hi dear developer:

i know that you are busy with your studies these days, yet my love for the project you are developing urges me to write to you some notices to consider. i think that they are simple bugs to be fixed, but they will improve the game somehow. and here i go:

1. castling problem: i noticed that you have fixed the bug where the king can not castle if it was previously checked, however, you overlooked something. the king can not be castled if it is under check, or if it will pass by a checked square. look at this sinario, 1. e4 e5. 2. Nf3 d6. 3. Nc3 Be7. 4. Bb5+ ... in this position, although the squares between the rook and the king are empty, the black can't play 4 ... O-O. similarly, even if the squares are empty but are attacked by one of the oponent pieces, castling should not go through. so pleas fix that. additionally, somebody told me that it is possible in the client to castle in the queen side if the b knight beside the a rook did not move. however, i did not replicate this problem, but it will be nice if you check that as well.
2. resignation problem: suppose i am playing white, and you are black. you almost captured my pieces and i (the white) wanted to resign, upon pressing the litter N to "abandon" and you accepted, it will tell you "white have won". very frustrating indeed, lol. it should be the player who accepted the request is the winner.
3. another modification i want to be made for the resigning feature is that the player has not to accept a request to resign from his oponent. as it is logically, no one will reject the victory. so, if you removed this request acceptance and replaced it with a confirmation message appeared to the player who want to resign only, it would be nicer. i mean, when i want to resign, i pres the litter "n" or whatever, then a confirmation message appears asking me "only" if i am sure that i want to resign the game and has "yes/no" buttons. that is all.
4. i hope you could imply the en-passant move which i have previously explained in a previous message.
5. "chess are played with 2 players" sounds hard for me, can it be corrected?

finally, i appriciate all your work, and i wish you the best in your studies. may God grant you success in all your future endeavors.
thanks in advance.

1. OK I'll check that for a future version
2. That's a simple output problem, sorry. I will correct it quickly but not before the week-end.
3. In fact you are right: I shouldn't ask the opposite player when resigning. I will probably do what you propose in a future version.
4. Don't think it's so simple to implement, look at the different castling problems I have. I will try, but I think it's not so urgent.
5. I don't understand your remark, could you be more precise ?

Hi Aminiel:

i really appreciate your quick response in spite of your busy time.
firstly, regarding the En-passant move, i agree with you that is not that urgent, but it is important. it put me in some troubles while i was playing some games, but anyway, do not bother yourself with that at that time. i am sure that you will take care of this when you have enough time.
secondly, i meant by the fifth point a translation mistake. when you are alone, for example, in a chess table, and press enter, it says "chess are played with 2 players". i wish if you could change that.
thirdly, here are some other bugs for you to consider:

1. the announcement of the vague moves might be confusing a little bit. i mean by the vague move is the move when two similar pieces, rooks or knights mostly, can go to the same square. look at this scenario as an example: 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nge2 ... in his third move, the white can move both his knights to the e2 square, so, we indicate it in algebraic notation by writing Nge2 to refer to that the g knight is the one which had moved, not the c knight. in this case, the client will say "X plays the white knight in e2". we want it to indicate which one has moved by saying for example "X played the white G knight to e2", although i see that the formula should be changed totally, but i may post a message later about improving translation and terminology of the game.
relatively, we want it to announce the side where the player castled, like saying "king side castling" or "queen side castling".

2. the same problem goes with the typing move dialogue. we can not input such vague moves, instead we should do them manually. this means, in relation to the previous example, that the client is unable to interpret Nge2. also we are not able to input castling move which should be written o-o for the king side castling and o-o-o for the queen side castling. please try to fix that.
3. the under promotion: when the pawn reaches the 8th rank, it should be promoted to a higher piece, and the client forces us to permanently promote to queens, although under promotion might be useful sometimes. so it would be better if you implement a dialogue box appears immediately after the pawn reaches the edge of the board contains list box with the "knight, bishop, queen and rook" to choose one from them.
4. when the board layout repeated three times, i.e. when the players repeated the same move 3 times consequently, the game should be ended in a draw. this is not implemented in the client.
5. another kind of draw is when the the two players made 50 moves without making a capture or giving a check. this game should be ended in a draw as well, the thing which is not also implemented.
6. i do not know if you put the stalemate rule in the game or no.

thanks in advance, and wish you the best forever.

secondly, i meant by the fifth point a translation mistake. when you are alone, for example, in a chess table, and press enter, it says "chess are played
with 2 players". i wish if you could change that.

