Home
It is already difficult for the few who try to keep up with flagged topics. What makes it harder is that there are some ambiguities in tactic rules.
-Many tactics are "puzzles" more than tactics. They may come from outlandish or even impossible scenarios for a real game. Still, these can be fun and interesting...and they require the same analytical skills to find a solution. However, I have seen people flag because the scenario is not possible. A distinction in language should be made here. An "illegal" scenario or tactic is one in which the rules of chess are violated. An "impossible" scenario is a scenario that could not arise in the course of normal play. "Illegal" scenarios should, of course, be flagged and removed... But, what about "impossible" scenarios? A rule against this may eliminate fun "puzzles" from the app... But clarity either way would benefit users, flaggers, and those who try to help vet and moderate tactics.
-Technically any move, or conditioned set of moves which is a best response at each step for the player (regardless of continuing moves by the computer) is a tactic. However, what if the the player color is still in a game that they are likely to lose? This question may not seem so tough on the surface... But, philosophically, it is no different than when you enter a tactic that is a probabilistic win and end that way. Any moves which minimize or make the best of a bad situation in continuing play is a valid tactic. However, it will never sit right with users if, after successfully navigating a tactic, they are still in a losing game. Again, there needs to be more clarity in tactic rules here.
Clarity for the latter is simple if one were to require that a tactic do one of the following:
1. Equalize material with a neutral end-position or player advantage, given player was down in material at start.
2. Gain of material over opponent in a positionally sound manner.
3. Create checkmate in most efficient manner.
4. Create stalemate in most efficient manner given that player has no reasonable likelihood of victory.
5. Prevent checkmate and return game to positionally neutral or to player advantage given the player is under eminent threat.
Add to those the simple rule that all computer and player moves must be legal chess moves (including initial computer moves) and I think there would be sufficient clarity with the exception of determining whether or not scenarios which are "impossible" to arrive at under normal play are acceptable.
-Many tactics are "puzzles" more than tactics. They may come from outlandish or even impossible scenarios for a real game. Still, these can be fun and interesting...and they require the same analytical skills to find a solution. However, I have seen people flag because the scenario is not possible. A distinction in language should be made here. An "illegal" scenario or tactic is one in which the rules of chess are violated. An "impossible" scenario is a scenario that could not arise in the course of normal play. "Illegal" scenarios should, of course, be flagged and removed... But, what about "impossible" scenarios? A rule against this may eliminate fun "puzzles" from the app... But clarity either way would benefit users, flaggers, and those who try to help vet and moderate tactics.
-Technically any move, or conditioned set of moves which is a best response at each step for the player (regardless of continuing moves by the computer) is a tactic. However, what if the the player color is still in a game that they are likely to lose? This question may not seem so tough on the surface... But, philosophically, it is no different than when you enter a tactic that is a probabilistic win and end that way. Any moves which minimize or make the best of a bad situation in continuing play is a valid tactic. However, it will never sit right with users if, after successfully navigating a tactic, they are still in a losing game. Again, there needs to be more clarity in tactic rules here.
Clarity for the latter is simple if one were to require that a tactic do one of the following:
1. Equalize material with a neutral end-position or player advantage, given player was down in material at start.
2. Gain of material over opponent in a positionally sound manner.
3. Create checkmate in most efficient manner.
4. Create stalemate in most efficient manner given that player has no reasonable likelihood of victory.
5. Prevent checkmate and return game to positionally neutral or to player advantage given the player is under eminent threat.
Add to those the simple rule that all computer and player moves must be legal chess moves (including initial computer moves) and I think there would be sufficient clarity with the exception of determining whether or not scenarios which are "impossible" to arrive at under normal play are acceptable.
