@teddyd said in #700:
> 2 days without lichess.
>
> It still hurts a little. But I can manage.
Feel free to invite me to a game whenever I'm online
Ridiculous change, and even more Ridiculous that lichess hasnt even responded with anything more than the "abusers" excuse. First of all adressing the main points given by people ( person ) who want(s) to keep the change.
1. any fixed colour challenges were accepted only of your own free will, they were ( to my knowledge ) separate from lobby challenges.
2. if they weren't separate from lobby challenges, why not just separate them? Seems like a much simpler solution.
3. Anyone who says " just use bots/ sparring partners " has never played a bot or went through the pain of trying to schedule a game while having a busy schedule.
4. Even listening to the abusers excuse, there is absolutely no valid reason to remove it from casual games too.
Now main points to revert/modify the change
1. Openings are now impossible to train without a training partner. Even common Openings like Sicilian, kings pawn game, etc appear around in 1 in 3 games when you have the right colour so it was already difficult but doable, and now I would have to play double the games to get one game where I can train/test. Now imagine the pain when you want to train against the scandi or something.
2. There are a quadrillion different better ways to deal with abuse. Removing colour picking is like removing rating to deal with sandbaggers.
3. No one asked for this change? Before this I have not seen a single post that complained about abusers.
4. The "abusers" did nothing wrong. No one was forced to play, it wasnt an unfair advantage. ( No, white does not have an advantage below like 2300 FIDE, and if you are 2300 FIDE and like this change, then maybe I will hop on my flying pig to have a word with you. )
@openingsmatter621616 said in #702:
> Ridiculous change, and even more Ridiculous that lichess hasnt even responded with anything more than the "abusers" excuse. First of all adressing the main points given by people ( person ) who want(s) to keep the change.
It's not an excuse, they provided a legitimate reason for the change to be needed.
> 1. any fixed colour challenges were accepted only of your own free will, they were ( to my knowledge ) separate from lobby challenges.
Wrong, they were auto-matched
> 2. if they weren't separate from lobby challenges, why not just separate them? Seems like a much simpler solution.
There's a lot not-so-simple coding work to it, and a lot of work as upkeep for future versions,
> 3. Anyone who says " just use bots/ sparring partners " has never played a bot or went through the pain of trying to schedule a game while having a busy schedule.
You don't have to, you can simply use the lobby to get a game!
> 4. Even listening to the abusers excuse, there is absolutely no valid reason to remove it from casual games too.
Not an excuse, but a valid reason. The reason I can think of not to keep this for casual games, is the cost. Someone has to figure out how to do this, write it, and on all changes to the site this needs to be considered.
> Now main points to revert/modify the change
> 1. Openings are now impossible to train without a training partner. Even common Openings like Sicilian, kings pawn game, etc appear around in 1 in 3 games when you have the right colour so it was already difficult but doable, and now I would have to play double the games to get one game where I can train/test. Now imagine the pain when you want to train against the scandi or something.
It's still possible against bots. But other than that, yet this has become more difficult. I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that fair people have been caused to 'suffer' as a result of this change.
>
> 2. There are a quadrillion different better ways to deal with abuse. Removing colour picking is like removing rating to deal with sandbaggers.
Not quite, especially not since the color picking remains available under fair conditions. The goal is to limit abuse of a feature to the best of their ability. For sandbagging, it's to prohibit abuse of rating by issuing bans for excessive deliberate loss. For color picking, it's to prohibit it under conditions where both parties don't agree to these conditions.
> 3. No one asked for this change? Before this I have not seen a single post that complained about abusers.
If there were to be archived posts for this, would you then agree that the update it good?
> 4. The "abusers" did nothing wrong. No one was forced to play, it wasnt an unfair advantage. ( No, white does not have an advantage below like 2300 FIDE, and if you are 2300 FIDE and like this change, then maybe I will hop on my flying pig to have a word with you. )
Not true, they were automatched to play these people under unfair conditions. The advantage is a given, just because the other party is less likely to be able to convert it, doesn't mean it's not there or unfair.
I am certain that having an extra knight <950 ELO won't make a difference. Yet, it would be unfair to force others to play a game with you where you pre-set the game conditions to give you an extra knight in all of your games.
Next on lichess: the first move 1.Nf3 is now prohibited as it gives white statistically better winning stats than 1.e4 or 1.d4
Too many players abused the move 1.Nf3
Jokes aside, the advantage you have with playing white was never the issue why color seek was removed from rated games AND casual games. Some people here want you make believe that, but the real issue was: if you go to seek a game of quickpairings, you got matched with a white color seeker if the time controls matched. Meaning, the quickpairing user had no say if he accepts being black.
