- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

The Argument for Reinstating Color Choice in Lichess Games

#1

Mitigating Game Abandonment: The current system where players cannot choose their color can unintentionally encourage a high rate of game abandonment. Many players who are assigned a color they weren’t intending to play may instantly leave the game. This creates a disruptive experience not only for the abandoning player but also for their opponent, who is left waiting. By reintroducing color choice, at least in casual games, players who have a clear preference for playing as White or Black can select their color from the start, leading to more consistent engagement and fewer disruptions.

Supporting Focused Training and Learning: A key reason players choose their color is to focus on training specific openings or working on specific weaknesses in their repertoire. For example, if a player wants to deepen their understanding of the Queen's Gambit or practice their responses to 1.e4 as Black, they need the flexibility to choose the relevant color. Without this option, training becomes more scattershot and inefficient. Reintroducing color choice allows players to engage in targeted learning, improving their skill progression.

Casual vs. Competitive Settings: A fair compromise could be to reintroduce color choice at least in casual games while keeping random color assignment in rated games. This balances the need for fairness and integrity in competitive play with the freedom players desire in more relaxed, training-oriented games. Casual games should be about enjoyment and flexibility, allowing players to tailor their experience.

Incentivizing Active Play: Allowing players to choose their color encourages more active and engaged games. When players can play their preferred color, they are more likely to participate actively and avoid the frustration that might lead to instant resignations or abandoned games. A more engaged player base leads to a more vibrant and enjoyable community overall.

There’s No Significant Drawback to Choice in Casual Play: The primary concern about color choice—fairness—is relevant in competitive, rated games where random color assignment prevents exploitation. However, in casual games, there’s no real downside to allowing color selection. Players who prefer one color aren’t impacting others negatively; rather, it makes the experience more enjoyable and personalized, without affecting rankings or competitive integrity.

By reintroducing the option to choose color in casual games, Lichess can improve player satisfaction, reduce game abandonment, and support focused training, all without compromising competitive fairness in rated games.

Mitigating Game Abandonment: The current system where players cannot choose their color can unintentionally encourage a high rate of game abandonment. Many players who are assigned a color they weren’t intending to play may instantly leave the game. This creates a disruptive experience not only for the abandoning player but also for their opponent, who is left waiting. By reintroducing color choice, at least in casual games, players who have a clear preference for playing as White or Black can select their color from the start, leading to more consistent engagement and fewer disruptions. Supporting Focused Training and Learning: A key reason players choose their color is to focus on training specific openings or working on specific weaknesses in their repertoire. For example, if a player wants to deepen their understanding of the Queen's Gambit or practice their responses to 1.e4 as Black, they need the flexibility to choose the relevant color. Without this option, training becomes more scattershot and inefficient. Reintroducing color choice allows players to engage in targeted learning, improving their skill progression. Casual vs. Competitive Settings: A fair compromise could be to reintroduce color choice at least in casual games while keeping random color assignment in rated games. This balances the need for fairness and integrity in competitive play with the freedom players desire in more relaxed, training-oriented games. Casual games should be about enjoyment and flexibility, allowing players to tailor their experience. Incentivizing Active Play: Allowing players to choose their color encourages more active and engaged games. When players can play their preferred color, they are more likely to participate actively and avoid the frustration that might lead to instant resignations or abandoned games. A more engaged player base leads to a more vibrant and enjoyable community overall. There’s No Significant Drawback to Choice in Casual Play: The primary concern about color choice—fairness—is relevant in competitive, rated games where random color assignment prevents exploitation. However, in casual games, there’s no real downside to allowing color selection. Players who prefer one color aren’t impacting others negatively; rather, it makes the experience more enjoyable and personalized, without affecting rankings or competitive integrity. By reintroducing the option to choose color in casual games, Lichess can improve player satisfaction, reduce game abandonment, and support focused training, all without compromising competitive fairness in rated games.
#2

I have some counter-considerations for you.

