Avoid unranked players (elo with a ?)

Is there a way to avoid playing unranked players (the one with a ? in their elo) ?
Most of them are smurfs, bots, cheaters...
So I do not learn anything in the process !

@Ben8035 said in #1:

Is there a way to avoid playing unranked players (the one with a ? in their elo) ?

No!

Most of them are smurfs, bots, cheaters...

No!

So I do not learn anything in the process !

You can learn from any game.

PS: You once had a "?" next to your rating, too.

@nadjarostowa said in #2:

PS: You once had a "?" next to your rating, too.

The mistake is thinking that quotation mark equals beginner (or better say newer accounts).
I have no issues in allow beginners to bypass filters and play even with players that don't want provisional score; because it's needed to make score stable and not provisional.

But if an old account just stop playing rated, sooner or later become provisional again.
So the equivalence you make : provisional score equal new account who need to stabilise score is naive.

So my opinion on the issue is that Lichess should allow new account (defining new not by time but by number of games) with provisional score to snuck among filters, while allow other user to pair with whom they like (if they don't like provisional users, allow them to filter provisional's user out).

Ps:
The nonsense is more evident if you consider that the rationale to forbid such filters is to permit provisional user to stabilise their score.
But such filters is also forbidden in not ranked games, and here such rule make 0 sense.

I strongly disagree.

How is it bad to be provisional again after some time? For example, people take a break from chess (or on lichess) for a while and come back. Or they simply don't play one time control type. I surely fell back to provisional in some categories after playing exclusively blitz or bullet. This happens all the time... skip bullet for a while, skip rapid or classical for a while, or correspondence.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that, and by no means would it indicate any problematic player.

And the vast majority of the time, people with "?" are new players, or players that try out a different time control (or variant). And new players are what most people are afraid of.

@nadjarostowa said in #4:

I strongly disagree.

I make two point

1. Provisional is not necessarily new player.
   I make such argument because it seems to me that your point is that is fair to allow new players to stabilise their score.
   Yes it's, and I agree with you on that, but what I was arguing is not all provisional players are new players.
   So if I can pair filtering by score an old player, why can't I pair filtering out provisional old players?
   I personally think is fair, after all I am obliged to end the game I start, then at least let me choose the opponent I like.
   Never said or thinked that is bad to be provisional again.

2. I point out that this inability to filter out provisional users, stand also in not rated games. And there is no rationale or motivation for that.

On which of the two points you disagree? Is there any of the two on which you agree?

@nadjarostowa said in #2:

You can learn from any game.

I tend to disagree here

I understand we can learn from any game, but there's a significant difference between losing to someone slightly better (which is instructive) versus facing someone deliberately playing below their skill level (which teaches very little). Isn't it why elo was invented ? To match people with the same skill level ?

As a beginner focused on learning, winning or losing isn't my main concern right now. What matters is having meaningful games where I can develop my skills through appropriate challenges. Playing against those accounts creates inconsistent experiences that hinder rather than help my chess development.

It's like a judo beginner who needs to practice with other white belts or slightly more advanced students to learn fundamentals. If they're constantly matched against colored belts pretending to be beginners, they won't learn proper technique - they'll just get thrown repeatedly without understanding why or how to improve. The same applies in chess: meaningful learning requires appropriate, honest opposition.

@Ben8035 said in #6:

If they're constantly matched against colored belts pretending to be beginners
You believe that this is what is happening to you? Out of curiosity, I checked stats from your games since April 1st, i.e. a bit more than last month. You played 355 games with results 167-9-179 which is pretty much balanced. Your blitz rating grew from 1161 to 1166, i.e. by 5 points; your rapid rating grew from 1340 to 1345. Doesn't exactly sound like geting "constantly" beaten by much stronger players does it?

The inevitable conclusion is that if you really keep "constantly" getting paired with much stronger players masking themselves as rated about the same as you, you have to be one of them as you perform on equal level as them so that if they are severely underrated, so are you.

@Ender88 said in #5:

Provisional is not necessarily new player.
That's true. What I strongly disagree with is that account which is not new but has provisional rating is more conspicuous and deserves to be ostrakized.

I point out that this inability to filter out provisional users, stand also in not rated games. And there is no rationale or motivation for that.
The rationale is the same as in rated games: those people did nothing wrong (or at least vast majority of them) so that they do not deserve to be treated the way you and OP want to treat them. Lichess does not support such kind of discrimination based on absurd criteria.

Why @mkubecek said in #8:

That's true. What I strongly disagree with that account which is not new but has provisional rating is more conspicuous and deserves to be ostrakized.

It not remotely what I ment, nor said anything closer to that.
Why my words gave you such idea to you?

I said that each user should freely choose what to do for them self, regarding to pairing.
They are not newer players that need to join other members (from a statistical point of view, I mean making new player's score stable)

The rationale is the same as in rated games: those people did nothing wrong (or at least vast majority of them) so that they do not deserve to be treated the way you and OP want to treat them. Lichess does not support such kind of discrimination based on absurd criteria.

What?
I can filter players with stable score today (also in casual games), it's not because they do something wrong. It's just me exercising the choice the platform provide to me to select my opponent.
Why I can't do same thing with players that are provisional? (aka a wildcard because no one knows their "true score")

AFAIK the official answer was: because everyone needs opportunity to have a stable score, and if Lichess allow filtering on provisional players their chances to get any stable score decrease.
But then you understand doing the same thing in unrated games (don't contribute to stable score) is a nonsense.

I am here to have fun, a part of that is that I can choose my opponents, but seems that my freedom in doing soo is somewhat restricted.
I can understand that if it's made to balance the right of new players to be integrated in the user base..but for old players, in unrated games.. I see no reason.
Like I see no reason in not allowing the colour choice in unrated games.. but this is another story.

The lite motif is the same, if no one is harmed, more customisation is not bad, IMHO it just give a more tailored experience to users

@mkubecek said in #7:

You believe that this is what is happening to you? Out of curiosity, I checked stats from your games since April 1st, i.e. a bit more than last month. You played 355 games with results 167-9-179 which is pretty much balanced. Your blitz rating grew from 1161 to 1166, i.e. by 5 points; your rapid rating grew from 1340 to 1345. Doesn't exactly sound like geting "constantly" beaten by much stronger players does it?

Not sure to get your point here: I was only talking about games against accounts with "provisional" rating. For example I got 5 in the last day for ... 5 loss. Not so balanced (although I would agree that statistically 5 games do not mean much )

For all the rest of the games, I have nothing much to complain about. Few people have been cheating (and caught by the lichess team), but overall it felt like fair games.

Bottom line: I guess the issue is that my current rating is in the range of the default starting elo.