Can't create game with specific side any more

@BeDecentForAChange said in #559:

You won't need to learn a whole new cardgame for this fortunately enough. Looks like you're doing fine with white already!

Thank you for your motivating words.

But blitz/bullet chess requires not only a deep understanding of the rules of the game and strategy, but also quick reflexes, a trained subconscious and the recall of memorized positional images in order to make the right decisions in the shortest possible time.

I might be able to master this at some point, but I've been playing black since I was a child and would rather continue there than feel like a “newbie” with white.

@teddyd said in #561:

Thank you for your motivating words.

But blitz/bullet chess requires not only a deep understanding of the rules of the game and strategy, but also quick reflexes, a trained subconscious and the recall of memorized positional images in order to make the right decisions in the shortest possible time.

I might be able to master this at some point, but I've been playing black since I was a child and would rather continue there than feel like a “newbie” with white.

Perhaps you could tweak with the board settings to not have black/white pieces if you feel that looking for tactics or patterns is more difficult with white - or do some puzzles (you'll get both there).

gg btw, try not to exchange pieces when you're down in material, it makes the endgame easier for me

@duran_was_the_mvp said in #560:

FYI, you can't play poker with black cards exclusively either.

How dare you be so funny sir

Since I can’t offer others to play a game starting with white, as it was before, I click the middle button and if it is White I generally go ahead and play the game. If it comes up black I let the clock run out. A lot of times the white challenger abandons the game. If they don’t abandon the game I let it run out and start another game. I discontinued my automatic monthly donation in protest. Its my table and challengers play black.

@GregMillsUSA1 said in #564:

Since I can’t offer others to play a game starting with white, as it was before, I click the middle button and if it is White I generally go ahead and play the game. If it comes up black I let the clock run out. A lot of times the white challenger abandons the game. If they don’t abandon the game I let it run out and start another game. I discontinued my automatic monthly donation in protest. Its my table and challengers play black.

Hahaha, thank you for this idea. I guess, that other discontinue their donations too. This could bring Lichess in a terrible situation. Mb better, they change back.

Indeed. I was only donating $5 a month but that is $60 US. If I fail to start too many games I a time out. Fine, I will play another day...

@GregMillsUSA1 said in #564:

Since I can’t offer others to play a game starting with white, as it was before, I click the middle button and if it is White I generally go ahead and play the game. If it comes up black I let the clock run out. A lot of times the white challenger abandons the game. If they don’t abandon the game I let it run out and start another game. I discontinued my automatic monthly donation in protest. Its my table and challengers play black.

You can still send offers to players starting a game with white!
Letting your clock run down or abandoning too many games will result in an account deletion. So this problem will solve itself

well, @BeDecentForAChange wrote more messages in this thread than he played games.
Seems like his task is to let this change as it is.

A better (simple) solution would be
a) quickpairings with random colour wont get automatically paired with white/black picking players.
b) white/black picking challenges will only appear in the lobby, even if the challenge is a "standard" time control that is suggested in the quick pairings sheet.

an even better solution would be:
c) additional an option button if in quickpairing the player truly doesnt care about his colour, or if he expects a 50/50 share of white/black being served to him.
d) in case too many white/black searches appear in the lobby, either a message denies the option (message user "currently too many white/black searches"), or the challenge gets into a queue, ideally with an estimate timer how long waiting times are going to be. Like they do it in the game "League of Legends". If the waiting time is too long, less people will chose white/black and thus the amount of players who want to play a certain colour will balance on its own.
e) ...or you can only have a certain share of white/black games, like no difference between white/black than 60/40. Which requires a counter for white/black so users can see.

Well, solutions are definitly do-able, and others can think, too, but considering the omnipresence of BeDecentForAChange who wants the current poor solution to stay as it is, this idea will get drowned in the more than 500 messages of this thread. But you can quote me again and again occasionally (or other suggestions, then bedecentforachange need to spam over and over again his mission to deny people to play white/black and mark them as unfair players and name them as "abusers", comparing them even with cheaters.

I had already suggested solutions. But people keep arguing that the implementation/programming has to be done by someone. When I suggested that the person who disabled the color picker was the right person to do it, the response was that you can't ask someone to program and manage a new solution for free. This should be done by the people who complain about the loss of color selection. :)

I don't understand this logic.

This thread should continue to grow and grow until the operator realizes that despite all the fairness that has been gained, something has fallen by the wayside: the fun!

@Munich said in #568:

@Munich said in #568:

well, @BeDecentForAChange wrote more messages in this thread than he played games.
Seems like his task is to let this change as it is.

A better (simple) solution would be
a) quickpairings with random colour wont get automatically paired with white/black picking players.
b) white/black picking challenges will only appear in the lobby, even if the challenge is a "standard" time control that is suggested in the quick pairings sheet.

an even better solution would be:
c) additional an option button if in quickpairing the player truly doesnt care about his colour, or if he expects a 50/50 share of white/black being served to him.
d) in case too many white/black searches appear in the lobby, either a message denies the option (message user "currently too many white/black searches"), or the challenge gets into a queue, ideally with an estimate timer how long waiting times are going to be. Like they do it in the game "League of Legends". If the waiting time is too long, less people will chose white/black and thus the amount of players who want to play a certain colour will balance on its own.
e) ...or you can only have a certain share of white/black games, like no difference between white/black than 60/40. Which requires a counter for white/black so users can see.

Well, solutions are definitly do-able, and others can think, too, but considering the omnipresence of BeDecentForAChange who wants the current poor solution to stay as it is, this idea will get drowned in the more than 500 messages of this thread.

Wrong, I have been very much in favor thinking of solutions that keep fairness and expand options. I have also conceded more than once that someone had favorable solutions that would cater to most people's objections.

But you can quote me again and again occasionally (or other suggestions, then bedecentforachange need to spam over and over again his mission to deny people to play white/black and mark them as unfair players and name them as "abusers", comparing them even with cheaters.

You've been spamming this thread just as much, just not as much with relevant posts