- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Can't create game with specific side any more

#661

that such a **** arguement. At the same time, you know very well that it is still allowed, just not possible in rated and casual. There is nothing wrong with playing with a certain color. The problem is that the quickpairers didnt have a say. They were automatched and that lead to more likely getting served black more often instead of a 50/50 share of black's and white's just randomly served. But that is not the fault of the white seeker, and the black seekers are not even contributing to the problem, but alleviating it a bit (but you can not chose any colour right now in casual and rated).

The matchmaking assumed random means "doesnt care which color".

So now we got downgraded and colours can not be chosen. But other fixes are possible, and one would be: do not automatch colour seekers with quickpairing searches. The colour seeker appears in the Lobby, and users need to explicitly click on that seek to start the game.

There is abuse, and the colour preference is not the problem. It is pairing against players who have not actively agreed to take more often black.

Or you would need to argue that it is abuse if you seek a game with white when the time control is 15+10 or 5+3, but it is not abuse if the time control 10+15 or 5+2 (as these are no time controls offered in the quickpairings).
I doubt most users where aware of that, and I think quite a huge portion of all seeks are actually non-quickpairing time controls.

To call someone abuser who uses a feature is odd. actually it is demonizing a minority.

that such a **** arguement. At the same time, you know very well that it is still allowed, just not possible in rated and casual. There is nothing wrong with playing with a certain color. The problem is that the quickpairers didnt have a say. They were automatched and that lead to more likely getting served black more often instead of a 50/50 share of black's and white's just randomly served. But that is not the fault of the white seeker, and the black seekers are not even contributing to the problem, but alleviating it a bit (but you can not chose any colour right now in casual and rated). The matchmaking assumed random means "doesnt care which color". So now we got downgraded and colours can not be chosen. But other fixes are possible, and one would be: do not automatch colour seekers with quickpairing searches. The colour seeker appears in the Lobby, and users need to explicitly click on that seek to start the game. There is abuse, and the colour preference is not the problem. It is pairing against players who have not actively agreed to take more often black. Or you would need to argue that it is abuse if you seek a game with white when the time control is 15+10 or 5+3, but it is not abuse if the time control 10+15 or 5+2 (as these are no time controls offered in the quickpairings). I doubt most users where aware of that, and I think quite a huge portion of all seeks are actually non-quickpairing time controls. To call someone abuser who uses a feature is odd. actually it is demonizing a minority.
#662

@BeDecentForAChange said in #657:

Because they used it excessively, obviously not the way it was intended

Nonsense, the color choosing feature Has. Not. Been. Deleted.
The option to abuse it has been removed, the feature is still available under fair circumstances!

Yes, an update would have been nice. Perhaps it will follow, but the position has been clear: It's been limited in order to stop the ongoing abuse

There are no rules or guidelines as to what constitutes 'fair use' of the black/white feature. It's completely reasonable to imagine people selecting to play black or white didn't realise they were so called 'abusing' the system. There was an option there and they selected it same as they did when selecting time controls and rating ranges.

The play black/white feature IS disabled. It's ludicrous to suggest it isn't. The only way to use this is to spam random people to play black or white or pre-arrange games in advance. This is time consuming and impractical. Chess.com has this feature I will go there or just drill lines on Chessable.

The bottom line is I can't trust a company that pulls the plug on something without warning or consultation or indeed any response at all.

@BeDecentForAChange said in #657: > Because they used it excessively, obviously not the way it was intended > > > > Nonsense, the color choosing feature Has. Not. Been. Deleted. > The option to abuse it has been removed, the feature is still available under fair circumstances! > > > > Yes, an update would have been nice. Perhaps it will follow, but the position has been clear: It's been limited in order to stop the ongoing abuse There are no rules or guidelines as to what constitutes 'fair use' of the black/white feature. It's completely reasonable to imagine people selecting to play black or white didn't realise they were so called 'abusing' the system. There was an option there and they selected it same as they did when selecting time controls and rating ranges. The play black/white feature IS disabled. It's ludicrous to suggest it isn't. The only way to use this is to spam random people to play black or white or pre-arrange games in advance. This is time consuming and impractical. Chess.com has this feature I will go there or just drill lines on Chessable. The bottom line is I can't trust a company that pulls the plug on something without warning or consultation or indeed any response at all.
#663

@Benedictine said in #662:

There are no rules or guidelines as to what constitutes 'fair use' of the black/white feature. It's completely reasonable to imagine people selecting to play black or white didn't realise they were so called 'abusing' the system. There was an option there and they selected it same as they did when selecting time controls and rating ranges.

The play black/white feature IS disabled. It's ludicrous to suggest it isn't. The only way to use this is to spam random people to play black or white or pre-arrange games in advance. This is time consuming and impractical. Chess.com has this feature I will go there or just drill lines on Chessable.

