Low-quality content on Lichess TV

@Curieuil said in #29:
> May I ask what makes you think that?
> Some data from Solal35's blog (here below) clearly contradicts this assertion.
> It seems Bullet (even mixed with Ultrabullet) only is the second or third favorite time control on this website, and Blitz undoubtably is the first.
>
> lichess.org/@/Solal35/blog/exploring-how-lichess-players-spend-their-playing-time-part-1-of-2/RAOdxxq4

Good info, thx. This talks about the time spent playing, and that's normal since bullet is shorter than blitz. And i do not Saw it take into account time spent looking at others players in TV.

Exactly, there is an overwhelming majority of Swiss team battles and tournaments that take place in blitz.

But the popularity of the bullet is due to its fast and short format. and many people use the random pairing button to play it.

I just took a look at the TV. the first bullet game that was there had 240 spectators. the blitz game 107. both were played by IM level players. and it's not that difficult to click on the blitz logo in the TV.

@CSKA_Moscou said in #31:
> Good info, thx. This talks about the time spent playing, and that's normal since bullet is shorter than blitz. And i do not Saw it take into account time spent looking at others players in TV.
>
> Exactly, there is an overwhelming majority of Swiss team battles and tournaments that take place in blitz.
>
> But the popularity of the bullet is due to its fast and short format. and many people use the random pairing button to play it.
>
> I just took a look at the TV. the first bullet game that was there had 240 spectators. the blitz game 107. both were played by IM level players. and it's not that difficult to click on the blitz logo in the TV.

Both blitz and bullet are very popular on Lichess, and it is hard to measure objectively which mode is the most popular here. (In my opinion blitz is more popular here, but one could argue about this endlessly, and for no reason.) Somehow I cannot see how your arguments contradict mine. I mostly watch the TV when I look at the second part of the starting page, which also contains blogs, some tournament results and so on. I usually do not click anywhere and assume that such spectators do not appear in the statistics, although they watch the games. When I appear on the TV, my blitz games often have around 200 followers, sometimes significantly more. It is possible that the numbers are higher for bullet, but one cannot conclude so on a basis of a few games, a more detailed investigation would be needed. It can also depend on how long the game is on the TV, how many people are on Lichess at that time, how many followers do the players have, whether they are streaming and so on. And such a statistic would probably ignore the non-clicking spectators anyway. (I guess that there are many of them/us.)

Given that it is not difficult to click on any mode in the TV, why do you dislike my suggestion to modify the algorithm? People who really want to watch certain mode (bullet, blitz, rapid, crazyhouse, Chess960, ...) need just two clicks to do so, it is very easy. My claim is that the algorithm should not prefer the games of high-level bullet players to the games of top-level blitz players. It does not sound too controversial.
I will stop here. The current number of comments (32) looks nicely chessical and there is no need to continue repeating the same arguments.

solution to choosing channel: lichess could remember preference instead of having to choose. also note we are talking about what we see while waiting for a match.when game finishes try to show game just starting. indeed better to compare across times and variations via rank percentile rather than rating

@themiddleway said in #33:
> solution to choosing channel: lichess could remember preference instead of having to choose. also note we are talking about what we see while waiting for a match.when game finishes try to show game just starting. indeed better to compare across times and variations via rank percentile rather than rating

Thanks, yeah that makes sense to me too (some sort of preference either explicitly or based upon the most recently played category).

@RealDavidNavara said in #32:
> Both blitz and bullet are very popular on Lichess, and it is hard to measure objectively which mode is the most popular here. (In my opinion blitz is more popular here, but one could argue about this endlessly, and for no reason.) Somehow I cannot see how your arguments contradict mine. I mostly watch the TV when I look at the second part of the starting page, which also contains blogs, some tournament results and so on. I usually do not click anywhere and assume that such spectators do not appear in the statistics, although they watch the games. When I appear on the TV, my blitz games often have around 200 followers, sometimes significantly more. It is possible that the numbers are higher for bullet, but one cannot conclude so on a basis of a few games, a more detailed investigation would be needed. It can also depend on how long the game is on the TV, how many people are on Lichess at that time, how many followers do the players have, whether they are streaming and so on. And such a statistic would probably ignore the non-clicking spectators anyway. (I guess that there are many of them/us.)
>
> Given that it is not difficult to click on any mode in the TV, why do you dislike my suggestion to modify the algorithm? People who really want to watch certain mode (bullet, blitz, rapid, crazyhouse, Chess960, ...) need just two clicks to do so, it is very easy. My claim is that the algorithm should not prefer the games of high-level bullet players to the games of top-level blitz players. It does not sound too controversial.
> I will stop here. The current number of comments (32) looks nicely chessical and there is no need to continue repeating the same arguments.

well, I respect your choice to leave this forum, and I see that we have found a correct understanding, so since your idea is to leave the choice to the viewer so much the better, it's a good idea, I only contradicted you on the alleged "low quality" and how it is a complementary evolution in the history of chess. Maybe it would nevertheless be preferable if there were no more games displayed on the home page but only a TV button on which by clicking people would select what they would like to see.

@RealDavidNavara said in #32:

" > I will stop here. The current number of comments (32) looks nicely chessical and there is no need to continue repeating the same arguments. "

thank you for you comments .

by the way, i like your chess style so please let me dream for a minute .

i wish i could win the lottery so i could invite you in France, where i live, to a special chess event that i would put in place

the event would be called " Annecy chess challenge ", in the beautiful mountains ( french alps)

this would be a chess 960 event ( classical time control )

i would invite 8 GM

GM Navara
GM Vachier Lagrave
GM Firouzja
GM Kramnik
GM Keymer
GM Radjabov
GM Adams
GM Anand

prize money : 320,000 us dollars

1st place 100,000
2 75,000
3 50,000
4 30,000
5 20,000
6 15,000
7 15,000
8 15,000

so i promise you, the odds are against me indeed, but if i do win the lotery , you will heard from me.

- - > thank you for reading. have a nice day

@a76firedragon said in #36:
> i wish i could win the lottery so i could invite you in France, where i live, to a special chess event that i would put in place
>
> the event would be called " Annecy chess challenge ", in the beautiful mountains ( french alps)
>
> this would be a chess 960 event ( classical time control )
chess960 still sucking the hind tit

@themiddleway said in #37:
> chess960 still sucking the hind tit

thank you for your comment

if we really think about it, chess960 is real chess

here is the logic :

1) wars never start the same way , ever.
each war is different with a different beginning ( chess position)

2) so IF chess is war over the board THEN chess MUST have a new position for every game

this is a logical conclusion

so i do not care about haters who disliked my previous post

and i guess the GM i am talking about would be happy to receive prize money ANYWAY , even for a chess960 event

or i don't know why they play chess for a living in the first place .....(LOL)

.

so let me guys finish the point

chess960 is real chess from my point of view because you cannot annoy people to death with 25 well lthought out moves and prepared computer lines

you have to show REAL emotional, living, strategic skills .

GM are on their own from the first move .no prep ,no cheat , can help them

this is real battles with real strategic thinking. real heros

i will never become a chess GM but i can become what i call a " life GM" , a master of the game called life, where every battle is new , not a prepared line

thank you guys for reading . have a nice day

@a76firedragon said in #39:
> you cannot annoy people to death with 25 well lthought out moves and prepared computer lines
> you have to show REAL (...) strategic skills .
It sounds like you just insulted the whole carreer of the GMs you would like to invite... :)