An argument for touch move?
Posted By: Keene In Response To: An argument for touch move? (Phil Simborg)
Date: Tuesday, 18 June 2013, at 6:37 p.m.
In Response To: An argument for touch move? (Phil Simborg)
The checker shuffling can be very hard to bear sometimes - especially when opponent then asks (after an extended shuffle) what was the original? I myself have been guilty of it on brief occasion, however, that doesnt excuse me.
One thing I would say in defense of the 'no touch move' argument is that sometimes the best way to play doubles is to play the first, then the second, then the third, and sometimes, you have to really look for the 4th one. I personally like to play them in order, and realize different play opportunities as I am doing it. I would HATE to be stuck with moving specific checkers simply because I had touched it, without seeing other opportunities.
So, resolve that problem, and I am less against touch move. Otherwise, I will continue to look rather than overload my brain with what things may look like if I do this, or that, or whatever.
I do believe that if you are going to shuffle the checkers, you should make a point of knowing the original position first, and clearly identifying your play to your opponent afterwards.
So perhaps instead of debating a way to implement touch move, or reasons (good and bad) for doing it, we should discuss and solve the problem that suggests touch move is a good idea.
So. Checker shuffling.
Messages In This Thread
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.