replacing the custom button with 10+5 sounds perfect.
if u remove or change time controls u always gonna have people against the change.
if u remove or change time controls u always gonna have people against the change.
@vio7 @StupidSelfishNasty @hash11011 @risky-chess is there a particular reason you want 10+5 (or 10+2) instead of 15+5? Or was that just "the first thing that came to mind"?
My reasoning for 15+5 is twofold:
A) Some amount of OTB parity: The FIDE standard Rapid tc is 15+10, so we should aim to have a timecontrol close to that
B) Spread! "Rapid" on lichess is 480-1499 seconds (to move 40); and we have a tc on the very low end of that already (10+0 is 600). 10+5 is 800, which stilll isn't even close to the halfway mark of the Rapid spread (989.5), let alone on the higher end. 15+5 is 1100, so it fits very nicely.
Same reason as to why we have 3+0 (180), 3+2 (260), 5+0 (300) & 5+3 (420) on a 180-479 Blitz scale, rather than 3+0, 3+1, 3+2, and 4+0 (which would be senselessly close to each other).
IMO it makes much more sense to keep the different TCs "as far away from each other as possible", ie having both 10+0 and 10+5 is overkill, and the Rapid increment TC should instead be on the long end (with 15+5 being the current suggestion)
@Toadofsky @erikelrojo (and maybe others): Removing 10+0 is not happening. It's by far the most popular Rapid tc. It's not "only more popular cause it's a simple number", many people just dislike playing with increment, and especially for Arenas (where Berserking removes Increment altogether), +0 TCs are actually crucial to have.
I hate playing without increment, but factually it's supremely popular on lichess, so it will (rightfully so!) never get touched.
@Morozov I'm not a big fan of making it 4x4, as that splits the community massively. Already, 2+1, 5+3, and 15+15 aren't played by many people; with 3+2 also comparably inactive, so almost doubling the QuickPlay buttons (going from 8 to 15!) is not really an answer. 1 more is fine, espec as Rapid +Increment is just not represented at all currently, but I wouldn't even know what to fill the rest of the squares up with.
My reasoning for 15+5 is twofold:
A) Some amount of OTB parity: The FIDE standard Rapid tc is 15+10, so we should aim to have a timecontrol close to that
B) Spread! "Rapid" on lichess is 480-1499 seconds (to move 40); and we have a tc on the very low end of that already (10+0 is 600). 10+5 is 800, which stilll isn't even close to the halfway mark of the Rapid spread (989.5), let alone on the higher end. 15+5 is 1100, so it fits very nicely.
Same reason as to why we have 3+0 (180), 3+2 (260), 5+0 (300) & 5+3 (420) on a 180-479 Blitz scale, rather than 3+0, 3+1, 3+2, and 4+0 (which would be senselessly close to each other).
IMO it makes much more sense to keep the different TCs "as far away from each other as possible", ie having both 10+0 and 10+5 is overkill, and the Rapid increment TC should instead be on the long end (with 15+5 being the current suggestion)
@Toadofsky @erikelrojo (and maybe others): Removing 10+0 is not happening. It's by far the most popular Rapid tc. It's not "only more popular cause it's a simple number", many people just dislike playing with increment, and especially for Arenas (where Berserking removes Increment altogether), +0 TCs are actually crucial to have.
I hate playing without increment, but factually it's supremely popular on lichess, so it will (rightfully so!) never get touched.
@Morozov I'm not a big fan of making it 4x4, as that splits the community massively. Already, 2+1, 5+3, and 15+15 aren't played by many people; with 3+2 also comparably inactive, so almost doubling the QuickPlay buttons (going from 8 to 15!) is not really an answer. 1 more is fine, espec as Rapid +Increment is just not represented at all currently, but I wouldn't even know what to fill the rest of the squares up with.
@hash11011 15+15 breaks even in "time" with 20+10 on move 60 (15*60+15*60 = 1800; 20*60+10*60 = 1800). Every move shorter than that, and 20+10 allows you more thinking time (which is partly why I am advocating for it; as I enjoy thinking for a long time).
How often do you have a Classical TC game where A) You are in massive timetrouble (playing on increment, and no way to just shuffle to gain back time), and B) you play for more than 60 moves?
