Can't create game with specific side any more

my mum is not an abuser or an unfair player if she prefers to play with white only.
Besides, it is still possible to play white only, just it is cumbersome if the seek is not an open challenge in the lobby anymore.
I would like this seek to be automated. Simply dont pair them with quick pairings, but display the seek in the lobby.

Personally I have stopped my monthly support until the feature is back.

@BeDecentForAChange said in #520:

There is quick pairing for casual games.
Yes, when you create a custom casual game with randomized color, you may be paired with somebody who chose white/black.
Instead of that, you can just choose a game of your liking from all the casual games listed in the lobby. I have never had any problem with any so called ''abusers'' so far and I doubt anyone else had such an issue.

No, the issue is about abuse. There could be a lot of arguments made for any of the solutions, one of them being maintenance, which is something Thibault mentioned in his forum post about the cost of maintenance.

The post was about why not all additions are accepted, if my memory serves me right. Deleting the already existing color selection isnt addition, it's deletion. So this post is irrelevant.

Yes, the lobby solves the issue, if normal games in there are no longer matched against color picked ones (so treated as a different type of game). This also means that these color picked games are matched entirely less frequently, meaning the lobby will be filled up with these, unless filtered out (so treated as a different type of game).

I never had a problem with how the lobby was prior to the downgrade. I assume this goes for everyone. You solved a problem that was non existent.
Yes, there are some ''abusers'' that have thousands of white-only games . Those people are so few in number that they were hardly noticed. Source? Take for example me, I don't abuse the feature and I had 50% games with white and 50% games with black. I dont see my stats suggesting any issue with the color selection. Unless you wanna say that I belong to the fringe minority that was treated fairly by sheer luck.

@Munich said in #521:

my mum is not an abuser or an unfair player if she prefers to play with white only.
Besides, it is still possible to play white only, just it is cumbersome if the seek is not an open challenge in the lobby anymore.
I would like this seek to be automated. Simply dont pair them with quick pairings, but display the seek in the lobby.

Yes, it's fair now, you have to find someone that agrees with custom rules

@NotTakenUsername said in #523:

Yes, when you create a custom casual game with randomized color, you may be paired with somebody who chose white/black.
Instead of that, you can just choose a game of your liking from all the casual games listed in the lobby. I have never had any problem with any so called ''abusers'' so far and I doubt anyone else had such an issue.

So your solution is, if you want to be treated fairly, you should not be opening up a game yourself, but pick someone in the lobby (who would have had to open up a game and risk facing an abuser).

The post was about why not all additions are accepted, if my memory serves me right. Deleting the already existing color selection isnt addition, it's deletion. So this post is irrelevant.

Why not all additions are accepted, is because of cost/resources/upkeep. Why the feature was partially disabled, is to make the site fair.

I never had a problem with how the lobby was prior to the downgrade. I assume this goes for everyone. You solved a problem that was non existent.

Yes, there are some ''abusers'' that have thousands of white-only games .
Yes

Those people are so few in number that they were hardly noticed.

I'd be interested to hear where you get the data from to indicate that they are so few in number.
They were noticed by the site's leadership/ownership enough that they invested time and resources to combat this.

Source? Take for example me, I don't abuse the feature and I had 50% games with white and 50% games with black. I dont see my stats suggesting any issue with the color selection. Unless you wanna say that I belong to the fringe minority that was treated fairly by sheer luck.

That would be like saying: yes, cheaters exist. But on average I individually don't play these cheaters so often that I notice it, so taking measures against cheating is moot. It's great that you did not notice this personally, but they were still consistently abusing the site's open color feature.
I've had people sandbag against me so they could go and win a low rated tournament. I only played them once - that doesn't mean that they did not abuse the ELO system to their advantage at the expense of others. It also doesn't make it right

@NotTakenUsername said in #523:

Yes, there are some ''abusers'' that have thousands of white-only games . Those people are so few in number that they were hardly noticed.

Yes, and some of them are kids, mb starting with one colour only, like I saw in chess clubs here in the town, some of them are older and mb can play only one colour to feel not stressed and the most of them did not know abot the code, it mainly causes the problems.

Ah, yes, some months ago I talked to a player, he played two profiles here. One only with black games and one only white. How can we know, if the white players do not have a second black profile?
:)

Apart from the fact that it is forbidden here to have multiple profiles, this would be a compensation.

@Sofia-Mary said in #526:

Yes, and some of them are kids, mb starting with one colour only, like I saw in chess clubs here in the town, some of them are older and mb can play only one colour to feel not stressed and the most of them did not know abot the code, it mainly cause the problems.

Same goes for cheaters.

Some of them are kids to not feel stressed about losing games.