Lichess seem to have decided to disable the colour seeking feature, but they could have just as well have removed the quickpairing page and instead everyone has to create a challenge in the lobby.
But it would actually be a nice solution if you simply do not match quickpairing users with colour seeking users, unless in the setting the user choses via toggle button that he truly does not care what color he gets, meaning he gets likely more often black and not a 50/50 share.
And if beDencentForAChange keeps saying that users who used the colour seeking feature were abusers, you may want to report him for that insult. I used to seek occasionally white/black rated games, as I wanted to train my white/black repertoire.
I refuse to be referred to as abuser, and its insulting, even if he does not explicitly name me, he demonizes / stigmatize colour seekers as a group. And that is not ok, hatred like this should not have a platform on lichess.
@Munich said in #704:
> Next on lichess: the first move 1.Nf3 is not prohibited as it gives white statistically better winning stats than 1.e4 or 1.d4
> Too many players abused the move 1.Nf3
Wrong analogy. Lichess prohibits you from forcing you opponent to play 1...e6 on your 1. e4, just because you are more comfortable with the french.
> Jokes aside, the advantage you have with playing white was never the issue why color seek was removed from rated games AND casual games.
Correct, the issue was because of the abuse.
> Some people here want you make believe that, but the real issue was: if you go to seek a game of quickpairings, you got matched with a white color seeker if the time controls matched. Meaning, the quickpairing user had no say if he accepts being black.
> Lichess seem to have decided to disable the colour seeking feature, but they could have just as well have removed the quickpairing page and instead everyone has to create a challenge in the lobby.
> But it would actually be a nice solution if you simply do not match quickpairing users with colour seeking users, unless in the setting the user choses via toggle button that he truly does not care what color he gets, meaning he gets likely more often black and not a 50/50 share.
So you mean that created games have to be accepted in order to be started, in stead of being matched. Do you have any idea what a lobby like that would look like when 50k players are online?
> And if beDencentForAChange keeps saying that users who used the colour seeking feature were abusers
No, I say that those who abused it, are abusers
> you may want to report him for that insult. I used to seek occasionally white/black rated games, as I wanted to train my white/black repertoire.
People who use it occasionally are not the issue. You may also report Thibault for calling it abuse. Get him banned, that'll teach him
> I refuse to be referred to as abuser
You haven't been referred to that, as you haven't abused the feature.
> and its insulting, even if he does not explicitly name me
It's insulting to me that you find it insulting
> he demonizes / stigmatize colour seekers as a group. And that is not ok, hatred like this should not have a platform on lichess.
You demonize me by naming me explicitly. You single me out as an individual and publicly call on others to demonize me with you. And you stigmatize voicing ones opinion. This is an act of hate, and should be removed from the internet entirely
@BeDecentForAChange said in #703:
> There's a lot not-so-simple coding work to it, and a lot of work as upkeep for future versions,
If challenge_is_fixed_colour == True:
Match_with_quick_pairing = False.
Heavily simplified but it cant be too hard.
>
> You don't have to, you can simply use the lobby to get a game!
>
Which is again, random colours now? Might as well use quick pairing.
>
>
> Not an excuse, but a valid reason. The reason I can think of not to keep this for casual games, is the cost. Someone has to figure out how to do this, write it, and on all changes to the site this needs to be considered.
>
If challenge_rated == True:
Color_pick = False
Again, simplified, but cant be too difficult.
>
> It's still possible against bots. But other than that, yet this has become more difficult. I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that fair people have been caused to 'suffer' as a result of this change.
>
>
Bots dont play humanly, plus most bots here are like 1200 or 3200.
>
> Not quite, especially not since the color picking remains available under fair conditions. The goal is to limit abuse of a feature to the best of their ability. For sandbagging, it's to prohibit abuse of rating by issuing bans for excessive deliberate loss. For color picking, it's to prohibit it under conditions where both parties don't agree to these conditions.
>
>
either they were separate already or it takes like 3 lines of code to separate them.
>
> If there were to be archived posts for this, would you then agree that the update it good?
>
No? I dont see the connection here? I have been on lichess for nearly 4 years now ( on my old acc ) and haven't seen a single post about it, so I would be impressed if you found an archived post.
>
> Not true, they were automatched to play these people under unfair conditions. The advantage is a given, just because the other party is less likely to be able to convert it, doesn't mean it's not there or unfair.
> I am certain that having an extra knight <950 ELO won't make a difference. Yet, it would be unfair to force others to play a game with you where you pre-set the game conditions to give you an extra knight in all of your games.
