Can't create game with specific side any more

@teddyd said in #413:

That would be like trying to sell my car. But instead of posting an ad on the Internet and waiting to see who expresses interest, would I rather walk from door to door, ring the doorbell and ask if anyone wants to buy my car?

No, it's more being seated with someone to a restaurant where one you has to pay.

You used to be able to say:
Thanks for having dinner, Actually I'm not comfortable paying because I'm used to getting things for free. We'll probably be seated a couple more times in the future, and you'll have to pay then too.

Now, you have to tell them upfront about this. Totally fair

I give up. Now I will play one game on Lichess, and another game with the opposite color on Chess.com which let the choice. I don't move completely to Chess.com as I prefer Lichess. But it is sad to have to do that. Hope Lichess will revert this bad move.

@solo59 said in #416:

I give up. Now I will play one game on Lichess, and another game with the opposite color on Chess.com which let the choice. I don't move completely to Chess.com as I prefer Lichess. But it is sad to have to do that. Hope Lichess will revert this bad move.

They probably won't, they did it to prevent abuse. Can't see them inviting abuse back

@BeDecentForAChange said in #415:

No, it's more being seated with someone to a restaurant where one you has to pay.

If I select a player from the lobby and suggest a challenge, I may have to wait a long time and hope that the opponent is also “free” (this changes every second in the lobby) and then wants to play with me. If I wait too long, I choose the next player and wait again. Maybe there will be a game, but in the time I have to wait, I've already played through 10 games in the past.

To stick with my example, it would be like having to go from door to door asking if anyone wants to buy the car. Maybe someone will come forward, but it would make more sense to advertise it for sale.

I think the example works quite well.

@teddyd said in #418:

If I select a player from the lobby and suggest a challenge, I may have to wait a long time and hope that the opponent is also “free” (this changes every second in the lobby) and then wants to play with me. If I wait too long, I choose the next player and wait again. Maybe there will be a game, but in the time I have to wait, I've already played through 10 games in the past.

The option remains to join the lobby yourself

To stick with my example, it would be like having to go from door to door asking if anyone wants to buy the car. Maybe someone will come forward, but it would make more sense to advertise it for sale.

I think the example works quite well.

To stick with my example, I think it's more fair now that you can't force someone else to pay, because you had an invisibie setting that says you simply feel more comfortable if the other one pays

@BeDecentForAChange said in #419:

The option remains to join the lobby yourself

Yes, but you can't preset a color! So what's the point of listing me in the lobby?

@teddyd said in #420:

Yes, but you can't preset a color! So what's the point of listing me in the lobby?

To get a game! You just can't force your opponents' color anymore, but you can still play your preferred color 50% of the time, just like everyone else!

@BeDecentForAChange said in #421:

To get a game! You just can't force your opponents' color anymore, but you can still play your preferred color 50% of the time, just like everyone else!

We're going round in circles. You keep saying that you can't force your opponents to play a color. And I keep repeating that I don't force my opponents when I make a play offer.
If lichess does any kind of automatic matching that unfairly distributes the color default, that's certainly not good. But it's also not good to simply take away the freedom of color selection. Then there's something wrong with the process of assigning opponents.
But what I notice most of all:
I noticed the change with horror and wrote an email to lichess. I then received a short reply with a link to this forum. I took the time to read and write a lot here. But even after 2 days, I am no closer to understanding why this decision was made. And I can well imagine that I am not alone in this.
I've just played my first game at chess.com and now I'm going to see if that's not an alternative for me.

@teddyd said in #426:

We're going round in circles. You keep saying that you can't force your opponents to play a color. And I keep repeating that I don't force my opponents when I make a play offer.

Yes you do, through matchmaking.

If lichess does any kind of automatic matching that unfairly distributes the color default, that's certainly not good. But it's also not good to simply take away the freedom of color selection. Then there's something wrong with the process of assigning opponents.

Color selection is not taken away. It's restricted for fair-play reasons. You can still pick your preferred color against people who are willing to agree to custom terms (just like playing from a certain position).

But what I notice most of all:
I noticed the change with horror and wrote an email to lichess. I then received a short reply with a link to this forum. I took the time to read and write a lot here. But even after 2 days, I am no closer to understanding why this decision was made. And I can well imagine that I am not alone in this.

The reason stated in the commit is that the feature was abused by players to exclusively play white

I've just played my first game at chess.com and now I'm going to see if that's not an alternative for me.

You wouldn't be able to play rated, but the option is available for unrated games there

@teddyd said in #426:

BeDecentForAChange is totally dodging the issue, just hitting replay on his gaslighting greatest hits. He’s pretending to care, but the thruth is, he’s just here for the drama, hoping you'll get all riled up so he can sit back and enjoy the show. Classic troll move.