Can't create game with specific side any more

....thus, it is not acceptable to refer to players opting for a certain colour as "abusers" or "unfair players". I doubt players were even aware of that "bug" (misinterpretation of "random")

Edit: its not even a misinterpretation. It is ambigous interpretation, and this could be fixed. I think it should not be too difficult to do, though I cant do it.

@Munich said in #501:

....thus, it is not acceptable to refer to players opting for a certain colour as "abusers" or "unfair players". I doubt players were even aware of that "bug" (misinterpretation of "random")

Stop attacking this engineers by calling it a "bug". They should not be demeaned publicly like this

see my edit, overlapping.

there are features and bugs. So if it's not a bug, it's a feature.
I'd say it is a bug, because I doubt it is meant as a feature.

Bugs happen, and they do not demean coders, and thousands of bugs have been fixed since Lichess came life.

@Munich said in #504:

there are features and bugs. So if it's not a bug, it's a feature.
I'd say it is a bug, because I doubt it is meant as a feature.

Bugs happen, and they do not demean coders, and thousands of bugs have been fixed since Lichess came life.

There are fair players and abuser. So if they are not playing fair, they are abusers.

Abuse happens, and I don't mean to demean the people. Thousands of cases of abuse have happened until Lichess fixed it with this upgrade

@Munich , you understand that he ( @BeDecentForAChange ) does not necessarily feel that you are demeaning coders by calling something a bug, right?

He is just pointing out, using your own words, that you're not doing a very good job of making an argument.

@Munich said in #499:

the only unfair thing about it was that quick pairings were paired with random vs white/black (instead of random).
As the quick pairings offer certain time controlls only, but white/black players do so mostly in open challenge (lobby) seek, this is likely a minority within a minority of games.
But it wasnt the players that was unfair, but the lichess pairing. It misinterpreted "random" with "accept play black", while likely it is meant a player wants random for both sides. Thus, a filter ("If then") would need to be implemented.

If someone wants white/black and uses time control 5m/0s, then his seek should only appear in the lobby, not automatically be paired with someone who chose quickpairings. Unless he truly does not care, then an appropriate button to select would be needed, too. If he opted then he truly doesnt care, this would have the advantage that he gets a game somewhat quicker served. Though I doubt waiting times are a problem.

The players that abused it were, and are, absolutely unfair. This change was not done because some people worked on their openings with white for a couple of games. It's because there are people here with 90k white games, 0 with black. 30k white games, 0 with black. 25k white games, 17 with black. And the list goes on. 14kWhite/1kblack, et cetera.

Yes, making a system in such a way where normal players are matched and not exposed to the abuse of color, and there being a place where people can people pick their color would probably be a solution that every user is happy with.

However, this opens up a few questions:

If, in this new system, someone did 5000 games with white and 0 with black. He then starts playing both sides like a normal person. Should his previous games' color picking be used in his match making stats? So should the system try to even out the 'color debt' that this player has? If so, you're looking at a long and unfair streak of playing black. This also means that if people who previously only played black are now getting white all the time against the same opponents, which is unfair.

If it should not, this means that this needs to be accounted for in the code. So a whole new eco system for people needs to be written to account for their color stats, matchmaking needs to be changed, and a whole lot of other stuff needs to be coded up.

I can think of a few other issues with this at a technical level, but the question remains:

1. Who pays for it to be built?
2. Once it's built, who pays for it to be maintained?

stop saying its abuse.
The white/black preference is legitim, but the problem is the ambigous interpretation of "random".
you can play 90K white games and 0 black games as long as the opponent is agreeing to this. But the player doing a challenge seek with white can not know and is not aware that is opponent is seeking truly random for both sides. It is an ambigous interpretation, and if the lichess coders were not aware of it, how you expect a normal mortal player knows about this background?

I believe this can be fixed, and you pull up the maintenance cost just for the sake of "because"...
The fix is likely not that big to do, but means a lot to quite a few people here. Such as my belittled mum.

@Munich said in #508:

stop saying its abuse.
The white/black preference is legitim, but the problem is the ambigous interpretation of "random".
you can play 90K white games and 0 black games as long as the opponent is agreeing to this.

Lichess made sure that this is now the exact case.

But the player doing a challenge seek with white can not know and is not aware that is opponent is seeking truly random for both sides. It is an ambigous interpretation, and if the lichess coders were not aware of it, how you expect a normal mortal player knows about this background?

Of course they were aware of how their own matchmaking worked. They did not expect people to take advantage of it and abuse it.

I believe this can be fixed, and you pull up the maintenance cost just for the sake of "because"...

Okay, so fix it

The fix is likely not that big to do, but means a lot to quite a few people here. Such as my belittled mum.

What would be the scope of fixing it, since you are somehow able to make an assessment of how much work it is.

Nobody belittled your mom, you got made fun of for using your mom to make a weak argument solely based on mom-sympathy. You shouldn't use your mom like that

@Munich said in #508:

stop saying its abuse.
The white/black preference is legitim, but the problem is the ambigous interpretation of "random".
you can play 90K white games and 0 black games as long as the opponent is agreeing to this. But the player doing a challenge seek with white can not know and is not aware that is opponent is seeking truly random for both sides. It is an ambigous interpretation, and if the lichess coders were not aware of it, how you expect a normal mortal player knows about this background?

I believe this can be fixed, and you pull up the maintenance cost just for the sake of "because"...
The fix is likely not that big to do, but means a lot to quite a few people here. Such as my belittled mum.

Dude it is so weird that you are bringing your mom into this all the time.