I just checked all you Classical games played in the last month, which are 111 (! Respect!) total.
Out of those 111, you have 8 games where you took over 60 moves, split the following way:
61: x2
62: x2
66: x1
67: x1
74: x1
110: x1
6 of these games are very close to the "Move 60" border, with a total of 95 seconds "lost" compared to 15+15. You were in timetrouble in none of these games (ending usually with 10-20 minutes on the clock, actually). Even if we just cut out the four games that were basically the same as move 60, and don't look further, we're looking at 3.6% of games which are affected at all.
The 74 move game was one where you had reached a straightforwardly won pawn ending on move 58, with 13 minutes on the clock, and your opponent didn't feel like resigning. You finish with 16 minutes left.
The 110 move game was one where K vs KNN, a very simple draw, is reached on move 60, and your opponent tried to mate you for 50 moves. You end with 24 minutes on the clock.
I fail to see how the extra 5s increment helped you in any way in these games, and that's a sample size of 111!
I'd wager the count of games where the 5s increment is actually useful is below 1/10000, which makes it difficult for me to argue for it.
How often do you have a Classical TC game where A) You are in massive timetrouble (playing on increment, and no way to just shuffle to gain back time), and B) you play for more than 60 moves?
I just checked all you Classical games played in the last month, which are 111 (! Respect!) total.
Out of those 111, you have 8 games where you took over 60 moves, split the following way:
61: x2
62: x2
66: x1
67: x1
74: x1
110: x1
6 of these games are very close to the "Move 60" border, with a total of 95 seconds "lost" compared to 15+15. You were in timetrouble in none of these games (ending usually with 10-20 minutes on the clock, actually). Even if we just cut out the four games that were basically the same as move 60, and don't look further, we're looking at 3.6% of games which are affected at all.
The 74 move game was one where you had reached a straightforwardly won pawn ending on move 58, with 13 minutes on the clock, and your opponent didn't feel like resigning. You finish with 16 minutes left.
The 110 move game was one where K vs KNN, a very simple draw, is reached on move 60, and your opponent tried to mate you for 50 moves. You end with 24 minutes on the clock.
I fail to see how the extra 5s increment helped you in any way in these games, and that's a sample size of 111!
I'd wager the count of games where the 5s increment is actually useful is below 1/10000, which makes it difficult for me to argue for it.
@IsaVulpes I prefer 10 5 over 15 5. I am happy playing 10 0. It feels just the right length for a good quality game where I can think a little bit. But often I still run into time issues and having the extra 5 increment would improve the end game quality. I get the 15 5 logic of being closer to the FIDE standard. However 15 5 feels a bit too long. 10 0 and 10 5 feels better for online chess. OTB needs a little more time given physical hand movements etc. So the FIDE standard makes sense too. For lichess, my personal preference is still 10 0 and slightly slower 10 5.
#12 Many things are popular on Lichess and we touch them anyway. I don't see a problem with adding a +2 increment to 10+0 - in many cases it won't affect the game, but in the corner cases where after 15-20 minutes of play the game is close then the winner of the game won't be decided by lag or by who has the faster mouse.
@Toadofsky
Would it be possible to allow player to customize quick pairing tiles to their own preferred time controls.
As an example I like to to have tow tiles with 5+5 and 10+10. Some one else might like to customize tiles to 5+10, 10+5 etc
Would it be possible to allow player to customize quick pairing tiles to their own preferred time controls.
As an example I like to to have tow tiles with 5+5 and 10+10. Some one else might like to customize tiles to 5+10, 10+5 etc
"Give me a lever and a place to stand and I will move the earth itself." - Archimedes
Given enough time and effort, many things are possible.
Given enough time and effort, many things are possible.
@chanakam2000 This is a pretty terrible idea, since it splits the community massively, and doesn't add anything but a minor convenience to lobby creation.
Imagine instead of 500 people pressing 5+0 at the same time, 200 press 5+0, 50 5+1, 50 4+3, 50 4+2, 50 4+1, 50 4+0 and 50 3+5 on their custom presets - now nobody will find a proper game / matchmaking will take significantly longer.