Could you tell me what I have to change there ? Nothing shocks me in "chess are played with 2 players".

The announcement of the vague moves might be confusing a little bit. i mean by the vague move is the move when two similar pieces, rooks or knights
mostly, can go to the same square. look at this scenario as an example: 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nge2 ... in his third move, the white can move both his
knights to the e2 square, so, we indicate it in algebraic notation by writing Nge2 to refer to that the g knight is the one which had moved, not the c
knight. in this case, the client will say "X plays the white knight in e2". we want it to indicate which one has moved by saying for example "X played
the white G knight to e2", although i see that the formula should be changed totally, but i may post a message later about improving translation and terminology of the game.

I though about that when writing the messages. I had to decide: either I always say "X moves Y from A to B" or "X moves Y to B", but not one or the other from time to time. I considered finally that always announcing the starting square was annoying most of the time. If you are not sure of which piece has moved, you can just look at the board. Really, I think that always announcing the starting square is actually not a so nice idea.

relatively, we want it to announce the side where the player castled, like saying "king side castling" or "queen side castling".

There I have nothing to say. I agree, I could make the difference.

The same problem goes with the typing move dialogue. we can not input such vague moves, instead we should do them manually. this means, in relation to
the previous example, that the client is unable to interpret Nge2.

Yes, partial moves like Nge2 aren't understood. In fact, at the moment, you can enter moves in two forms :

• Full moves i.e. Bf1-c4
• Shortened moves i.e. Bc4
By entering a shortened move, if there's an ambiguity, you take the risk to move the wrong piece. It takes the first one it sees. You are right, I could implement interpretation of partial moves.

also we are not able to input castling move which should be written o-o for the king
side castling and o-o-o for the queen side castling. please try to fix that.

Special moves like that one are not interpreted at all at the moment. I should add it too.

The under promotion: when the pawn reaches the 8th rank, it should be promoted to a higher piece, and the client forces us to permanently promote to
queens, although under promotion might be useful sometimes. so it would be better if you implement a dialogue box appears immediately after the pawn reaches
the edge of the board contains list box with the "knight, bishop, queen and rook" to choose one from them.

I planed to do it later for sure, but as always, I don't have enough time at the moment.

When the board layout repeated three times, i.e. when the players repeated the same move 3 times consequently, the game should be ended in a draw. this
is not implemented in the client.

Yes, I know. In fact, it's hard to detect when a couple of moves are repeated making a cycle. That one will infortunately probably never be implemented

Another kind of draw is when the the two players made 50 moves without making a capture or giving a check. this game should be ended in a draw as well,
the thing which is not also implemented.

I know that rule too, but I considered that one completely useless. I'm not sure that online games often exceed 70 or 80 moves. Afterall, one notice quick enough by oneself when the game doesn't progress anymore, and then stop simply by deciding that nobody has won.

i do not know if you put the stalemate rule in the game or no.

I don't know what it is. Certainly it's just a vocabulary issue, I probably very well know what it is in french. Sorry, my english is far from perfection.

1. it should be "chess is played with 2 players".
2. is it necessary to either announce all the source squares or totally ignore them? couldn't you customize the moves i mentioned only? yes, i agree that it is boring to say, "x moves y from a to b", but we want it to be available just for such unclear moves.
3. do not consider the draw after 50 moves without capture or check a useless thing. if it is easy to be implemented, even if it is rare, do it. we are seeking the perfection for this client.
4. stalemate is when the king of your opponent is not checked, but he does not have an illegal move. i.e. he can't move any of his pieces and his king also can't move because all its surrounding squares are attacked. i tried to give you a quick example, though it is hard, because it is usually occurs in the end games. however, for your information, and for fun as well, here is the quickest stalemate in chess

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abB2_Em3Ixo

again, i highly appreciate your quick response.

stay well and prosper.

1. OK
2. No I really can't, sorry.
3. Yes. I would just say that it was less urgent to do that. I will do it when I have time.
4. Ah OK ! In french it's called pat. To answer to the question, no, draw situations like those aren't automatically detected. I don't know if I could, I didn't really though about that.