Can't create game with specific side any more

@Benedictine said in #616:

People are reporting that the server is now forcing them to play blacks or whites in a row statistically more than coincidence. One guy got 23 blacks in a row!

@Benedictine I believe you're referring to this guy:

https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/23-matches-with-black-in-a-row

https://lichess.org/@/Yotunheimr/search?turnsMin=1&turnsMax=300&players.a=yotunheimr&sort.field=d&sort.order=desc

No he didn't. He did get 12 in a row.

P(12 Blacks in a row)=0.5^12

0.5 ^12 = 1 / 2^12 = 1/4096.

So this would be, under fair circumstances (him having 50/50 games exactly to start with, and his opponents as well) quit unlikely as a 1 in 4096 event.

However, considering a slight color debt, it's not entirely crazy as an event to happen on a server that has this many games.

This 23 times in a row story would equate to 1 in 8388608. That's an entirely different story

There are two threads on there about it.

@Benedictine said in #620:

If you go to the Lichess feedback forum it's on there.

yes, found it. It's not an accurate claim though

@BeDecentForAChange said in #623:

yes, found it. It's not an accurate claim though
Right, 12 is still a lot though. Then there's this: https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/today-i-play-more-than-90-of-the-games-in-black

@Benedictine said in #624:

Right, 12 is still a lot though.
It is, but account for chance and color debt it's not that much as a one-off event. (If it's a daily occurrence, definitely an issue).

Then there's this: lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/today-i-play-more-than-90-of-the-games-in-black

14 games, 12 with black.

However, again, looking at his color debt: 2290 white vs 2277 and this is after this 'corrective' streak he has a white games surplus.

Why is BeDecentForAChange the almost the only one (at least a lot) answering the legit questions with sorta the sane resonse?
Are they moderator ? connected to lichess somehow ?

I am not forcing anyone to play black. They can play me or not. But I will not cede my color choice on games I set up. Its just like setting the time. Is the system going to start dictate that as well? If fewer people are willing to play black its my time wasted waiting until some one comes along. I got 10 black set ups in a row. Statistically that is unlikely to be random.

@GregMillsUSA1 said in #627:

I am not forcing anyone to play black.
You were. You were auto-matched against fair players, forcing them to play with black always.

They can play me or not. But I will not cede my color choice on games I set up. Its just like setting the time. Is the system going to start dictate that as well?

Nope. But you used to be able to force your choice on others, but that is fixed

If fewer people are willing to play black its my time wasted waiting until some one comes along. I got 10 black set ups in a row. Statistically that is unlikely to be random.

You accrue a color debt, this is in order to prevent incentivizing abandoning/aborting games. Aborting games will result in a ban, not playing with white

@AndrewWilis said in #626:

Why is BeDecentForAChange the almost the only one (at least a lot) answering the legit questions with sorta the sane resonse?
Are they moderator ?
I have never moderated anything in my life

connected to lichess somehow ?
I'm connected to Lichess via the internet! All very official

@Munich said in #630:

BeDecentForAChange has 2/3 win rate against his opponents, looks like as if he played more, his rating could be 200 points higher, similar to duran.

Please share the calculation in stead of your usual baseless claims

In any case it is suspicious bedecentforachange is only writing in this thread, and has hardly played any games, but has just come to life at lichess recently. He does not sound like he know lichess only recently, but rather, he has several accounts.

I can see how you would feel that writing in a thread and knowing about the subject is indeed suspicous given the comments you're putting out there

Though, it is not easy to say which one. Duran sound similar. NotTakenUserName is not BeDecentforachange. I read Bedecent quoted me, but seems to change what I actually wrote?

I understand you feel the need to do this. As soon as you realised how little sense it made, you removed the comment. But even NotTakeUsername saw it, and again you were made fun of for writing nonsense yet again

Or I deleted my message?
Yes you did

I know I mixed something up, but only vaguely remember that mistake.

no worries, we remember

Never mind, and in any case, I really do not think NotTakenUserName is him.

Wow, that's a fantastic conclusion

NotTaken is rather my opinion, that a better solution should be implemented not the lazy downgrade (BeDecentForAChange calls it "upgrade" if something gets removed, b

Nope it is an upgrade for fair play! nobody can be forced to paly abusers anymore!

But you need to pardon BeDecent, because he mixes anti-semitism, transphobie and Racist-Thing all together in wrong context.

Wrong again. As was explained to you, you were made fun of for calling the Lichess upgrade racist. I then called your calling it racist transopobic, and your comment on that lactose-intolerant.

He simply doesnt know what he is taking, that's why.

Sure I do, but you choose to write long, non-nonsensical sentences that barely make sense. It's hard to explain to someone like that complex concepts

Doesnt matter. And now, lets read his reply, starting with "Wrong...." ).

Yes, you're wrong most of the time. Sorry for having to point it out