The bottom line is I can't trust a company that pulls the plug on something without warning or consultation or indeed any response at all.

Well said. But ............. I doubt Lichess will ever listen to their members. They just do as they please

@Benedictine said in #662: > There are no rules or guidelines as to what constitutes 'fair use' of the black/white feature. It's completely reasonable to imagine people selecting to play black or white didn't realise they were so called 'abusing' the system. There was an option there and they selected it same as they did when selecting time controls and rating ranges. > > The play black/white feature IS disabled. It's ludicrous to suggest it isn't. The only way to use this is to spam random people to play black or white or pre-arrange games in advance. This is time consuming and impractical. Chess.com has this feature I will go there or just drill lines on Chessable. > > The bottom line is I can't trust a company that pulls the plug on something without warning or consultation or indeed any response at all. Well said. But ............. I doubt Lichess will ever listen to their members. They just do as they please
#664

@Benedictine said in #662:

There are no rules or guidelines as to what constitutes 'fair use' of the black/white feature. It's completely reasonable to imagine people selecting to play black or white didn't realise they were so called 'abusing' the system. There was an option there and they selected it same as they did when selecting time controls and rating ranges.

There were also no rules to constitute 'fair' use of rating system. Yet, people have abused it to enter lower-rated tournaments and get first price. That's why these rules had to be set.
I'm not saying that there were no legitimate users of this feature, it's a great one to have. But people who played 20k (or even 90k) games with white, and none with black have been abusing it grossly, even if there was no explicit rule stating this.

The play black/white feature IS disabled. It's ludicrous to suggest it isn't. The only way to use this is to spam random people to play black or white or pre-arrange games in advance. This is time consuming and impractical. Chess.com has this feature I will go there or just drill lines on Chessable.

No, it is not. In fact, two of the big supporters of this update being reversed invited me to a game (unprompted) in the color of their choosing, which I accepted. It's perfectly well available for anyone who cares to use it under fair circumstances, as it was intended.

The bottom line is I can't trust a company that pulls the plug on something without warning or consultation or indeed any response at all.

I'm sure chess.com consults you on all their decisions

@Benedictine said in #662: > There are no rules or guidelines as to what constitutes 'fair use' of the black/white feature. It's completely reasonable to imagine people selecting to play black or white didn't realise they were so called 'abusing' the system. There was an option there and they selected it same as they did when selecting time controls and rating ranges. There were also no rules to constitute 'fair' use of rating system. Yet, people have abused it to enter lower-rated tournaments and get first price. That's why these rules had to be set. I'm not saying that there were no legitimate users of this feature, it's a great one to have. But people who played 20k (or even 90k) games with white, and none with black have been abusing it grossly, even if there was no explicit rule stating this. > The play black/white feature IS disabled. It's ludicrous to suggest it isn't. The only way to use this is to spam random people to play black or white or pre-arrange games in advance. This is time consuming and impractical. Chess.com has this feature I will go there or just drill lines on Chessable. No, it is not. In fact, two of the big supporters of this update being reversed invited me to a game (unprompted) in the color of their choosing, which I accepted. It's perfectly well available for anyone who cares to use it under fair circumstances, as it was intended. > > The bottom line is I can't trust a company that pulls the plug on something without warning or consultation or indeed any response at all. I'm sure chess.com consults you on all their decisions
#665

@Munich said in #661:

that such a **** arguement. At the same time, you know very well that it is still allowed, just not possible in rated and casual.
Yes it is still allowed, under fair conditions! As it should be.

There is nothing wrong with playing with a certain color.

Partially correct. There is nothing wrong with playing a certain color. There is also nothing wrong with practising your opening with a certain color. What is wrong, is abusing this (excessively).

The problem is that the quickpairers didnt have a say. They were automatched and that lead to more likely getting served black more often instead of a 50/50 share of black's and white's just randomly served.

Yes, this problem existed because of the feature abusers.

But that is not the fault of the white seeker
It is the fault of the abusers

and the black seekers are not even contributing to the problem, but alleviating it a bit (but you can not chose any colour right now in casual and rated).

They are not alleviating the fact that it's being abused for an advantage by other players.

The matchmaking assumed random means "doesnt care which color".
So now we got downgraded

Completely wrong again. It's an upgrade for fair play. The feature remains available, but in an enhanced way: so an upgrade!

and colours can not be chosen.

Yes it can, the feature remains available under fair circumstances

But other fixes are possible, and one would be: do not automatch colour seekers with quickpairing searches. The colour seeker appears in the Lobby, and users need to explicitly click on that seek to start the game.

You have been saying this for days, but I have not seen your contribution on Github in service of this. When are you contributing this?

There is abuse,

Correct

and the colour preference is not the problem.

Partially correct, the people who abuse it are the problem

It is pairing against players who have not actively agreed to take more often black.

