@BeDecentForAChange said in #348:
> Sure I can, just correcting your wrong statement. I wasn't wrong, I just corrected you again
If I tell you, that was sarcasm, there is nothing to correct for you and I do not allow you to do it.
:PPP
Can you please talk to others now?
@NotTakenUsername said in #349:
> How could keeping the color option in casual games make those problems persist? So you are telling me, that the auto-color selection in rated games is determined by the total amount of games (rated+unrated) played with white/black? If yes, why do you not address this issue and instead you remove the option entirely? I really can't think of any other problem that playing with white/black can cause in casual games .
I wouldn't know how the option on casual games could make the issue persist. I just thought it was a good argument for why Lichess chose not to allow this in blind matchmaking. Perhaps the numbers would be bloated, or the fair play argument is the reason.
>
> ''From a fair play perspective yada yada'' yea, this argument doesnt hold any water in regards to casual games. I've played a lot of casual games, in most of them, I choose a random color and I never run into any issues. And on top of that, casual games are meant to not be serious or to be used for practicing certain openings.
It is perfectly valid. Just because someone doesn't play rated, doesn't mean that they should not get a fair playing field. And just because you personally wouldn't mind it, doesn't mean that others don't. I would not mind starting a game with a knight down in a casual game to practise my chess. Someone else might actually mind this. So I should not be able to pre-select starting with an extra knight, and they just deal with it because the type of game is casual.
> ''But hey, you can still invite people and play with whatever color you want!1!1!''. How couldnt we have thought of that, challenging random people, seems perfectly reasonable.
You don't have to challenge people, you're actually able to go into the lobby and start a game at your leisure.
@goldenCrab said in #350:
> If I tell you, that was sarcasm, there is nothing to correct for you and I do not allow you to do it.
>
> :PPP
>
> Can you please talk to others now?
You were wrong, calling it sarcasm doesn't change that.
Sure, I'm talking to anyone who wants to :)
@BeDecentForAChange said in #351:
> I wouldn't know how the option on casual games could make the issue persist. I just thought it was a good argument for why Lichess chose not to allow this in blind matchmaking. Perhaps the numbers would be bloated, or the fair play argument is the reason.
How is it a good argument if you don't understand what it really means? Just saying ''oh they removed it cuz uhh reasons'' doesnt sound convincing. Maybe thats just me.
> It is perfectly valid. Just because someone doesn't play rated, doesn't mean that they should not get a fair playing field. And just because you personally wouldn't mind it, doesn't mean that others don't. I would not mind starting a game with a knight down in a casual game to practise my chess. Someone else might actually mind this. So I should not be able to pre-select starting with an extra knight, and they just deal with it because the type of game is casual.
My point is that if I don't have problems in casual and I dont notice anything out of line and I know that I play 50% as white and 50% as black (roughly) in unrated games, according to my stats, then I doubt anyone would have any issues with casual games. So it's fair. Now, if there are people that choose games in the lobby where the opponent plays with white and then they complain about always having black and about how unfair it is, that's some mental gymnastics I don't comprehend.
> You don't have to challenge people, you're actually able to go into the lobby and start a game at your leisure.
You said in another reply that you can still choose color by inviting people. Who am I going to invite? Am I gonna invite random people in the lobby? I could play with them with one click before, whats the point of this downgrade?
regarding this, people who had challenged to only have a particular starting colour would only be paired with people who were looking to have the opposite starting colour, not people looking to play a random colour, right?
@NotTakenUsername said in #357:
> How is it a good argument if you don't understand what it really means? Just saying ''oh they removed it cuz uhh reasons'' doesnt sound convincing. Maybe thats just me.
I wan't trying to convince you, I was just repeating what someone else said might be the reason, which I thought was plausible.
> My point is that if I don't have problems in casual and I dont notice anything out of line and I know that I play 50% as white and 50% as black (roughly) in unrated games, according to my stats, then I doubt anyone would have any issues with casual games. So it's fair. Now, if there are people that choose games in the lobby where the opponent plays with white and then they complain about always having black and about how unfair it is, that's some mental gymnastics I don't comprehend.
Again, they are not *choosing* to play with an individual. Especially on mobile, where there is no lobby, they start a game and are matched against someone with a preferred color setting. This means that they may be paired 50 times against the same person and never get white, which is unfair - especially if they are playing both sides against their opponent.
> You said in another reply that you can still choose color by inviting people. Who am I going to invite? Am I gonna invite random people in the lobby? I could play with them with one click before, whats the point of this downgrade?
You could invite anyone, there are 70k people on the server and about 3k online at any given moment on discord. The upgrade's point was to make sure that, if you want to force a color on your opponent, that they have to accept this condition.
You can still play anyone with one click, you can simply join the lobby
@Xmask said in #358:
>
No, they were paired with people that choose random colour as well
@Munich yeah, Im sorry, I wasn't aware I couldn't discuss with my alter ego @BeDecentForAChange in this forum.
@NotTakenUsername said in #361:
> @Munich yeah, Im sorry, I wasn't aware I couldn't discuss with my alter ego @BeDecentForAChange in this forum.
https://lichess.org/@/hamburg
I found his other account to. I mean, another German city ... you can just see the pattern
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.