(1) Your original argument leaves the possibility of re-introducing color choice to rated games open. You'll take it if you can get it, but it's not the hill you're willing to die on. It's good that you're not willing to die on that hill because color choice in rated games is a terrible idea. When they removed color choice, I was surprised to find out it was ever an option in rated games in the first place. It's not just about maintaining integrity, it's about cultivating maturity and sportsmanship in the playerbase. When players always get what they want, it ingratiates them. Your main thesis is that color choice should be re-introduced to casual chess. I encourage you to focus on that thesis in order to strengthen your argument.

(2) As someone who plays rated exclusively, I find that opponents insta-resigning or abandoning games to be more disappointing than annoying. I don't know if this is more common in casual chess than in rated chess. If it isn't significantly more common then I think this argument is weak: the annoyance factor isn't big enough to warrant re-introducing color choice.

(3) Playing casual games with color choice does not strike me as an effective way to focus on training specific parts of one's repertoire. In my opinion the best way to do this is to play games against a training partner(s) who is willing to play the opening in question. If this is not possible then the next best thing to do would be to analyze non-annotated master games in the opening. The third best would be to play the opening against an engine, probably more effective if that engine is Dragon with reduced strength and a personality chosen. Playing casual chess with a color chosen and hoping one gets lucky seems only very slightly better than playing rated games and hoping to get lucky. This argument is therefore also weak. This argument becomes much stronger if you also pitch that we should be allowed to choose custom starting positions in casual games: in this case, casual games with both a color AND an opening tabiya chosen would be a genuinely useful tool for patching holes in one's repertoire. I would support that suggestion without reservation.

I hope this criticism proves constructive. Please note that I am not necessarily against the idea of re-introducing color choice to casual games. I just felt some of the arguments were a little ill-conceived.

I have some counter-considerations for you. (1) Your original argument leaves the possibility of re-introducing color choice to rated games open. You'll take it if you can get it, but it's not the hill you're willing to die on. It's good that you're not willing to die on that hill because color choice in rated games is a terrible idea. When they removed color choice, I was surprised to find out it was ever an option in rated games in the first place. It's not just about maintaining integrity, it's about cultivating maturity and sportsmanship in the playerbase. When players always get what they want, it ingratiates them. Your main thesis is that color choice should be re-introduced to casual chess. I encourage you to focus on that thesis in order to strengthen your argument. (2) As someone who plays rated exclusively, I find that opponents insta-resigning or abandoning games to be more disappointing than annoying. I don't know if this is more common in casual chess than in rated chess. If it isn't significantly more common then I think this argument is weak: the annoyance factor isn't big enough to warrant re-introducing color choice. (3) Playing casual games with color choice does not strike me as an effective way to focus on training specific parts of one's repertoire. In my opinion the best way to do this is to play games against a training partner(s) who is willing to play the opening in question. If this is not possible then the next best thing to do would be to analyze non-annotated master games in the opening. The third best would be to play the opening against an engine, probably more effective if that engine is Dragon with reduced strength and a personality chosen. Playing casual chess with a color chosen and hoping one gets lucky seems only very slightly better than playing rated games and hoping to get lucky. This argument is therefore also weak. This argument becomes much stronger if you also pitch that we should be allowed to choose custom starting positions in casual games: in this case, casual games with both a color AND an opening tabiya chosen would be a genuinely useful tool for patching holes in one's repertoire. I would support that suggestion without reservation. I hope this criticism proves constructive. Please note that I am not necessarily against the idea of re-introducing color choice to casual games. I just felt some of the arguments were a little ill-conceived.
#3

Counterpoint @forsoothplays said in #2:

Playing casual games with color choice does not strike me as an effective way to focus on training specific parts of one's repertoire. In my opinion the best way to do this is to play games against a training partner(s) who is willing to play the opening in question

A lot of people don't have access to training partners. Casual game color picking is still a very valuable option for those choosing a specific opening. Picking black probably isn't as common, but it can also be used for more effectively targeting weaknesses in that color of play

