As for the conquer problem; I believe I solved that by not considering a move that came from the same square as two ply earlier a recapture that should always be searched, but rather as a draw indication. But code for that seems no longer to be there either.
@H.G.
It's a pity that the code is no longer available. On the other hand, such perpetual recaptures occur more frequently and earlier in the conquer rule, so that a draw decision would come too early.
Wouldn't it be better if, instead of a draw announcement, a move that was already made two moves earlier was treated as no longer executable? If nothing other than a repetition is possible, this would mean a draw. Otherwise the game could continue normally without perpetual recapture.
Well, you can wish for something without knowing what effort is involved. I apologise for that. And you can certainly argue about whether the conquer rule is an enrichment. In any case, it leads to differentiated strategic considerations and that is at least something.
That's why I'd like to ask you whether you'd like to deal with this topic again? It would certainly enrich the diagram script. :)
@H.G.
It's a pity that the code is no longer available. On the other hand, such perpetual recaptures occur more frequently and earlier in the conquer rule, so that a draw decision would come too early.
Wouldn't it be better if, instead of a draw announcement, a move that was already made two moves earlier was treated as no longer executable? If nothing other than a repetition is possible, this would mean a draw. Otherwise the game could continue normally without perpetual recapture.
Well, you can wish for something without knowing what effort is involved. I apologise for that. And you can certainly argue about whether the conquer rule is an enrichment. In any case, it leads to differentiated strategic considerations and that is at least something.
That's why I'd like to ask you whether you'd like to deal with this topic again? It would certainly enrich the diagram script. :)