Can't create game with specific side any more

@openingsmatter621616

Why you dont want your comment anymore? After these accounts are closed, the communication can get back to normal.
Also, I did not troll anyone, but I got accused a lot, while I tried to talk about the subject, others accused me over and over again. Read carefully. Otherwise "they" have won, "their" goal was exactly what you suggest, and also to picture me as a troll.

I still kept refering to the actual topic, like quoting you, while others (who are closed now) did not.

Also: mods closed other threads and refered to this one, so your suggestion means the last thread where you can voice concerns shall be closed. And you did not write about the topic now, too, while accusing me. Strictly speaking.

Lets get back to normal, and dont write I trolled, because I did not.
I quote you again, and hope to get back to normal, without anyone starting to say I trolled, please.

@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.

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. )

@Munich said in #775:

I am aware that a lot of players get now the same colour over and over again.
And the mods do not answer them why, but close their forums-thread (silence you) and redirect them to this thread.

Colour seekers should not be automatched with quickpairing seekers, because in this case the quickpairer is not asked if he agrees to take the black side.
Thus, Colour seeking challenges should only be displayed in the lobby, ensuring the opponent has actively given his consent to play the other side.
If this would swamp the lobby (would it?), then maybe allow colour seeking only for non bullet games, because bullet games are by far the most played variant.

@Munich said in #841:

@openingsmatter621616

Why you dont want your comment anymore? After these accounts are closed, the communication can get back to normal.
I had ended my part of the discussion long before the question of alt accounts even popped up, so I have no reason to come back once the "alt" accounts were closed.
Also, I did not troll anyone, but I got accused a lot, while I tried to talk about the subject, others accused me over and over again. Read carefully. Otherwise "they" have won, "their" goal was exactly what you suggest, and also to picture me as a troll.

You made irrelevant accusations based on little to no evidence ( similar openings and similar style of writing was your only evidence, not nearly enough to conclude they were the same people. )

I still kept refering to the actual topic, like quoting you, while others (who are closed now) did not.
Sometimes, but also you put in a lot of effort into making said irrelevant accusations.
Also: mods closed other threads and refered to this one, so your suggestion means the last thread where you can voice concerns shall be closed. And you did not write about the topic now, too, while accusing me. Strictly speaking.
I dont see the problem with not closing other threads or simply not referring to this. Strictly speaking, this thread is off topic enough to be basically useless anyway.

Lets get back to normal, and dont write I trolled, because I did not.
I quote you again, and hope to get back to normal, without anyone starting to say I trolled, please.
Maybe trolling isnt the proper term to be used here, as that implies it was intentional, which I will give you benefit of the doubt and assume it wasnt intentional. This thread has too many irrelevant posts, and it is buried in the forums, as there is no way to bump it to the top page, so not many people post here, as many dont even know it exists, making it a voice of only a few people, rathed than the general community. It is best to close this thread and start a new one, or better yet, create a issue on GitHub instead.

sorry, but you now do not contribute to the thread again. BeDecent did 1/3 of all posts.

Other threads get closed and reference in them leads you to this thread here.
Starting a new thread did not solve the problem.
I tried to discuss somewhere else, but got followed. So it could just as well be discussed here.

@Munich said in #817:

@mandariinikyy : the moderation is not "shitty", and be careful with such expressions, children read here, too. Besides it's quite an insult.
And dont distract.

-->back to the topic:
This thread is at the moment more alive, so for interested users, go maybe here (before it gets closed)?
lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/no-white-games-JMc9?page=5#42

But as you can see that thread ("no-white-games") got closed.

@Munich said in #820:

And now, here a real comment (see link below). Bring back the white/black option!

give it a thumbs up, and maybe find a way to email lichess admins to reconsider.

lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/cant-create-game-with-specific-side-any-more?page=71#702

(see also page 1 of this thread - I guess, meanwhile some bad influences really made a good job at turning the mood. If you ask me, it is unacceptable that some players need to work of a "Colour debt" and get mostly black for the next couple of months.)

And this reference is actually your post!

Let's continue here, leave the past behind, whoever trolled/accused/insulted whom, stop it please!