Ah, yes, some months ago I talked to a player, he played two profiles here. One only with black games and one only white. How can we know, if the white players do not have a second black profile?
:)

Same here. I spoke to someone with two profiles: one he uses to cheat, one he uses to play himself . How can we know that they don't have a second account to play fair? We should just allow cheaing, just in case

@NotTakenUsername said in #523:

Yes, when you create a custom casual game with randomized color, you may be paired with somebody who chose white/black.
Instead of that, you can just choose a game of your liking from all the casual games listed in the lobby. I have never had any problem with any so called ''abusers'' so far and I doubt anyone else had such an issue.

Surely the burden should not be placed on fair players.

The post was about why not all additions are accepted, if my memory serves me right. Deleting the already existing color selection isnt addition, it's deletion. So this post is irrelevant.

Yes this thread is irrelevant. There was a problem, they fixed it. Nothing to argue over.

I never had a problem with how the lobby was prior to the downgrade. I assume this goes for everyone. You solved a problem that was non existent.

How could you assume this when they pushed an update to fix it? Clearly it was an issue to someone, if noone else then just Thibault. But perhaps he got thousands of compaints about this over the last couple of years, and finally decided to do something about it

Yes, there are some ''abusers'' that have thousands of white-only games . Those people are so few in number that they were hardly noticed. Source? Take for example me, I don't abuse the feature and I had 50% games with white and 50% games with black. I dont see my stats suggesting any issue with the color selection. Unless you wanna say that I belong to the fringe minority that was treated fairly by sheer luck.

Okay but that means we shoud allow or disallow all sorts of stuff based on whether it impacts players at the individual level. I'm positive I have been cheated against a small percentage of my games. Not enough to push me down to a 1200 ELO rating, so overall it hasn't really impacted me. I still believe it should be prohibited as I am not agreeing to them using an engine, and it gives me an unfair playingfield just to have that around playing like that

@duran_was_the_mvp said in #525:

So your solution is, if you want to be treated fairly, you should not be opening up a game yourself, but pick someone in the lobby (who would have had to open up a game and risk facing an abuser).

''Risk facing an abuser''. I have created custom games several times, I was never suspicious of any ''abuser'', the stats prove this. Even if I faced one or two of them, it's still regular chess, no risk included. Playing with white doesn't give you a huge advantage.

Why not all additions are accepted, is because of cost/resources/upkeep. Why the feature was partially disabled, is to make the site fair.

The post is irrelevant here, the post was about new things added and the reasons why such additions may not be accepted, even if well implemented. Unless color selection causes such a massive cost/resources upkeep (press X to doubt)

I'd be interested to hear where you get the data from to indicate that they are so few in number.
They were noticed by the site's leadership/ownership enough that they invested time and resources to combat this.

Make a poll and ask the players whether they want the color selection wiped. Pretty sure the majority of the players want to revert this, even though there are some ''abusers'' lurking around.

That would be like saying: yes, cheaters exist. But on average I individually don't play these cheaters so often that I notice it, so taking measures against cheating is moot. It's great that you did not notice this personally, but they were still consistently abusing the site's open color feature.

Choosing the color isn't the same as cheating at all. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to beat Magnus with white, but maybe you are built different. I know you brought cheating up as an analogy, but it's a terrible one.
It's indeed great that I didnt notice this personally and given that I have a large amount of games, statistically wise, it indicates that there aren't many people abusing the feature. The benefits of keeping it outweigh the damage that those ''abusers'' cause. If I'm in the lucky minority that wasn't affected by those people, I would be glad to see a poll that disproves what I claim. If the result of the poll is in favor of the removal, I'll agree with this change. But I have a suspicion that the poll would suggest otherwise.

I've had people sandbag against me so they could go and win a low rated tournament. I only played them once - that doesn't mean that they did not abuse the ELO system to their advantage at the expense of others. It also doesn't make it right

I've played with cheaters in the past. And? Do you remove standard chess because of those cheaters or do you take care of each individual case?

@BeDecentForAChange said in #528:

Surely the burden should not be placed on fair players.
Burden? Really?

Yes this thread is irrelevant. There was a problem, they fixed it. Nothing to argue over.
There was not a problem. Deal with individual cases with 90% games with a specific color instead of punishing everyone. Or just keep the feature, if moderating is costly.

How could you assume this when they pushed an update to fix it? Clearly it was an issue to someone, if noone else then just Thibault. But perhaps he got thousands of compaints about this over the last couple of years, and finally decided to do something about it
Create a poll (not you personally, whoever took the decision) asking the players whether they want the feature or not. If the majority of the players notices something wrong, remove it.

Okay but that means we shoud allow or disallow all sorts of stuff based on whether it impacts players at the individual level. I'm positive I have been cheated against a small percentage of my games. Not enough to push me down to a 1200 ELO rating, so overall it hasn't really impacted me. I still believe it should be prohibited as I am not agreeing to them using an engine, and it gives me an unfair playingfield just to have that around playing like that

The correct analogy in this situation would be this: There are cheaters playing chess, therefore we remove standard chess from Lichess.