This would not be an issue if people used the color picking fairly: so the abusers are the issue.

Or you would need to argue that it is abuse if you seek a game with white when the time control is 15+10 or 5+3, but it is not abuse if the time control 10+15 or 5+2 (as these are no time controls offered in the quickpairings).

Very, incredibly wrong. It would be abuse if someone was seeking 5+0, and you forced them to play with 4 minutes because you prefer the practice of games where you have time odds, and they would not be told about your preference for this.

I doubt most users where aware of that.

That could actually be true. But if players are not aware that the other player is cheating, it does not mean that they are not being cheated

and I think quite a huge portion of all seeks are actually non-quickpairing time controls.

I am going to assume there will be no data or substance of any kind to support this statement

To call someone abuser who uses a feature is odd. actually it is demonizing a minority.

lol

@Munich said in #661: > that such a **** arguement. At the same time, you know very well that it is still allowed, just not possible in rated and casual. Yes it is still allowed, under fair conditions! As it should be. > There is nothing wrong with playing with a certain color. Partially correct. There is nothing wrong with playing a certain color. There is also nothing wrong with practising your opening with a certain color. What is wrong, is abusing this (excessively). > The problem is that the quickpairers didnt have a say. They were automatched and that lead to more likely getting served black more often instead of a 50/50 share of black's and white's just randomly served. Yes, this problem existed because of the feature abusers. > But that is not the fault of the white seeker It is the fault of the abusers > and the black seekers are not even contributing to the problem, but alleviating it a bit (but you can not chose any colour right now in casual and rated). They are not alleviating the fact that it's being abused for an advantage by other players. > > The matchmaking assumed random means "doesnt care which color". > So now we got downgraded Completely wrong again. It's an upgrade for fair play. The feature remains available, but in an enhanced way: so an upgrade! > and colours can not be chosen. Yes it can, the feature remains available under fair circumstances > But other fixes are possible, and one would be: do not automatch colour seekers with quickpairing searches. The colour seeker appears in the Lobby, and users need to explicitly click on that seek to start the game. You have been saying this for days, but I have not seen your contribution on Github in service of this. When are you contributing this? > > There is abuse, Correct > and the colour preference is not the problem. Partially correct, the people who abuse it are the problem > It is pairing against players who have not actively agreed to take more often black. This would not be an issue if people used the color picking fairly: so the abusers are the issue. > Or you would need to argue that it is abuse if you seek a game with white when the time control is 15+10 or 5+3, but it is not abuse if the time control 10+15 or 5+2 (as these are no time controls offered in the quickpairings). Very, incredibly wrong. It would be abuse if someone was seeking 5+0, and you forced them to play with 4 minutes because you prefer the practice of games where you have time odds, and they would not be told about your preference for this. > I doubt most users where aware of that. That could actually be true. But if players are not aware that the other player is cheating, it does not mean that they are not being cheated > and I think quite a huge portion of all seeks are actually non-quickpairing time controls. I am going to assume there will be no data or substance of any kind to support this statement > > To call someone abuser who uses a feature is odd. actually it is demonizing a minority. lol
#666

@AndrewWilis said in #663:

Well said. But ............. I doubt Lichess will ever listen to their members. They just do as they please

They pay for you to have a free chess site. You are free to contribute any solution that you see fit since they also give you the entire codebase for free. They don't limit your analysis amounts (which cost money), or your ability to play puzzles, study, play bots, or anything else.

Them not consulting all the members on what they consider reasonable measures against abuse, and for fair-play is hardly something they could be blamed for

@AndrewWilis said in #663: > Well said. But ............. I doubt Lichess will ever listen to their members. They just do as they please They pay for you to have a free chess site. You are free to contribute any solution that you see fit since they also give you the entire codebase for free. They don't limit your analysis amounts (which cost money), or your ability to play puzzles, study, play bots, or anything else. Them not consulting all the members on what they consider reasonable measures against abuse, and for fair-play is hardly something they could be blamed for
#667

@BeDecentForAChange said in #664:

There were also no rules to constitute 'fair' use of rating system. Yet, people have abused it to enter lower-rated tournaments and get first price. That's why these rules had to be set.
I'm not saying that there were no legitimate users of this feature, it's a great one to have. But people who played 20k (or even 90k) games with white, and none with black have been abusing it grossly, even if there was no explicit rule stating this.

No, it is not. In fact, two of the big supporters of this update being reversed invited me to a game (unprompted) in the color of their choosing, which I accepted. It's perfectly well available for anyone who cares to use it under fair circumstances, as it was intended.

I'm sure chess.com consults you on all their decisions

I've been a member of Lichess for around 9 years and chess.com for 13 years (paid and free) and this is the first complaint I've had between them. So, yes, you are correct I don't know how chess.com would react to feedback. I do know how Lichess have handled this though (total silence, no consultation, zero response) so I must say I'm not impressed.