This is the topic of white/black feature gone, about ex-colour seekers defamed and stigmatized as abusers, the ill-will believe the feature was removed because of unfair advantage of white in rated games (that is not the reason, as otherwise the feature would still be there for casual games!), and the bug that forces players to work off "colour debt" accumulated over the last decade, resulting in some users getting 20++ times the black pieces in a row. Also, a bug seem to be around, too: even users with no colour debt received 20 times or more often the same colour. If this is not a bug, then it is unfair retaliation. A 50/50 randomizer approach should be in place, nothing is gained by working off colour debt other than players flee lichess in disgust or respawn with a new account.

In the Lichess app on my Iphone its is still possible to choose the color.
Why is that different from the web version ?
If it would be such a big issue, then the app should be altered, or is it something Lichess cares different about?

I am not playing on the phone, however, can you create a challenge seek or only send invites? Because invites you can also still do at PC-Lichess.

The actual issue with the colour-seeking feature seemes to be: if you go quickpairings and the white-colour seeker had a matching time control (such as "1+0" for instance), then they got autopaired. Meaning, the player who went over "quickpairing" did not actively agree with getting black, resulting apparently to quickpairers getting more often black than a 50/50 random approach would suggest.

The solution would be: do not automatch white seeks with quickpairing seeks. The white seek shall be displayed in the lobby and he only gets a game if someone actively clicks on him (thus actively agrees to play black. Or if the quickpairer has actively set in his settings that he truly does not care which color he gets (toogle button, choosing between: "truly random color" or "50/50 random color" approach).
This would mean colour seeker might need to wait a few seconds longer.

There was the concern that if that was done this way, the lobby would get swamped, but this argument came from a user whose account is meanwhile closed, and I wonder if quickpairings paired with colour seeks really had that much of an impact.

To limit the number of seeks in the lobby to maximum 20 colour seeks, a queue could be implemented where you can see which position you are in the queue before your challenge gets displayed in the lobby. If waiting takes too long, this would discourage some players, and thus the queue would get shorter when players leave the queue.
Or: disable colour seeking for the Bullet-variant, as Bullet games are the lion share of all games.
But it remains to be seen if that was truly needed.

It is a bit work to get the feature white/black back again, but I am sure there was a better solution possible than the current one: disabling the whole feature for all casual and ranked games. Also to work off the "colour debt" is a troll-approach or it is simply a bug.

@AndrewWilis said in #846:

In the Lichess app on my Iphone its is still possible to choose the color.
Why is that different from the web version ?
If it would be such a big issue, then the app should be altered, or is it something Lichess cares different about?

You can read here about the app: https://github.com/lichess-org/lila/pull/15969

I have played 41792 games since 2015 . somebody wrote that I have played some 4000+ plus games with white . Yes it may be true as initially i was playing with white only and now with random choice for last so many years ? The problem of black pieces coming to me appeared suddenly few days back and I also reported here but to my surprise that lasted till a day before yesterday and now everything seems normal. I am getting both the colors now randomly rather more whites ? no complaints and much better for all chess players to become experts in both colors. Thanks

But this color debt is unfair to start with.

1. nobody informed you that you will have a color debt afterwards. It is unfair to impose you a debt in hindsight.
2. One chess games always has one white and one black. If you get more blacks, then the pool of other players get more whites on average. "if the left leg is shorter, then most of the time the right leg is longer..."
3. people leave lichess. You did not, but others are sick of having received 20 times black in a row, and leave lichess in disgust.
4. or they do not continue their old account but respawn with a new account.

ah, and 4) is very bad. you get unstable ratings, the rating pool gets influx of underrated/overrated players, there will be inflation/deflation in ratings as such "new" players take away rating points or carry too many points into the player pool. It destabilizes the rating pool.
Also, while you create a new account, why not create a few more? yes, you didnt have the idea to do so, but you get the idea now.
And trolling? well, if you lose an account many years old, you are more careful. but new accounts? "Ah, I can create a new one anyway, doesnt matter about this one, its just a few days old anyway."

Furthermore, I do not like to hear about ex-color seekers are now titled "abuser". There was the option to chose a color, it was used, no abuse. But suddenly they are? Sorry, that is just audicious! An absolute no-go!

Unfortunately it seem thibault himself is on a retaliation mission, he introduced the colour debt, and he wants to make sure you play both sides of the game. Where is the "li" of li-chess? it stood for liberty.

As long as people agree to play you as white or black, I see nothing unethical about color seekers.