Try doing a manual search where you state the min and the max rating range you will accept
Unfortunately "Strong players" or fortunately depending on how you think no one can be made to play
Unfortunately "Strong players" or fortunately depending on how you think no one can be made to play
1. 30 secs of maximum waiting time is a poor reason for complaining.
Y3sterday my wait time was roughly 0.5-2.5 minutes. I play 5+4.
2. I play only with increment and 7min+ to avoid being flaged.
5+3 gives not enough time and the next incremental control is 15+15 which is good but not to play it all the time.
3. My suggestion
- 5+4 instead of 5+3
- 10+5 instead of 10
- add 10+10
Opttionaly everything bellow 5 min can be removed. 3+2 and 5 is almost the same. 2+1 and 3 is also the same. See no reason why they exists.
Y3sterday my wait time was roughly 0.5-2.5 minutes. I play 5+4.
2. I play only with increment and 7min+ to avoid being flaged.
5+3 gives not enough time and the next incremental control is 15+15 which is good but not to play it all the time.
3. My suggestion
- 5+4 instead of 5+3
- 10+5 instead of 10
- add 10+10
Opttionaly everything bellow 5 min can be removed. 3+2 and 5 is almost the same. 2+1 and 3 is also the same. See no reason why they exists.
To each their own. But assuming a 40 move game 2 seconds per move only adds about 1 and 1/2 minutes but I do not play time out chess.
A lot of players like the why it is. You should not say Chess.com they have the same inc filter yours is not their's
A lot of players like the why it is. You should not say Chess.com they have the same inc filter yours is not their's
You can find a 3+2 match relatively easely if your blitz is lower than 2400, after that number it gets tougher and tougher...
I don't know the solution (3+2 is way too fast for me) but I want to thank the OP for stating the issue and having data to help support a discussion. It's a refreshing change from "the entire site should be changed just because I don't like something" that seems to be the norm on this forum.
How about a quick modal dialog that reduces to the "notifications" section after a few seconds, such that it'll display similar time-controls people are playing at any given time (rolling average over given time-control request) ... this upon a challenge request timing out. (Maybe even a user option/preference to enable/disable displaying such suggestions for faster games???)
Maybe limit the modal to the Lobby dialogue such as when a challenge has been issued, waiting, and, as soon as connected, the lobby starts a spinner until the redirect to new-game-in-progress (???).
I sort-of agree with the OP's observations. If waiting a while for games, implementation of a notification feature to explain the situation (based on rolling-average consensus -- where the most games are being played in a given time control). Might even include things like: "You might have better chances searching in ratings rage +/- N points from your last challenge."
Just off the top of my head.
Maybe limit the modal to the Lobby dialogue such as when a challenge has been issued, waiting, and, as soon as connected, the lobby starts a spinner until the redirect to new-game-in-progress (???).
I sort-of agree with the OP's observations. If waiting a while for games, implementation of a notification feature to explain the situation (based on rolling-average consensus -- where the most games are being played in a given time control). Might even include things like: "You might have better chances searching in ratings rage +/- N points from your last challenge."
Just off the top of my head.
Just considered another solution here, and one that could really improve the site as a whole.
Enable people to put out seeks for multiple time controls at once. I would really prefer to play 3 2 but I don't really enjoy waiting around so long to get paired. So I generally search for 3 0 instead. This is a double whammy as it means I stand a 0% chance of getting paired in 3 2 and it also means I'm not even contributing to the problem (of a lack of critical mass) in those games.
If I could seek for 3 2 and 3 0 at the same time, it helps improve the volume in the 3 2 games and I also stand at least some chance of getting paired in 3 2 as well. This would be awesome and I think improve the site for players of all time controls.
Enable people to put out seeks for multiple time controls at once. I would really prefer to play 3 2 but I don't really enjoy waiting around so long to get paired. So I generally search for 3 0 instead. This is a double whammy as it means I stand a 0% chance of getting paired in 3 2 and it also means I'm not even contributing to the problem (of a lack of critical mass) in those games.
If I could seek for 3 2 and 3 0 at the same time, it helps improve the volume in the 3 2 games and I also stand at least some chance of getting paired in 3 2 as well. This would be awesome and I think improve the site for players of all time controls.
I agree, perhaps allow players to fill in an array of check-marks and save it to be able to select it quickly to submit the seek...it would really complicate the auto-match algorithm thought.
The unfortunate truth is that most 2300+ players prefer the faster time controls.
Also, Lichess doesn't yet have the same player base as chess.com, especially at the master level. So it makes sense you'd have to wait longer here.
Also contributing is that increment tournaments don't mix well with the "berserk" option. Having 1.5+0 vs. 3+2 is a serious handicap. For this reason I think some players are discouraged from playing in increment tournaments. I've wondered about cutting the increment in half instead of eliminating it (1.5+1 vs. 3+2), but that doesn't seem like enough of a handicap. So it's tough to know how the increment tournaments fit in the Lichess tournament format.
@OhNoMyPants I'd be up to play a 3+2 match if you want :P
Also, Lichess doesn't yet have the same player base as chess.com, especially at the master level. So it makes sense you'd have to wait longer here.
Also contributing is that increment tournaments don't mix well with the "berserk" option. Having 1.5+0 vs. 3+2 is a serious handicap. For this reason I think some players are discouraged from playing in increment tournaments. I've wondered about cutting the increment in half instead of eliminating it (1.5+1 vs. 3+2), but that doesn't seem like enough of a handicap. So it's tough to know how the increment tournaments fit in the Lichess tournament format.
@OhNoMyPants I'd be up to play a 3+2 match if you want :P
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.