Chapter limit in studies • page 2/3 • Lichess Feedback • lichess.org

@Isn't it possible to open three or four different studies and then show all the games. I think I'm not the only one who would be excited about that. @Toadofsky

Toadofsky

#12

I'll ask around since I don't know.

FM thijscom

edited

#13

@Toadofsky It's not about one extra study for the 65th game - I have a database of 500+ classical OTB games I have played in my lifetime. And yeah, having to split those up into 9 studies (and having to search through 9 studies each time I want to find a game) just because lichess insists on this arbitrary limit of 64 games is annoying. (Not to mention previous reasons raised, such as the database I wanted to make of nice chess puzzles, and which I not had to split up in several studies for no reason.)

In any case: I can live with the explanation that it's too complicated to fix for now, but saying there's no point in allowing more games in one study is just plain stubbornness on your side... Several people have raised this issue before, so even if you don't see the value yourself, not doing it means you value your own opinion more than ours.

@Toadofsky It's not about one extra study for the 65th game - I have a database of 500+ classical OTB games I have played in my lifetime. And yeah, having to split those up into 9 studies (and having to search through 9 studies each time I want to find a game) just because lichess insists on this arbitrary limit of 64 games is annoying. (Not to mention previous reasons raised, such as the database I wanted to make of nice chess puzzles, and which I not had to split up in several studies for no reason.) In any case: I can live with the explanation that it's too complicated to fix for now, but saying there's no point in allowing more games in one study is just plain stubbornness on your side... Several people have raised this issue before, so even if you don't see the value yourself, not doing it means you value your own opinion more than ours.

Toadofsky

#14

@thijscom Thanks for the explanation; I hadn't considered the case of importing a large database which is supposed to be kept together instead of split across multiple studies.

My personal opinion (since you asked) is: the more features the better. But the staff responsible for code maintenance/upgrade and for server maintenance/upgrade are a bit more cautious.

@thijscom Thanks for the explanation; I hadn't considered the case of importing a large database which is supposed to be kept together instead of split across multiple studies. My personal opinion (since you asked) is: the more features the better. But the staff responsible for code maintenance/upgrade and for server maintenance/upgrade are a bit more cautious.

IsaVulpes

#15

How often do you play more than 64 games a year?
I just have a new study for each year, which btw doesn't make it harder, but significantly easier to find things.

Would of course be nicer to just have a big study, but currently we can't bulkadd games anyway (as far as I'm aware) so adding 500 games would be a mammoth task, and yeah as mentioned the current way of accessing chapters ("scroll to the correct one") is already annoying with my 50 game study of 2017; if you had this for 500, nothing would be findable anymore

I guess a valid point would be to up the chapter limit to 128 for now, to minimize the amount of people unable to split their games on a "per year" basis? More than 64 games a year I can see, but more than 128 should be kinda rare

How often do you play more than 64 games a year? I just have a new study for each year, which btw doesn't make it harder, but significantly easier to find things. Would of course be nicer to just have a big study, but currently we can't bulkadd games anyway (as far as I'm aware) so adding 500 games would be a mammoth task, and yeah as mentioned the current way of accessing chapters ("scroll to the correct one") is already annoying with my 50 game study of 2017; if you had this for 500, nothing would be findable anymore I guess a valid point would be to up the chapter limit to 128 for now, to minimize the amount of people unable to split their games on a "per year" basis? More than 64 games a year I can see, but more than 128 should be kinda rare

thibault

#16

Hi,

First of all you can bulk import games in a study. Just paste multiple games in the PGN field.

Having unlimited number of chapters per study requires adding an extra layer of categorization of chapters. Failing that it would be unmanageable. That extra layer already exists: it's the study.

Unlimited chapters also requires search capabilities and streaming of the list of chapters, problems that just don't exist with a limit of 64 chapters.

Hi, First of all you can bulk import games in a study. Just paste multiple games in the PGN field. Having unlimited number of chapters per study requires adding an extra layer of categorization of chapters. Failing that it would be unmanageable. That extra layer already exists: it's the study. Unlimited chapters also requires search capabilities and streaming of the list of chapters, problems that just don't exist with a limit of 64 chapters.

gbtami

#17

@IsaVulpes you can add 20 (hmm, why not 64?) games as .pgn when you start a new study.

I think this problem is twofold. On one hand sometimes 64 seems low for study collections. On the other hand people started/want to use this lichess feature as some kind of database. But it's definitely NOT designed for this purpose.

@IsaVulpes you can add 20 (hmm, why not 64?) games as .pgn when you start a new study. I think this problem is twofold. On one hand sometimes 64 seems low for study collections. On the other hand people started/want to use this lichess feature as some kind of database. But it's definitely NOT designed for this purpose.

FM thijscom

#18

@thibault I understand that making such a large number of chapters work efficiently (even 64 is already much now with the current interface) would require revamping the UI. The problem now is that studies are separate, so there is no categorization beyond the chapters in each study.

Would an alternative, provisional solution perhaps be to make studies "linkable" in a different way than having to post links to other studies in the comments? For instance have a tab on the left side with "linked studies", if any? Then indeed having separate studies say for each year of games would already make for a much cleaner overview.

@thibault I understand that making such a large number of chapters work efficiently (even 64 is already much now with the current interface) would require revamping the UI. The problem now is that studies are separate, so there is no categorization beyond the chapters in each study. Would an alternative, provisional solution perhaps be to make studies "linkable" in a different way than having to post links to other studies in the comments? For instance have a tab on the left side with "linked studies", if any? Then indeed having separate studies say for each year of games would already make for a much cleaner overview.

FM thijscom

#19

@Toadofsky I understand, I cannot imagine how hard it must already be to work with such a big codebase. So what @IsaVulpes suggested of having some sort of further categorization of chess studies might be a simpler solution, but then at least it would be nice if we could link these connected studies somehow.

thibault

#20

Study tags could do that, yes. Although similar functionality naturally emerges from the study search engine. For instance:

https://lichess.org/study/search?q=owner%3Alance5500+GM

Study tags could do that, yes. Although similar functionality naturally emerges from the study search engine. For instance: https://lichess.org/study/search?q=owner%3Alance5500+GM