Quickplay with presets should not be touched, Custom games very much need to stay separate
Maybe you could add some custom presets to the window of the "Create Game" button, but that's a very different suggestion (in general I'm not the biggest fan of being able to queue for ranked with custom TCs, but ok w/e).
Imagine instead of 500 people pressing 5+0 at the same time, 200 press 5+0, 50 5+1, 50 4+3, 50 4+2, 50 4+1, 50 4+0 and 50 3+5 on their custom presets - now nobody will find a proper game / matchmaking will take significantly longer.
Quickplay with presets should not be touched, Custom games very much need to stay separate
Maybe you could add some custom presets to the window of the "Create Game" button, but that's a very different suggestion (in general I'm not the biggest fan of being able to queue for ranked with custom TCs, but ok w/e).
@Toadofsky You don't see a problem because you like Increment.
Many people don't. 1+1 is an entirely different game than 1+0, and while it's obviously not as extreme for 10+0 vs 10+2, the same core idea applies.
Berserking, which is very popular and one of the core features that Lichess offers over other sites, becomes largely impossible in a 10+2 tc, while it's free in 10+0.
People like having a hard cut when queueing (20 minutes, then I'm 100% done), people like the adrenaline of premoving on 1s, and for Lichess it's also good to show off its capabilities (compared to chesscom, where events are 3+1 and 5+1, because it's largely impossible to play without increment there).
I have no interest whatsoever in removing what may very well be the most popular TC on all of Lichess (in terms of total playtime in minutes), just because I personally am not a fan of it.
10+0 is a cool TC, and it should stay.
There's plenty room for 15+5 (or similar) by removing the least popular TC (5+3) or the literally pointless Custom button; no need to touch anything else.
P. S. Even IF 10+0 was changed to 10+2 (and it won't), it'd be nice to have a 2nd Rapid TC, next to the 4 Blitz ones, so it wouldn't even change all too much
Many people don't. 1+1 is an entirely different game than 1+0, and while it's obviously not as extreme for 10+0 vs 10+2, the same core idea applies.
Berserking, which is very popular and one of the core features that Lichess offers over other sites, becomes largely impossible in a 10+2 tc, while it's free in 10+0.
People like having a hard cut when queueing (20 minutes, then I'm 100% done), people like the adrenaline of premoving on 1s, and for Lichess it's also good to show off its capabilities (compared to chesscom, where events are 3+1 and 5+1, because it's largely impossible to play without increment there).
I have no interest whatsoever in removing what may very well be the most popular TC on all of Lichess (in terms of total playtime in minutes), just because I personally am not a fan of it.
10+0 is a cool TC, and it should stay.
There's plenty room for 15+5 (or similar) by removing the least popular TC (5+3) or the literally pointless Custom button; no need to touch anything else.
P. S. Even IF 10+0 was changed to 10+2 (and it won't), it'd be nice to have a 2nd Rapid TC, next to the 4 Blitz ones, so it wouldn't even change all too much
#19 I don't see a problem because I see complaints in the forum when games are decided by timeout and players disagree with the result ("insufficient mating material" and lag compensation concerns). Players claim to enjoy the clock-pounding madness of a time scramble up to the point when they disagree with the outcome and demand that the server rules be overturned for their special cases.
I can create a 10+2 tournament and suffer through going berserk just to demonstrate that it's possible (although I always lose while going berserk, so what's to prove?). I agree that it's harder to go berserk in a TC with increment than without one.
Regarding a "hard cut" of 20 minutes, you're forgetting that Lichess offers lag compensation. A player who must leave in exactly 20 minutes will have to resign if they or their opponent lags significantly.
I agree that time scrambles certainly show off Lichess' responsiveness.
Here's a 10+0 game where I accidentally dropped my queen and got to showcase what makes 10+0 so special:
I can create a 10+2 tournament and suffer through going berserk just to demonstrate that it's possible (although I always lose while going berserk, so what's to prove?). I agree that it's harder to go berserk in a TC with increment than without one.
Regarding a "hard cut" of 20 minutes, you're forgetting that Lichess offers lag compensation. A player who must leave in exactly 20 minutes will have to resign if they or their opponent lags significantly.
I agree that time scrambles certainly show off Lichess' responsiveness.
Here's a 10+0 game where I accidentally dropped my queen and got to showcase what makes 10+0 so special:
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.