History shows that this is true and not. There is also plenty of very good research that ended up nowhere. There are also many examples of deep research that knew so well the precedents that could never escape from them.

I think we have a good proportion of research, user feedback and development. These Talk threads are being quite useful keeping this balance.

Welcome!

Doh, I got too enthusiastic too soon.

This program is for "Play against computer", which is our item number 9 in the roadmap.

http://www.iphone-game.com/images/st...%20pro%201.jpg shows an implementation for selecting a piece, which is something we are asking to the designers around. Apparently mikhas & kore want to try the idea of selecting a destination square first and then highlight the piece(s) that could reach it, as a way to minimize false moves.

They have decided to make the board smaller, adding the coordinates outside the board. Maybe good enough for analyzing games but for playing any pixel counts.

If someone could dissect the settings menus that could be useful.

The UI for playing games is more austere. Traditional notation (what do you think about my proposal for using natural language?) and of course no chatting since this is quite pointless with a computer (unless you reach HAL levels of AI).

The user comments seem to be very good. If that is the best chess game for the iPhone then I'm confident the Miniature plans are on the right path. When someone plugs the Scid backend to the Miniature UI we will have a good contender.