One way is to play in tournaments that have a minimum number of games settings. Most of them do or as said above you can create your own personal tournaments and increase the number of minimum games.
I was reading through this, and I really had nothing to say or think much about it, other than supporting a setting not to play provisional players. (And, correct me if I'm wrong, but, I believe someone who's rating bounces around +/- 100 RD points also earns the "?")
... Well, at first ... and then I ready #17 and #19 -- And I'm sitting here thinking to myself: "Hey, wait a moment!" -- I had to play 15 or 20 games standard or variant-specific games before I could join tournaments. Those would be the standard, revolving tournaments hosted by LiChess on a regular daily schedule.
But, somehow there's a problem with sharing that you can create a tournament with such conditions? And, there's a problem with players who do not want to play other provisional players? (LiChess tournaments can discriminate, but it's perceived as a problem that other users or tournaments discriminate?)
Always amusing. Thanks for the daily laugh. (Software development must be logical. Policy can be purely illogical, following human sociology.)
... Well, at first ... and then I ready #17 and #19 -- And I'm sitting here thinking to myself: "Hey, wait a moment!" -- I had to play 15 or 20 games standard or variant-specific games before I could join tournaments. Those would be the standard, revolving tournaments hosted by LiChess on a regular daily schedule.
But, somehow there's a problem with sharing that you can create a tournament with such conditions? And, there's a problem with players who do not want to play other provisional players? (LiChess tournaments can discriminate, but it's perceived as a problem that other users or tournaments discriminate?)
Always amusing. Thanks for the daily laugh. (Software development must be logical. Policy can be purely illogical, following human sociology.)
Honestly it's a case of NIMBY where a large segment of the player base wants an ability to find opponents, except the ones they don't want to play against. Nobody would be able to play if first you had to play to be eligible to play.
@Lyta-Alexander
"This will happen. Always everything happens the way I want. I have a lot of patience."
You sound a bit arrogant, like you rule the world or something. It's likely not gonna happen if people have said it's not going to.
"This will happen. Always everything happens the way I want. I have a lot of patience."
You sound a bit arrogant, like you rule the world or something. It's likely not gonna happen if people have said it's not going to.
I notice that, too ... the arrogance bothers me.
But I'm also bothered by the arbitrary aspect of the policy. Just because other websites have a feature or setting (i.e. not to accept a game from an individual with a provisional rating, or who haven't played a minimum of games), doesn't mean it's a good idea. That said, the "always has been, always will be" ('nuff said) attitude is an equally bad or negative way of thinking.
In regards to exclusionary practices, that discriminating against provisional players would disenfranchise them or disallow them to move past provisional status: This is patently incorrect.
IF, on the condition you had a small user base, a small number of users, and all of those users were of the mindset: "Exclude provisional players unless we want them to join the community," ... this exclusionary discrimination practice might work.
BUT with a website the size of LiChess, with as many users as it has, it becomes a moot point.
And, for that matter, provisional players could meet the minimum number of games playing against other provisional users. (The stats might be off a bit after seeding to play non-provisional users, but, that's the nice thing about stats -- they'll happily iron themselves out in good time with large enough sample and population.)
Point being: The standard "policy" arguments not to implement this setting are (1) a moot point, and (2) a bad attitude.
That's not to say the setting should be implemented. (Not an argument for or against, but, a better analysis than ignorant arrogance, or arbitrary policy ideas.)
Bottom line, LiChess has a BDFL, and, no matter what we say, what the BDFL says ... goes.
But I'm also bothered by the arbitrary aspect of the policy. Just because other websites have a feature or setting (i.e. not to accept a game from an individual with a provisional rating, or who haven't played a minimum of games), doesn't mean it's a good idea. That said, the "always has been, always will be" ('nuff said) attitude is an equally bad or negative way of thinking.
In regards to exclusionary practices, that discriminating against provisional players would disenfranchise them or disallow them to move past provisional status: This is patently incorrect.
IF, on the condition you had a small user base, a small number of users, and all of those users were of the mindset: "Exclude provisional players unless we want them to join the community," ... this exclusionary discrimination practice might work.
BUT with a website the size of LiChess, with as many users as it has, it becomes a moot point.
And, for that matter, provisional players could meet the minimum number of games playing against other provisional users. (The stats might be off a bit after seeding to play non-provisional users, but, that's the nice thing about stats -- they'll happily iron themselves out in good time with large enough sample and population.)
Point being: The standard "policy" arguments not to implement this setting are (1) a moot point, and (2) a bad attitude.
That's not to say the setting should be implemented. (Not an argument for or against, but, a better analysis than ignorant arrogance, or arbitrary policy ideas.)
Bottom line, LiChess has a BDFL, and, no matter what we say, what the BDFL says ... goes.
@MrCharles
"BUT with a website the size of LiChess, with as many users as it has, it becomes a moot point."
At least for me, it's not an issue of statistics but of common decency. We all, as a community, should do our part of the job and be welcoming towards new players by playing with them. If that means you're going to have to play an opponent with a provisional rating from time to time, well, you can't always get exactly what you hoped for. Sometimes I'm matched with people who play another opening than the one I would have wanted, but I don't abort the game and make a post about it in the forums, I just play on and try to do my best.
"BUT with a website the size of LiChess, with as many users as it has, it becomes a moot point."
At least for me, it's not an issue of statistics but of common decency. We all, as a community, should do our part of the job and be welcoming towards new players by playing with them. If that means you're going to have to play an opponent with a provisional rating from time to time, well, you can't always get exactly what you hoped for. Sometimes I'm matched with people who play another opening than the one I would have wanted, but I don't abort the game and make a post about it in the forums, I just play on and try to do my best.
I will still cancel the game and lose time and my opponent will lose time too. I say again, I will not play with such players and cancel the game.
Why not make a setting that will not let us connect?
Obviously, many will not use this setting.
Why not make a setting that will not let us connect?
Obviously, many will not use this setting.
The bottom line is if you get a pairing you *must* play the game. If you abort too many games you will get an automatic time out. Don't come complaining in the forum when that happens.
#1 If you want to avoid players with provisional rating and question mark (?) near it,then change your rating settings for opponents in lobby game and play with experienced ones.
With that kind of attitude I'm surprised anyone would want to play against you anyway. Maybe go find another site that caters to you princess. @Lyta-Alexander
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.