Counterpoint @forsoothplays said in #2: > Playing casual games with color choice does not strike me as an effective way to focus on training specific parts of one's repertoire. In my opinion the best way to do this is to play games against a training partner(s) who is willing to play the opening in question A lot of people don't have access to training partners. Casual game color picking is still a very valuable option for those choosing a specific opening. Picking black probably isn't as common, but it can also be used for more effectively targeting weaknesses in that color of play
#4

@Emmet_Schuler
I know people don't have access to training partners, which is why I also mentioned two other methods of patching repertoire holes that should both be more effective than casual play with a color chosen. It may be more effective than just playing random games and hoping to get lucky—twice as effective, in fact—but "twice as effective as the worst option" isn't very compelling.

Here, let me give you an example. The biggest holes in my repertoire with White are the Sveshnikov Sicilian, the Berlin Defense, Petroff's Defense, and the French Defense. Out of 1.064 games with white in 1.e4:
105 were a French Defense;
68 reached 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3, important as players like to transpose to Owen's Defense or the Hippopotamus;
20 were a Petroff's Defense;
only 9 of which weren't a Stafford Gambit;
12 were a Berlin Defense;
4 of which reached the defining Berlin tabiya after Black's eighth move;
2 reached the Sveshnikov tabiya after Black's eighth move.

This means that a casual game with the white pieces would only lead me to a problem opening 13% of the time. This shrinks to an abysmal 8% of games if we want to get particular about training against the "real" version of the problem opening. That just doesn't make a compelling case that casual games with a color chosen are a reasonably effective way to plug repertoire holes.

However, if I could post casual games in the lobby with a color chosen that also start from the position [r1bqkb1r/5ppp/p1np1n2/1p2p1B1/4P3/N1N5/PPP2PPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 0 9], then 100% of those games would be played in a problem opening.

Hence why the original argument is weak.

@Emmet_Schuler I know people don't have access to training partners, which is why I also mentioned two other methods of patching repertoire holes that should both be more effective than casual play with a color chosen. It may be more effective than just playing random games and hoping to get lucky—twice as effective, in fact—but "twice as effective as the worst option" isn't very compelling. Here, let me give you an example. The biggest holes in my repertoire with White are the Sveshnikov Sicilian, the Berlin Defense, Petroff's Defense, and the French Defense. Out of 1.064 games with white in 1.e4: 105 were a French Defense; 68 reached 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3, important as players like to transpose to Owen's Defense or the Hippopotamus; 20 were a Petroff's Defense; only 9 of which weren't a Stafford Gambit; 12 were a Berlin Defense; 4 of which reached the defining Berlin tabiya after Black's eighth move; 2 reached the Sveshnikov tabiya after Black's eighth move. This means that a casual game with the white pieces would only lead me to a problem opening 13% of the time. This shrinks to an abysmal 8% of games if we want to get particular about training against the "real" version of the problem opening. That just doesn't make a compelling case that casual games with a color chosen are a reasonably effective way to plug repertoire holes. However, if I could post casual games in the lobby with a color chosen that also start from the position [r1bqkb1r/5ppp/p1np1n2/1p2p1B1/4P3/N1N5/PPP2PPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 0 9], then 100% of those games would be played in a problem opening. Hence why the original argument is weak.
#5

@Forsoothplays:

First off, thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post. I appreciate the feedback!

Point 1: I completely agree that the reintroduction of color choice should be limited to casual games, not rated ones. This feels like the most logical compromise and the best way to get the change implemented. I’m advocating specifically for casual games, and I probably should have made that clearer from the start.

Point 2: I will disagree here. Before I allow myself to play a game, I must complete a certain number of tactics, and I need to analyze every game after I play it. I do not always have an abundance of time to play, and the time I do have often gets consumed by training and analysis. As a result, cycling through abandoned opponents in an effort to squeeze in the one game I have time for can be quite frustrating. On the other hand, it is incredibly disheartening when I spend a significant amount of time reviewing a new opening, only to find it impossible to get the right color matchup to test and train it.

