@My_real_name said in #8:
> why did you feel the urge to change something that was perfect... now it is messy, full of bugs and most of all confusing please do something i'm loosing it over here
@TotalNoob69 said in #58:
> @ChrisVinall wasn't it always like that? You can take the "main line" move and right click and "Force variation" in which case it looks differently. Do you want "forced variations" by default?
It's already a variation, the main line is cropped out, so there is no "force variation" option. What I mean by "insistence on a 'main line' paradigm" is that in my image, 9...e6 is treated differently from all the other 9th move options for Black. It is immediately inline, instead of a leaf node in the tree like the rest of them, and the continuation is broken off and thrown down the page somewhere. What I want is for all these variations to look exactly the same on the page. Circa a few days ago, when the app would create a tree like this, it worked that way.
Dr_Zee's example shows this with the green-underlined line. In his second image it is all one readable line, in the first it gets broken up into pieces.
@TotalNoob69 said in #66:
> OK, I looked into the problem and I finally understand what people are complaining about, and that's that the NEXT MOVE is the farthest in the tree from the current position.
I'm not sure you quite get it still (maybe you do, but I can't tell from your post). The problem is the concept of a defined "next move". This is how it now works:
1W 1B; 2W 2Ba;
- 2Bb; 3Wb 3Bb; 4Wb...
- 2Bc; 3Wc 3Bc; 4Wc...
3Wa 3Ba; 4Wa....
What I want is this:
1W 1B; 2W
- 2Ba; 3Wa 3Ba; 4Wa...
- 2Bb; 3Wb 3Bb; 4Wb...
- 2Bc; 3Wc 3Bc; 4Wc...
All Black options considered as equal; there is no such thing as "the next move after 2W", there are multiple (like OK if you hit the right arrow it goes to 2Ba I guess, I really don't care). This is how the old version worked.
> I can imagine situations where I just want to see the main line or the "main line" after some level of branching. It would help me to hide the noise.
If you have one main line which you consider of central importance, and a whole bunch of variations branching off at points along that, but you want to maintain attention on the main line, studies provide a data structure to do that. It's called a "chapter".
@ChrisVinall said in #56:
> Tried this out and it's a definite improvement in terms of decluttering the page, so thanks for that. It's not possible for it to deal with the main issue of the insistence on a "main line" paradigm over an equal hierarchy though (i.e. imgur.com/a/wG6R9kq).
yes exactly, me i dont mind all the collapsing it is the problem of having every single sub lines have its own mainline and so on... just ONE mainline on top please everything else should displayed neatly as a side branch
@Lou-E said in #65:
> Another side point I would like to make is that maybe it would be good idea to examine what led to this change rolling out to production in the first place. Was this a requested feature? By whom? Alternatively, has Lichess reached the state of maturity whereby behaviour-breaking changes are being made without anyone really asking for them? A common phenomenon with UI teams in particular, I've found, and can often lead to unhappy users.
I agree.
Just throwing my hat into the ring: I have annotated (and copied annotations from other sources, for my personal use not publicly) literally hundreds and hundreds of games, and now ALL of them are basically unreadable since they are meant to be read 'chronologically'. I beg the Lichess team to either revert this change, or at least offer the option to change it (on the site itself, not just using Tools), because this is immensely frustrating, years of effort and annotation now inaccessible.
The great thing about Lichess is that it's open source, and I hope the team gets this feedback and offers us an option at the least, it's a lot more than we could achieve by begging chesscom or something. Thanks for raising awareness.
I just want it to go back to how it was. No need to change something that was already good.
I agree with the criticisms in this thread. I especially agree with everyone asking "why did you feel the urge to change this" - exactly the question I've asked multiple times in other threads. To be honest, this comment is a bit late to the game, just because I was becoming so exhausted repeating the same old things to the Lichess devs.
If something is already perfect and loved by all, then don’t change it. My main criticism here of the new look is that studies are now soooo much harder to use + analysis after a game.
To be honest, I take greater issue not with the implemented changes - though I agree that there are issues there - but rather with the complete lack of communication. There seems to be little-to-no recognition that the features which are being changed are used hundreds of thousands if not millions of times per day. These changes affect the daily routines of tens or hundreds of thousands of people. They deserve proper testing. They need proper testing.
Sure, in the long run, pissing a few hundred people off for a few days probably doesn't matter. But when it happens again and again and again, it will start to matter eventually.
We all love Lichess here. We love what it provides, we love what it stands for, and has always stood for. But when the devs consistently make changes which are essentially experiments, it really doesn't feel like Lichess loves us back, regardless of whether the changes were made with good intentions.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.