Why are you so fixated on the fact that they were auto matched with quick pairing users? there is no evidence for this unless you can show me the code which does so, since you are so concerned for the programming issues.
@openingsmatter621616 said in #706:
> If challenge_is_fixed_colour == True:
> Match_with_quick_pairing = False.
> Heavily simplified but it cant be too hard.
I would be in favor of this being implemented, and welcome anyone to push it and publish their pull request.
> Which is again, random colours now? Might as well use quick pairing.
Yes
> If challenge_rated == True:
> Color_pick = False
> Again, simplified, but cant be too difficult.
Again, I'm looking forward to anyone actually making the effort to push this
> Bots dont play humanly, plus most bots here are like 1200 or 3200.
There are 100+ bots, I'm sure there are bots in between
> either they were separate already or it takes like 3 lines of code to separate them.
If you point me to the code, and which lines, I will make the PR myself today.
> No? I dont see the connection here? I have been on lichess for nearly 4 years now ( on my old acc ) and haven't seen a single post about it, so I would be impressed if you found an archived post.
Okay, and if I find it, would you then concede that it was a change for the better?
> Why are you so fixated on the fact that they were auto matched with quick pairing users? there is no evidence for this unless you can show me the code which does so, since you are so concerned for the programming issues.
Because this was the case, which made it inherently unfair. Yes there is evidence, the code is actually open source!
> either they were separate already or it takes like 3 lines of code to separate them.
You show me the code snippets to support this claim, and I'll show you, and explain, the matchmaking code
@BeDecentForAChange said in #707:
> I would be in favor of this being implemented, and welcome anyone to push it and publish their pull request.
> Again, I'm looking forward to anyone actually making the effort to push this
a similar thing is implemented already, provisional players cant change the rating ranges. the variables for provisional players and rated games are similar ( either you are provisional, or not, similarly either its a rated game, or not. )
I will not attempt to look through the code to try and find exact implementation, because I have little experience in web development ( HTML, java, etc. ) but again, it cant be that difficult to implement similar things to ones already implemented.
>
> There are 100+ bots, I'm sure there are bots in between
not addressing my point of non-human like play.
>
> If you point me to the code, and which lines, I will make the PR myself today.
>
3 lines was an exaggeration ( a bit extreme ) I know its going to be some work, but not an absurd amount
>
> Okay, and if I find it, would you then concede that it was a change for the better?
>
that does not relate to the point whatsoever.
>
> Because this was the case, which made it inherently unfair. Yes there is evidence, the code is actually open source!
> I'll show you, and explain, the matchmaking code
please do.
@openingsmatter621616 said in #708:
> a similar thing is implemented already, provisional players cant change the rating ranges. the variables for provisional players and rated games are similar ( either you are provisional, or not, similarly either its a rated game, or not. )
> I will not attempt to look through the code to try and find exact implementation, because I have little experience in web development ( HTML, java, etc. ) but again, it cant be that difficult,
If you don't understand the code, how can you possibly suggest that a fix is or is not a certain amount of work
> not addressing my point of non-human like play.
So the rating one is solved. I would need to know what you consider human-like play, how you determined that they don't show human-like play, and if we could then test which bots actually have (the closest to) human-like play.
> 3 lines was an exaggeration ( a bit extreme ) I know its going to be some work, but not an absurd amount
Then how much work would it be?
> that does not relate to the point whatsoever.
Yes it does. You raised this
> >3. No one asked for this change? Before this I have not seen a single post that complained about abusers.
If this point is valid as an objection against the change. Then its disproving would be a valid point for it?
> please do.
Happy to
@BeDecentForAChange said in #709:
> If you don't understand the code, how can you possibly suggest that a fix is or is not a certain amount of work
I somewhat do understand code in general, I just do not know the specifics of HTML or java/javascript
>
> So the rating one is solved. I would need to know what you consider human-like play, how you determined that they don't show human-like play, and if we could then test which bots actually have (the closest to) human-like play.
>
stronger bots tend to spot tactics a human might not spot. there are more disadvantages too, I wont dive deep into this. its just better to play humans than bots.
>
> Then how much work would it be?
>
ctrl+c
ctrl+v
change the specifics, most of the work is here.
>
> Yes it does. You raised this
> If this point is valid as an objection against the change. Then its disproving would be a valid point for it?
I just mentioned that no one had asked for this change to my knowledge. if someone did ask for the change, ok that 1 point is invalid, what about the others?
>
> Happy to
happy to listen.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.