You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It has happened to me a few times that I create a study for an OTB game I have played, just to find later I have made a "subtle" mistake that forces me to delete dozens of moves. By subtle mistake I mean one such as placing a rook on e1 instead of d1. One that apparently doesn't interfere with the next moves, only to realize 20-30 moves later that the rook is not on the correct square.
It would be great to be able to "fix" (or replace) that move without needing to enter all the moves after it again. I understand there should be a way to deal with cases where fixing a move renders some of the following moves invalid. But I can imagine different workarounds to cope with such cases.
If you agree this is an interesting feature to add, I'd be glad to do the PR myself, but I might need some help, as I have never contributed to lichess before, and I am not familiar with the tech stack used.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It has happened to me a few times that I create a study for an OTB game I have played, just to find later I have made a "subtle" mistake that forces me to delete dozens of moves. By subtle mistake I mean one such as placing a rook on e1 instead of d1. One that apparently doesn't interfere with the next moves, only to realize 20-30 moves later that the rook is not on the correct square.
It would be great to be able to "fix" (or replace) that move without needing to enter all the moves after it again. I understand there should be a way to deal with cases where fixing a move renders some of the following moves invalid. But I can imagine different workarounds to cope with such cases.
If you agree this is an interesting feature to add, I'd be glad to do the PR myself, but I might need some help, as I have never contributed to lichess before, and I am not familiar with the tech stack used.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: