Can't create game with specific side any more

@mjc3003 said in #860:
> I was very sorry to see the "choose your colour" feature disabled, as I found it very useful for practising specific openings - with both Black and White. I hope it will be restored sometime in the future. In the meantime, regrettably, I have found myself resorting more and more to chess.com. Fingers crossed they don't disable the colour choice feature too!

If only chess.com had a better UI :(

Years ago, when lichess deliberately restricted our choice on ratings ranges when creating a game seek so it was no longer possible to choose to play higher rated opponents or lower rated opponents I ceased to ever play a rated game, and took to playing only as a guest. This latest assault on our freedom of choice means that I still play only as a guest, but now I also abort half my games. As a guest I am not subject to the vindictive sanctions I would be if I played under a registered account and did this. I would also like to stress that anorting games is something I never did before the abomination of this new colour (lack of) choice regime. My question is whether the proportion of aborted games has increased since the introduction of the new enforced random cour choices, or does lichess not measure this statistic.

A week and a half ago, I shared my opinion about this lazy downgrade that punished the entire player base by removing the color option. Some accounts fervently defended it, using the most ridiculous arguments, like maintenance cost. According to them, that wasn't the reason for the downgrade, but when faced with the argument that Chess.com manages it just fine, suddenly maintenance cost mattered. One of those accounts, @duran_was_the_mvp, claimed they would provide the 'actual maintenance cost' within a week, strongly hinting they had inside information. So, I came back to see this 'actual cost.' To my (non) surprise, this account, along with many others, was closed at the same time and they never replied. I guess we all know what that means.

@BimblingBob said in #862:
> My question is whether the proportion of aborted games has increased since the introduction of the new enforced random cour choices, or does lichess not measure this statistic.

Accounts aborting games will be eventually banned until deleted, so the problem will ultimately sort itself.

@mandariinikyy said in #864:
> Accounts aborting games will be eventually banned until deleted, so the problem will ultimately sort itself.

Yep, sounds like a lot of fun, that's what lichess is about!

I wouldnt know what it is good for that those who have had more black's than white's get now a lot of more whites. This is not "abuse" but they get more, because other players are "abusers" and accumulated a white "colour debt". They do not repay those whom they previously played as white, but newly spawned accounts enjoy now more whites, as they encounter players with debt. You are not an "abuser" if you play a new account, but you just get what you rightful "own", debt is "repayed", no matter that you just have played a few games with your new account.

Ideology driven, not really thought through, and it makes no difference in ratings (that's why the change is also applied to casual games).

If you dont play chess in a certain way, you are an abuser. "Heil Lichess! our liberator!"

next on lichess: soon you are going to have a "rating debt". If you have constantly played weaker opponents, you are forced to play stronger opponents 20 times or more often in a row.
Or the other way round: you played too often stronger opponents? Shame on you, this is abuse, and you have to play 20 times in a row weaker players. Needless to say: as white, of course.

Just because...

@mandariinikyy said in #864:
> Accounts aborting games will be eventually banned until deleted, so the problem will ultimately sort itself.

You clearly did not bother to read my post properly, in which I clearly state that I play exclusively as a guest and have done so for years because I refuse to submit to the lichess fuckeittery. Are you going to ban and delete guests ? Pmsl

@BimblingBob said in #867:
> You clearly did not bother to read my post properly, in which I clearly state that I play exclusively as a guest and have done so for years because I refuse to submit to the lichess fuckeittery. Are you going to ban and delete guests ? Pmsl

I did spot that idiocy in there.

@mandariinikyy said in #868:
> I did spot that idiocy in there.
If as you say, you spotted your idiocy then it is a pity you couldn't stop yourself from spewing it.

@BimblingBob said in #869:
> If as you say, you spotted your idiocy then it is a pity you couldn't stop yourself from spewing it.

I'm sorry to hear that you can't stop spewing inanities.