Point 3: I think training approaches are personal, and there's no universal "best" way. While having a training partner would be ideal, it's not always easy to coordinate. Casual games with the option to choose color provide a much more accessible alternative for most players. That said, if you're ever interested in sparring, feel free to send me a correspondence challenge—3-day time control, with you as White. I'd love to practice the Nimzo and Queen's Indian, so feel free to play 1.d4. I'll happily return the favor and act as a training partner for any openings you'd like to work on.

In the end, I think the key question is: why deny a feature that people find useful in casual games? It just doesn't make sense to me.

@Forsoothplays: First off, thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post. I appreciate the feedback! Point 1: I completely agree that the reintroduction of color choice should be limited to casual games, not rated ones. This feels like the most logical compromise and the best way to get the change implemented. I’m advocating specifically for casual games, and I probably should have made that clearer from the start. Point 2: I will disagree here. Before I allow myself to play a game, I must complete a certain number of tactics, and I need to analyze every game after I play it. I do not always have an abundance of time to play, and the time I do have often gets consumed by training and analysis. As a result, cycling through abandoned opponents in an effort to squeeze in the one game I have time for can be quite frustrating. On the other hand, it is incredibly disheartening when I spend a significant amount of time reviewing a new opening, only to find it impossible to get the right color matchup to test and train it. Point 3: I think training approaches are personal, and there's no universal "best" way. While having a training partner would be ideal, it's not always easy to coordinate. Casual games with the option to choose color provide a much more accessible alternative for most players. That said, if you're ever interested in sparring, feel free to send me a correspondence challenge—3-day time control, with you as White. I'd love to practice the Nimzo and Queen's Indian, so feel free to play 1.d4. I'll happily return the favor and act as a training partner for any openings you'd like to work on. In the end, I think the key question is: why deny a feature that people find useful in casual games? It just doesn't make sense to me.
#6

@pabsshow

You're quite welcome.

But note that training partners were only one of the superior methods for training specific openings that I mentioned. The second and third best should fit into your training regimen and also give you complete control over the circumstances.

Also, I think you missed that I would suggest adding more features besides choosing color in casual games. If we can choose color in casual, then let's go whole hog and choose a custom starting position, too. If not, then I feel it's not worth reverting the change now that the change has been made. It does involve a decent amount of work on the part of the Lichess team and, from what I hear, their resources are stretched a bit thin lately. I concede that my position is a little biased as I haven't played casual.

I may consider your offer. If I do decide to take it up I will DM you.

@pabsshow You're quite welcome. But note that training partners were only one of the superior methods for training specific openings that I mentioned. The second and third best should fit into your training regimen and also give you complete control over the circumstances. Also, I think you missed that I would suggest adding more features besides choosing color in casual games. If we can choose color in casual, then let's go whole hog and choose a custom starting position, too. If not, then I feel it's not worth reverting the change now that the change has been made. It does involve a decent amount of work on the part of the Lichess team and, from what I hear, their resources are stretched a bit thin lately. I concede that my position is a little biased as I haven't played casual. I may consider your offer. If I do decide to take it up I will DM you.
#7

Setting aside training philosophies, hat IS the downside for Lichess to allowing color choice in casual games?

Setting aside training philosophies, hat IS the downside for Lichess to allowing color choice in casual games?
#8

@chris_lott

I really do not think there is one, that is the point. It is an unnecessary restriction that limits user joy and training applications, while also encouraging negative user behaviors, such as abandoning games. See previous comments for a more flushed out version of these statements.

@chris_lott I really do not think there is one, that is the point. It is an unnecessary restriction that limits user joy and training applications, while also encouraging negative user behaviors, such as abandoning games. See previous comments for a more flushed out version of these statements.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.