I have noticed that when a side loses in just a few moves, you cannot request a rematch. I would guess that this is to make it harder to farm rating and/or sandbag. However, losing in just a few moves is very common when you play fast atomic games, especially at my level. Would it be possible to allow rematches after just a few moves for atomic games? For example, I played quite a few 0+1 games with Chess_Spider today. All the games were legitimate, but we often lost after just a few moves, especially me (I probably play too fast). Unfortunately, we had to rely on challenges rather than rematch offers, and I thought this to be quite frustrating, which is why I am asking to change the rematch settings for faster atomic games. If this cannot be done, I would love to know why.
Anything is possible however I recommend against this.
Hmmm... I know what you are talking about in regards to atomic games. One blunder or mouse slip can end the game very quickly. I doubt they would change the rules just for atomic, and it would make it easier for sandbaggers and such.
Does the rematch issue ever happen from unrated games? I don't think it does. That might solve the issue if you're just wanting to have a ton of fast games.
Does the rematch issue ever happen from unrated games? I don't think it does. That might solve the issue if you're just wanting to have a ton of fast games.
Yet another poor application of "everything has to be restricted" policy by lichess. This doesn't make sandbagger/booster's life any harder, yet this restriction is clearly visible to normal users. (Also encountered it in Atomic games.) More specifically, it annoys (but not hinders) both sandbaggers and normal users, while sandbaggers must be banned instead of being annoyed.
If you're losing games in a matter of seconds, you probably shouldn't be playing.
I disagree entirely. Some people enjoy fast atomic chess, and games shouldn't be restricted from people wanting to play quickly. This problem is similar to the 7 move berserk rule in tournaments. If I berserk and my opponent legitimately loses in less than 7 moves, I believe the berserk point should still be valid.
It's not. Rematch option will be available regardless of the turns required to win in casual. Winning under 7 moves is a sign of a game not to be accredited, be it both for tournament points or rated games.
Most people who are playing atomic legitimately will not have most games lost in less than 7 moves, lichess is making the right judgement in this case.
Most people who are playing atomic legitimately will not have most games lost in less than 7 moves, lichess is making the right judgement in this case.
@Unihedron Most people who are playing classical chess legitimately will not have most games lost in less than 20 moves, lichess is making the wrong judgement in this case and should bump the limits higher.
...
There is zero, literally zero reason to restrict this stuff at all. Lichess already has a mechanism to warn people if they are resigning games quickly, I saw it in action on one stream. Making a rematch button unavailable serves no other purpose than annoying people, as you can do the rematch anyway by a challenge request.
I will not argue on berserk points, as it is a separate issue which is related to other flaws in Arena format, and it doesn't really change much. Skillful Atomic Arena players just should know that you need to give a couple of checks with the queen before blowing the king to actually receive the berserk point, and play the openings like Nf3 e3 against the noobs, where they are likely to lose in such a way that you can give these checks. This is ridiculous, but it's not the largest problem of Arenas, to put it mildly.
...
There is zero, literally zero reason to restrict this stuff at all. Lichess already has a mechanism to warn people if they are resigning games quickly, I saw it in action on one stream. Making a rematch button unavailable serves no other purpose than annoying people, as you can do the rematch anyway by a challenge request.
I will not argue on berserk points, as it is a separate issue which is related to other flaws in Arena format, and it doesn't really change much. Skillful Atomic Arena players just should know that you need to give a couple of checks with the queen before blowing the king to actually receive the berserk point, and play the openings like Nf3 e3 against the noobs, where they are likely to lose in such a way that you can give these checks. This is ridiculous, but it's not the largest problem of Arenas, to put it mildly.
I disagree.
Opening traps like Scholar's Mate and some others can legitimately end a game within 7 moves, and there is no reason why a win by an opening trap should be considered any less legitimate than a longer game. A win is a win.
In atomic, it is even easier to lose quickly to an attack by the queen or a knight resulting in a forced mate in the opening. Those games are also legitimate, and very common in short time controls or among players inexperienced in the variant (or even sometimes pretty high rated players).
Statements like "If you're losing games in a matter of seconds, you probably shouldn't be playing." and "Winning under 7 moves is a sign of a game not to be accredited," are condescending to players trying to learn the game.
"Most people who are playing atomic legitimately will not have most games lost in less than 7 moves"
Yes, and most people have been playing the variant for a while too, but everyone is a beginner when they start.
Opening traps like Scholar's Mate and some others can legitimately end a game within 7 moves, and there is no reason why a win by an opening trap should be considered any less legitimate than a longer game. A win is a win.
In atomic, it is even easier to lose quickly to an attack by the queen or a knight resulting in a forced mate in the opening. Those games are also legitimate, and very common in short time controls or among players inexperienced in the variant (or even sometimes pretty high rated players).
Statements like "If you're losing games in a matter of seconds, you probably shouldn't be playing." and "Winning under 7 moves is a sign of a game not to be accredited," are condescending to players trying to learn the game.
"Most people who are playing atomic legitimately will not have most games lost in less than 7 moves"
Yes, and most people have been playing the variant for a while too, but everyone is a beginner when they start.
#9 "Statement 'If you're losing games in a matter of seconds, you probably shouldn't be playing.'... is condescending..."
Bullet chess addiction rots the mind; a player who moves without thinking needs to calm down. Note Lichess wouldn't prohibit future games; the most it would do is disable the Rematch button (not that I've ever seen this occur).
youtu.be/BF5SzIN63w8
Bullet chess addiction rots the mind; a player who moves without thinking needs to calm down. Note Lichess wouldn't prohibit future games; the most it would do is disable the Rematch button (not that I've ever seen this occur).
youtu.be/BF5SzIN63w8
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.