I see you've only been a member for 6 weeks or so. That's fine, you are completely entitled to your voice as is anyone, just it seems odd that you've built up such fierce loyalty for the platform. I don't know. Anyway, I'm not going to start randomly spamming people for games thank you all the same. I will just make greater use of Chessable.

Have a good weekend.

@BeDecentForAChange said in #664: > There were also no rules to constitute 'fair' use of rating system. Yet, people have abused it to enter lower-rated tournaments and get first price. That's why these rules had to be set. > I'm not saying that there were no legitimate users of this feature, it's a great one to have. But people who played 20k (or even 90k) games with white, and none with black have been abusing it grossly, even if there was no explicit rule stating this. > > > > No, it is not. In fact, two of the big supporters of this update being reversed invited me to a game (unprompted) in the color of their choosing, which I accepted. It's perfectly well available for anyone who cares to use it under fair circumstances, as it was intended. > > > > I'm sure chess.com consults you on all their decisions I've been a member of Lichess for around 9 years and chess.com for 13 years (paid and free) and this is the first complaint I've had between them. So, yes, you are correct I don't know how chess.com would react to feedback. I do know how Lichess have handled this though (total silence, no consultation, zero response) so I must say I'm not impressed. I see you've only been a member for 6 weeks or so. That's fine, you are completely entitled to your voice as is anyone, just it seems odd that you've built up such fierce loyalty for the platform. I don't know. Anyway, I'm not going to start randomly spamming people for games thank you all the same. I will just make greater use of Chessable. Have a good weekend.
#668

@Benedictine said in #667:

I've been a member of Lichess for around 9 years and chess.com for 13 years (paid and free) and this is the first complaint I've had between them. So, yes, you are correct I don't know how chess.com would react to feedback. I do know how Lichess have handled this though (total silence, no consultation, zero response) so I must say I'm not impressed.

I can see how you'd like them to be more responsive on issues that cause this type of response, though it could just adding fuel to the fire.

I see you've only been a member for 6 weeks or so. That's fine, you are completely entitled to your voice as is anyone, just it seems odd that you've built up such fierce loyalty for the platform.

I am a big supporter of open source project (and a contributor myself), and embrace the philosophy behind it. I wouldn't say I'm fiercely loyal to the platform, but very strongly in favor of this change.
I actually switched from chess.com to here because of the unlimited trainingresources that they offer without asking you for a 300$/year payment. For that alone, they deserve recognition.

I don't know. Anyway, I'm not going to start randomly spamming people for games thank you all the same. I will just make greater use of Chessable.

I get that, I might not feel like doing that myself. Of course, this update has not affected my gameplay at all (other than fewer games due to heavy engagement on the forum).

Have a good weekend.

Have a great one!

@Benedictine said in #667: > I've been a member of Lichess for around 9 years and chess.com for 13 years (paid and free) and this is the first complaint I've had between them. So, yes, you are correct I don't know how chess.com would react to feedback. I do know how Lichess have handled this though (total silence, no consultation, zero response) so I must say I'm not impressed. I can see how you'd like them to be more responsive on issues that cause this type of response, though it could just adding fuel to the fire. > > I see you've only been a member for 6 weeks or so. That's fine, you are completely entitled to your voice as is anyone, just it seems odd that you've built up such fierce loyalty for the platform. I am a big supporter of open source project (and a contributor myself), and embrace the philosophy behind it. I wouldn't say I'm fiercely loyal to the platform, but very strongly in favor of this change. I actually switched from chess.com to here because of the unlimited trainingresources that they offer without asking you for a 300$/year payment. For that alone, they deserve recognition. > I don't know. Anyway, I'm not going to start randomly spamming people for games thank you all the same. I will just make greater use of Chessable. I get that, I might not feel like doing that myself. Of course, this update has not affected my gameplay at all (other than fewer games due to heavy engagement on the forum). > Have a good weekend. Have a great one!
#669

Before this thread loses attention, here is a reminder:

For me, the change obviously means a complete change of life. I hardly play chess anymore. Maybe that's a good thing.

Before this thread loses attention, here is a reminder: For me, the change obviously means a complete change of life. I hardly play chess anymore. Maybe that's a good thing.
#670

I think white/black feature is coming back.
One funny solution that I have not mentioned so far could be: dont change the white/black feature, but get rid of the quickpairings. They are the cause of the problem. No quickpairings --> no "abuse" possible. (Though I refuse to describe a white/black player an abuser when he used a function given.)

I think white/black feature is coming back. One funny solution that I have not mentioned so far could be: dont change the white/black feature, but get rid of the quickpairings. They are the cause of the problem. No quickpairings --> no "abuse" possible. (Though I refuse to describe a white/black player an abuser when he used a function given.)

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.