a crazy idea.
when setting up conditional moves. I want to make a “I am all-in move”
which means, whatever my opponent plays, I will play this. unless impossible obviously (same position)
the idea is that in correspondence games, I forget about the ko.
and next ko-threat, I’m closing it, that’s it, that’s all, whatever happens happens.
you like it ?
cheers,
Yes, from time to time, I’ve also wanted that.
In fact, what we really want is a “otherwise”.
“Here are the list of responses to moves I know he might make, OTHERWISE I want to play here, for sure”.
I get so sick of clicking every darn position on the board followed by my move, what a drag 
similar but slightly different, the ability the setup time irrelevant responses… it’s a lot of working trying to write conditional responses to endgame while also guessing what order they’ll be played in 
I think that the substantially different aspect of this problem is that it’s hard to see what the workable answer is, wheras for the OP’s problem, there’s an elegant solution just waiting to be implemented…
Can’t you just implement a toggle as to whether or not a conditional move expires after the next move or persists throughout the game until its condition is met?
Oh, I see. A long-standing “if they play here then I play there”. Yeah, I can see that.
I like this
correct, its different, but I think both ideas would be useful
Don’t warm to the idea, although not really sure why.
Some thoughts about it:
if you are worried about forgetting a ko (threat) you can use the Malkovich chat and note all kinds of memos to yourself. There is already a solution for this problem.
situations in a game may change and your all out conditional move may become irrelevant. A logical permanent conditional move - “whatever my opponent plays, I will play this” - may become ridiculous a few moves later. But you can’t change it anymore.
@GreenAsJade’s plan seems rather a lot of work to me. But okay it is a correspondence game so if you are willing to do that, be my guest.
it feels contradictory that you wish to speed up a correspondence game - which is supposed to take a long time and that you have agreed upon by accepting the game conditions.
how often is a feature like this needed, will be used and by how many people?
So in my opinion this feature has not much priority. Don’t think I would use it at all. Also don’t think many players would use it.
Just my 2 cents.
What about auto Mirror Go mode?
Unfortunately, BHydden’s suggestion of ongoing conditional moves has confused the picture of what we are talking about now.
The OPs suggestion was (AIUI) just an extension of the current conditional move system, which only applies to the “upcoming turn”. So “the situatiuon may change” is not an a point that applies to the original suggestion.
And who says “you can’t change it anymore” anyhow? If the board situation changes, you open up “conditional moves” and revise it…
Hardly fair to blame Atorrante’s inability to read solely on my obviously excellent, supplemental, and mostly related suggestion 
/s
There will be new level of “trick moves”.
To safely choose move that plays “no matter what” , no single weaknesses should be left on the board. That’s usually not true even after two passes.
So in 99% cases “unconditional” move will be used when there are still weaknesses, when opponents believe that you play normally.
And then you create atari…
How will the ability to specify in advance what move we intend to play change anything, other than reduce the delay in responding during correspondence games?
Do you think that my opponent will think “Oh, I see he used that ‘otherwise’ conditional move, so I bet he will use it next time, so I can trick him by playing something unexpected”?
Good luck with that.
If your opponent uses conditional moves, you already can’t request to undo against them. This proposal does not change that.
This could only be good: it would speed up correspondence games when the play is obvious.
Strangely, your earlier comments argue that the opportunity for using this is limited, so I’m not sure how you go on to conclude it will be everywhere 
Yeah - I agree with you, and it was a good suggestion, but … you know how hard it is to discuss/support any feature request here, let alone when new variations are added…
usually group is alive because it’s obvious how to defend it if opponent attacks, not because it already actually has 2 eyes.
In normal Go its useless to attack such groups, only in ko battle it makes sense.
But against users of “unconditional move” there is a chance that stupid attack will work. And you lose nothing if you try to predict when opponent uses “unconditional move”. So that option creates mechanics that are outside of mechanics of normal Go. Using that option always creates additional risk to a user.
I can understand if you are saying “the unconditional move adds risk to the user of it”.
That is for sure. Using it would be a risk-reward tradeoff - the user asks is it worth setting up “if the opponent plays something other than the moves I already predicted, then I will definitely play here next” to remove one turnaround of a game, at the risk the opponent does something truly unexpected and bad.
This is a wonderful feature because it puts the control in the hands of the person who thinks that they know what they are going to do next. No-one is forced to do this, but if someone does do it both players benefit (by a fast turnaround that turn).
However, the idea that someone else would gamble that their opponent has planned an “otherwise” move and hence play some crazy thing … that sounds far feteched. Given that the opportunity to use an “otherwise” move is comparatively infrequent, and people who use conditional moves in any case are a small set, it would seem like a massive long shot to gamble on it.
False. You lose a ko threat. It’s a big gamble to play these guessing moves in the hope that maybe that particular move has a programmed unconditional response…
in the end it may be clear that ko battle will not happen anymore
Should weight the chance of miss-use vs help to play.
Besides that we are all a bit stupid (ok let say sometimes) we can be drunk tired annoyed distracted pushing the cat away from the keyboard.
So then if 2 is anecdotal vs 1, i won’t say it’s a good idea.