I haven't been here forever but I have never seen a request actually granted so maybe readers could help me out I think this would not only be great for members but benefit lichess staff as well. I am aware that it is possible to download our games and run them through an explorer elsewhere but to have it right at home in the "advanced search" would be much more convenient, especially for those of us limited to mobile devices. What do you say? Pretty pretty please?
Opening explorer already was here 3 or 4 years ago,but it was removed due to unpopularity.
@risky-chess I didn't know that. I would be on it all day. Lichess must have grown considerably since then maybe now it would be used sufficiently enough for a comeback.
@Kanaan92 Probably i misunderstood your first idea.Now i see what you mean.The idea is to search games by certain opening.It was requested before without much success.For example,i would like to search games in which was played russian game/Petrov's defense opening.The question is how do we convince developers to make this feature possible? :D
Yes exactly. I think the advanced search should include searching games by opening. This would be very useful.
For any dev that may be seeing this,
currently when you sort chess insights by opening it will only give you 4 games as examples that made the insight. Is it possible to have a link to all the games scanned for this insight?
currently when you sort chess insights by opening it will only give you 4 games as examples that made the insight. Is it possible to have a link to all the games scanned for this insight?
The size of the database does not seem to allow for more live database query complexity.
and before you ask for more features (i have done, and kind of understand the limitation arguments), try to see if you can get to the bottom of a long search, where you have announced, say, 800 results.
from deferred rendering to deferred rendering (and that's on desktop, can't imagine the thumb tendinitis one would get on small rectangle mobile devices) you might get to the bottom, or some bottom, then manually calculate the number of items from top to the some bottom (or just multiply roughly item per page, and count keyboard key down needed from top to bottom.
i did that for forum searches. the count is not there. or i was dreaming (always have an exit, excuse!). So forum searches are struggling, and while i did not do that quantitative experiment with game searches (too painful, heavier image content). Qualitatively, i think it is also struggling at current query complexity (live number of fields searchable on db).
So we may all in our own specific requests corners fight for this feature or that feature, it may be just a question of resource allocation, or resource availability. And navigation of the increasingly enormous boat of a user-base that lichess is becoming.
Games before Games searches before Forum search before mailbox complexity. Is this a detailed enough plan, or should there be some weights attached, and decision making about their relative importance as the boat increases size?
new features in game playing before new features in game database before NF in forum before NF in mailbox. Is synonym problem. I don't pretend to know, but i think the answers to all our features requests, lie at that level of decisions. (...not mine).
I wish good luck, and i am curious. i love a lichess that works, and has room to maneuver and experiment. it might become more difficult if resources don't follow active user-base. i would think. or perhaps the user-base may find a way to provide decision makers at that level their new feature preferred weight distribution in the scheme above.
and before you ask for more features (i have done, and kind of understand the limitation arguments), try to see if you can get to the bottom of a long search, where you have announced, say, 800 results.
from deferred rendering to deferred rendering (and that's on desktop, can't imagine the thumb tendinitis one would get on small rectangle mobile devices) you might get to the bottom, or some bottom, then manually calculate the number of items from top to the some bottom (or just multiply roughly item per page, and count keyboard key down needed from top to bottom.
i did that for forum searches. the count is not there. or i was dreaming (always have an exit, excuse!). So forum searches are struggling, and while i did not do that quantitative experiment with game searches (too painful, heavier image content). Qualitatively, i think it is also struggling at current query complexity (live number of fields searchable on db).
So we may all in our own specific requests corners fight for this feature or that feature, it may be just a question of resource allocation, or resource availability. And navigation of the increasingly enormous boat of a user-base that lichess is becoming.
Games before Games searches before Forum search before mailbox complexity. Is this a detailed enough plan, or should there be some weights attached, and decision making about their relative importance as the boat increases size?
new features in game playing before new features in game database before NF in forum before NF in mailbox. Is synonym problem. I don't pretend to know, but i think the answers to all our features requests, lie at that level of decisions. (...not mine).
I wish good luck, and i am curious. i love a lichess that works, and has room to maneuver and experiment. it might become more difficult if resources don't follow active user-base. i would think. or perhaps the user-base may find a way to provide decision makers at that level their new feature preferred weight distribution in the scheme above.
@dboing. The technicalities limitation decisions would be for lichess staff to work out. Do you work for lichess?
@Kanaan92
not at all, that's my point.
even if you are not on the staff, just a lowly humble user (add some low rating for more humility), you can still think.... and try to put yourself in somebody else's position....
And then, what prevents a user or group of users to think about that, and try to think hard about how to make it work if they had a say in it. Actually, i take the observer posture here, and the hopeful user, that the captains are as skilled at code development, as their are at keeping the boat afloat and in a sustainable direction.
I do not have any more information then that humble user. I don't see your intention: once again, conciseness gets foggy results, are you offended? do you work for lichess? are you defensive about the prerogatives decisions powers of lichess staff?
If your not self-contained post is on the negative more than pure curiosity (can't tell if you imply anything, or too many options please help), then i'm more humble than you imagine. you may not have read my post carefully, or I debate too much.
I get fed up with egos interfering with civil debate, use words, not canned assumptions, i can make those too. at least some emoticons, to palliate the lack of words.
not at all, that's my point.
even if you are not on the staff, just a lowly humble user (add some low rating for more humility), you can still think.... and try to put yourself in somebody else's position....
And then, what prevents a user or group of users to think about that, and try to think hard about how to make it work if they had a say in it. Actually, i take the observer posture here, and the hopeful user, that the captains are as skilled at code development, as their are at keeping the boat afloat and in a sustainable direction.
I do not have any more information then that humble user. I don't see your intention: once again, conciseness gets foggy results, are you offended? do you work for lichess? are you defensive about the prerogatives decisions powers of lichess staff?
If your not self-contained post is on the negative more than pure curiosity (can't tell if you imply anything, or too many options please help), then i'm more humble than you imagine. you may not have read my post carefully, or I debate too much.
I get fed up with egos interfering with civil debate, use words, not canned assumptions, i can make those too. at least some emoticons, to palliate the lack of words.
@dboing I'm not offended or offensive the forum says featur request I understand what you are trying to get accros but can we agree to see things differently and not turn this into a debate of any kind and leave room for other potential posts ? : )
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.