Make "force variation" always available in drop-down variation menu.

n-th iteration of motivation:
I prefer the full 2D layout of user created variations in analysis mode (and would like, it at all times).

Problems:
The are 2, related.

The first one i have a OCD work-around mutlistep recursive mouse routine, for 3 years now, been kind of automatzed. but get real PITA with real thinking. The second one is that the routine is almost impossible or adds another PITA order of magnitude, in studies.

Sub-problems: to both above, is that this has been going for so long that in collaboration setting there are some users that are now preferring the machine contrainst as aesthetics. And if i do my real time 2D layout in their presence I would not be friendly, in the distraction during, or the result after...

Solution from user perspective**:
make 2D layout an always accessible feature, whatever the topology of the user variation subtrees (rooted in mainline or not).

It does not have to be an imposition on those that prefer the current automatic lichess features reflexes upon tree construction in the 2 aforementioned main problems.

From userland, i see already the "force variation" becoming visible when on the mainline variations

(my OCD routine involves make any deep branch i want 2D laid out, to be made temporarily main line, to access "forced variation", i then use promote on the alternative same level variations to get the same, thing, and up we go and rinse repeat, and then finally, i curate the whole thing to represent my current evaluation thinking in vertical ordering at each branch to represent my subjective eval of each branch at current thinking.. This is error prone content less distraction (but after 3 years, it is less noisy, or i have become less ambitious given the PITA about how hard i can work on my games...)

The study subproblem on the other hand. is not automatized because of the added layer of PITA that the confusion between "promote variation" and "make mainline" bug (i think it is a bug), makes.. (it would need to be on par with all other analysis modes).

Now is asking the title, more complicated under the hood than user perspective would tell? Well, I expect some mod or anyone aware to explain, with user in mind but some degree of under the hood insight, if posisble. It could be a both way truth gathering discussion. I do have some ideas. but for the sake of audience and post size (yes i still have such hopes), I will wait to see.

** this is not github, we need to start from user land, and not expect the problem to be solved, the implicit question from user, after using user land logic, is that is that even feasible or how many human-hours at dev land level would that entail given the current state of under the hood feature affairs. My editorial comment or suggestions about how this sub forum style could go, for better smooth interactions, from expectations in problem presentation.. might help with entry tones, i don,t know. trying.

note: i can be motivated by specific questions. to document the above with time lapses of screenshots of the user routine mentioned and the contingencies on the drop down menus, given sub-tree complexity (no need for them to be long variations, although the layout mess might be more psychological impacting for those who never do such user created trees, nor look at others such trees.

This is not about one branch alternate variations rooted somewhere in some mainline (like post-game engine created variation injection, e.g.) So please ask where that extra effort of mine as user feedback participant, would be most helpful. if i do alone, I would make a mess in the uncertainty left at this point with no replies yet, by looking at too many possibilities.. (that is my problem perhaps, but this is the user you get).

When one clicks on particular move we get all options always.
I don't get it exactly.

@Akbar2thegreat said in #3:
> When one clicks on particular move we get all options always.
> I don't get it exactly.

make many covariations. branching degree n=2 and nested within to have at least another n=2.
don't curate until done.
check for menu difference within parenteheses moves, and on the mainline.. i find that I can't always force variation).

also then if still same everywhere, try n=3. don't do this in studies it is worst. there are 2 problems there tangled (from my pooint of view). do this in solo analysis mode under tools, or in correspondeance game analysis mode.

but my problem is above that. as this is only how I can get 2D tree format.. i just think i narrowed it down a bit for lichess to underrstand (proposing that to be everywhere, would at least reduce the size of my routine, non chess, mouse danse).

my previous iterations focussed on purely the result. here i think i found a way to improve, while not getting the objective right away.

let me know if the above still get you the "force variation" everywhere on fat subtree.. beacuse that would be a failure in my suggestions. and i quite well remember having to first make mainline my nested deeper variations befo0re getting that option.

@dboing
Yes, I got it quite much.
So when is the 'forced variation' not available cause I didn't pay attention to such things.
And yeah, it sucks in studies.
Also, there is 'promote variation' so I just want to know if it's like the one you are talking about.

@Akbar2thegreat said in #5:
the promote works ok in solo mode, but not in studies.. if you have a slow machine, you can see it first do as it does in solo mode, and then very fast, as if it could not stand having it not mainline, it also pushes it to mainline.... mainline blues?

Oh, understood that and the whole thing.
In that case, yeah, it should be an option always.
Also, I have seen it sometimes slow and fast during analysis.
Seems as if the computer is tempted to promote the variation as main line!

i think i should make pictures of the drop down menu for the solo analysis.. to show case where it exist and when not. That is not needing a movie.. or many pics.. For the equivalence of "promote" with "make main line" in studies, I would need to think about the best way... Thanks for confirming i am not always in the twilight zone....:)

What do you mean "during analysis" do you mean with engine? of user-subtree? engine variation going mainline? I do not have that experience (i guess one could in studies right, having variations) and call whole chapter analysis (not exactly like post-game).

I meant using analysis board of a played game.
And I don't want to complicate this matter anyhow and make you into trouble.
Was just discussing with you about the topic here.
Sorry if I confused you instead in our talk.