Can't create game with specific side any more

Please bring back the ability to chose your side i use it all the time when prepping for OTB tournaments.

No more opening practice on lichess, sad

@alijeba said in #641:

Please bring back the ability to chose your side i use it all the time when prepping for OTB tournaments.

Unfortunately, Lichess aren't listening or responding to any feedback.

Chess.com has a colour option for unrated games so personally I'm going to use that from now on. I don't like the interface that much but I'll get used to it.

@Munich said in #639:

Ah, I dont know. There is this "KISS" rule: keep it simple stupid.
By the way, some different user used the expression "I bow to you" (addressing BeDecent) before. However, more than 600 contributions make it cumbersome to search for it.

Yes, looking at how he's responded to you so far, he is making fun of you by mocking the things you are accusing him of.

@NotTakenUsername said in #571:

Removing the option to choose a color hinders fair users like me. This is a case of targeted measures versus broad measures. When dealing with cheaters and sandbaggers, you address the individual players who violate the rules. However, by removing the ability to choose a color, you punish the entire playerbase.
If the counterargument is "invitational challenges," nobody challenges random people they find online. First, it's unsettling to receive random notifications from strangers, and second, it's cumbersome at best.
I won't bother explaining why the sky is blue.

This is a pretty decent assessment.

I would like to add that even if you play 100% of the games with black (or 100% white), as long as the opponent is given the option to agree to it, its fine.
The issue isnt the rating, as the feature to chose a colour was also removed for casual games.

@JoseAldo
The issue is, that people who used quickpairings were paired automatically with lobby colour seekers if the time control matched. ("random" can be defined like you say, but others think "random" should be for the opponent, too, so a 50/50 share of both colours. Really, it is not clear what is the right definition for "random" here.

Now I would propose that the matching algorhythm would not do that, but lobby colour seekers remain in the lobby, and they only get a game if someone actively click on their challenge seek. (the match making algorhythm would need to check the colour preference, a simple "if ...then" is all it takes, if some developer who is familiar with the lichess code could please have a look at that).

In case too many colour seekers would appear in the lobby, then I suggest to queue them, giving the seeker the info of his position in the waiting queue. But it remains to be seen if too many colour seekers would actually happen.

NotTakenUsername is right, though. The lazy approach, the quick fix, is to remove the feature for casual and rated games completely.

@Munich said in #645:

This is a pretty decent assessment.

I would like to add that even if you play 100% of the games with black (or 100% white), as long as the opponent is given the option to agree to it, its fine.

Yes, I agree! It does not matter as long as the opponent agrees. Luckily, this is exactly what Lichess has offered by allowing invitational colour choosing :)

The issue isnt the rating, as the feature to chose a colour was also removed for casual games.

@JoseAldo
The issue is, that people who used quickpairings were paired automatically with lobby colour seekers if the time control matched. ("random" can be defined like you say, but others think "random" should be for the opponent, too, so a 50/50 share of both colours. Really, it is not clear what is the right definition for "random" here.

Now I would propose that the matching algorhythm would not do that, but lobby colour seekers remain in the lobby, and they only get a game if someone actively click on their challenge seek. (the match making algorhythm would need to check the colour preference, a simple "if ...then" is all it takes, if some developer who is familiar with the lichess code could please have a look at that).

Who pays for the upkeep? Why don't you get a developer to do this?

In case too many colour seekers would appear in the lobby, then I suggest to queue them, giving the seeker the info of his position in the waiting queue. But it remains to be seen if too many colour seekers would actually happen.

NotTakenUsername is right, though. The lazy approach, the quick fix, is to remove the feature for casual and rated games completely.

Nope. Very wrong. They maintain a huge app for free. The fix achieved what it needed to do, while maintaining the option for fair use. Just because they did not build a feature on top of that for you, does not mean you can accuse them of being lazy. Very, vey wrong

@Munich said in #645:

This is a pretty decent assessment.

Yes. We all agree that it hinders fair players. That's a annoying, and the abusers should feel bad about having caused this

there are no abusers, though. when they create a challenge in the lobby, they did most likely not know they get paired with quickpairing-seeks (if the time control match by co-incident).
I only learned about the automatic matchmaking here in this thread myself.

@Thiswasanameonce said in #648:

Yes. We all agree that it hinders fair players. That's a annoying, and the abusers should feel bad about having caused this

But a lot, I guess, thought, that they have been paired, calling for a black opponent, with a player, who agreed to their game request and loves to play black.

That they have been paired with all possible other players, where this has been explained? There have been no rules about not to play white only and no reporting option against it.

So it was allowed.

If things are not known and not explained, and there are no rules, there can not have been an intentional abuse.

I am not that "abusing player" and feel worse too. Here are punished all players now, this is not fair too.