Can't create game with specific side any more

@openingsmatter621616 said in #710:

I somewhat do understand code in general, I just do not know the specifics of HTML or java/javascript

You are in luck, most of it is written in Scala.

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.

It's also better to play both sides in stead of just one.

ctrl+c
ctrl+v
change the specifics, most of the work is here.

Okay, please show me where to find 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?

1. Was a false assumption
2. Explained
3. Invalid in someone has raised the issue before
4. Explained

happy to listen.

You show me yours, I'll show you mine

@BeDecentForAChange said in #711:

You are in luck, most of it is written in Scala.
fortunately, I do not know Scala either, so I cant waste my time on this.

It's also better to play both sides in stead of just one.
EDIT- originally I did not understand, now I do.
the problem with playing both sides at all times is unless I change my entire repertoire, with both colors, I will only get the color I want to train 50% of the time, as opposed to 100% when color picking was available

Okay, please show me where to find it.
I told you, look at the implementation of provisional players not being able to change rating ranges.

1. Was a false assumption
   prove it using code
2. Explained
   your explanation ended at "someone has to code it" well the same was true for removing the ability altogether

3. Invalid in someone has raised the issue before
   show the post where it was raised.
4. Explained
   same as 2.

You show me your, I'll show you mine
I have said that I do not have the experience nor time to look through the code. I have pointed you where to look, so if you want you could try to find it ( prov players not being able to fix rating ranges )

although it seems you understand our side of the argument, you also seem to think this was by far the simplest and best way to get rid of abusers, even though it inconveniences a lot of people.

@openingsmatter621616 said in #712:

fortunately, I do not know Scala either, so I cant waste my time on this.

I dont even know what you want to say here.

The same as you, just making a true statement I guess

I told you, look at the implementation of provisional players not being able to change rating ranges.

Yes, not even remotely the same implementation

prove it using code

Burden is on you making the claim that it isn't

your explanation ended at "someone has to code it" well the same was true for removing the ability altogether

It means that the person, or people, that are demanding the change, should take ownership of its coding. Just because someone worked on something in their free time, shouldn't mean they need to work on other people's requested changes

show the post where it was raised.

Will do

same as 2.

I have said that I do not have the experience nor time to look through the code. I have pointed you where to look, so if you want you could try to find it ( prov players not being able to fix rating ranges )

So your claims are completely unfounded then? Just coming in making claims on technical subjects and then going "yea will I don't understand the code, but you go ahead and check if I'm right", doesn't really work now, does it.

although it seems you understand our side of the argument, you also seem to think this was by far the simplest and best way to get rid of abusers, even though it inconveniences a lot of people.

Of course, I think there are ways of having a legitimate use of this feature beyond invites and bots. However, you rely on people handling the coding and upkeep for free, in their own time. So, the implementation needs to be very clean, and easy to maintain in all future versions of the site.
I'm saying that with limited resources, this is a challenge to say the least. It's easy to say this is not a lot of work, if you're not the one that has to do it. Keeping the option available in a far way, would mean considerations on the UI, matching logic, stats tracking, and some other uncool nerdy stuff which is relevant to how we experience the site

@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

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.

Your arguments are like bringing a snorkel to a skydiving lesson— an entertaining sight for sure, but missing the point by quite a bit

@openingsmatter621616 said in #712:

fortunately, I do not know Scala either, so I cant waste my time on this.
EDIT- originally I did not understand, now I do.
the problem with playing both sides at all times is unless I change my entire repertoire, with both colors, I will only get the color I want to train 50% of the time, as opposed to 100% when color picking was available
I told you, look at the implementation of provisional players not being able to change rating ranges.
prove it using code
your explanation ended at "someone has to code it" well the same was true for removing the ability altogether

show the post where it was raised.
same as 2.
I have said that I do not have the experience nor time to look through the code. I have pointed you where to look, so if you want you could try to find it ( prov players not being able to fix rating ranges )

although it seems you understand our side of the argument, you also seem to think this was by far the simplest and best way to get rid of abusers, even though it inconveniences a lot of people.

Sooo:

You have determined that making another update is very little work
But you're not able to actually show why
Also you don't know how to read the code, or even where to look to find it
You also don't have time to have a look at it

However, you want others to:

Go ahead and develop a feature for you, for free
Go into the code, find the very snippets that you are making an argument about, but have not actually located yet nor know how to read
Then explain these very snippets to you, even though you have no time to read them yourself.

Sounds good

@Jseijp said in #715:

sounds good indeed.
sorry, I'll stop commenting on the code too much, until I have ways to improve it.

nonetheless, lichess should at least respond to this issue, resolve later.

@openingsmatter621616 said in #716:

sounds good indeed.
sorry, I'll stop commenting on the code too much, until I have ways to improve it.

nonetheless, lichess should at least respond to this issue, resolve later.

An official response would've been nice, surely. The fact remains that we're playing on a site, built by someone for free, updated by someone for free, maintained by someone for free and hosted by someone for free.

I would not be quick to be outspoken about these people not having the right to do X or have to do Y. We're literally leeches of their resources.

well, if maintanace cost are an issue, simplest solution would to get rid of quick pairings - resulting in less code.
And it's true: this quickpairing page is the reason why the colour feature is now disabled.

I do not see much benefit in quickpairing page. It is not too much to ask to create a challenge seek in the lobby. Once you created a challenge, the settings remain, it can be done quite quickly, too, no need for a quickpairing page, if that means the white/black seek option is disabled now for ranked and casual players.

@Munich said in #718:

well, if maintanace cost are an issue, simplest solution would to get rid of quick pairings - resulting in less code.
And it's true: this quickpairing page is the reason why the colour feature is now disabled.

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?

I do not see much benefit in quickpairing page. It is not too much to ask to create a challenge seek in the lobby. Once you created a challenge, the settings remain, it can be done quite quickly, too, no need for a quickpairing page, if that means the white/black seek option is disabled now for ranked and casual players.

It is to quickly match players that are in scope to be matched together. Not being actively paired, but having to wait for someone to choose you in a lobby of, then thousands of challenges.... not a great plan

hm, if the number of entries would become too many in the lobby (would that be the case? Are standard time controls a huge majority of all seeks?) - the there could be a diagram, with y-axis being the rating, anc s-axis being the time in minutes, and if you hover over a dot with the mouse you could then see if it is 10min + 0sec minutes or in fact 0 min +15sec (both equate to 600 seconds).

The other solution is to not automatch colour seekers with quickpairers (unless in the settings there is a toggle button where the user can consent to accept colour seeking matches, too).

And another solution would be to limit the amount of white seekers by queueing them, indicating the position in the queue.

No matter what solution there is: it would increase the lines of code. This is offset by the cost of patrons leaving lichess and go elsewhere. The feature to be able to play black/white in either rated or casual games is an important one to many players, and reason enough for quite a few to go to a different chess site that offers this option.

The length of this thread (even when subtacting your share of postings) clearly shows that the removal of this feature is really missed.