@Toadofsky Sorry if we're not expressing our concerns programmatically, but we're not all programmers. Seeing as you are a dev, maybe you can enlighten us as to why this change was made? What is its purpose?
Hey, maybe I could translate the changes (commits) and convert them into human readable versions
#60 "never consulting the community" is an exaggeration although things could have been communicated much better and I'll be the PR fall guy for this:
832 posts found at lichess.org/forum/search?text=user%3AToadofsky+rating
#60 #61 I don't understand things programmatically either or I would have explained the change. My understanding for the reason behind this change is incomplete. Please trust that I am trying to offer information but the risk of me explaining something incorrectly is too great.
#62 Please be careful... it's not easy.
832 posts found at lichess.org/forum/search?text=user%3AToadofsky+rating
#60 #61 I don't understand things programmatically either or I would have explained the change. My understanding for the reason behind this change is incomplete. Please trust that I am trying to offer information but the risk of me explaining something incorrectly is too great.
#62 Please be careful... it's not easy.
Commits on Sep 25, 2020
commit = change (It's more complicated than that, but you don't have to know about it.)
bug = glitch
Point Of View -> "client" or "user"
______________________
New Crowdin updates --> translation updates. did you know lichess support other languages?
Fix #7364 --> The tournament "weekend" tab really only has Elite tournaments. So it got renamed, "weekend" tab to "elite" tab.
also change freq name in the title - for #7364 --> change name in code, doesn't change what it does
remove cash/offset/position --> Some bug fixed?, I don't know what it fixed, if any
possible bug fix:
..........a = something
..........a = something else
NOW
.........a = something
.........z = something else
Update maestro pieces - for #7167 --> Updates some pieces.
(bullet, ultrabullet, trophies, white rook from 2d cburnett pieces, shields, lighter pieces in general, other small tweaks to pieces, lots of small tweaks to pieces, boards, you should really look at this: (github.com/ornicar/lila/issues/7167).
fix tv embed script path --> now something on lichess tv is fixed
rename round.keyboardMove plugin --> the rename in the code doesn't actually do anything
fix spam regex --> fix spam detection
/api/challenge/<gameId>/start endpoint to start the clock --> lichess.api allows bots to play. bots don't run on lichess, so they need to communicate, and that's by lichess api. now they ADDED: start game
rename clock start endpoint --> See the previous "commit"
____________
I don't know how I did, feedback wanted
commit = change (It's more complicated than that, but you don't have to know about it.)
bug = glitch
Point Of View -> "client" or "user"
______________________
New Crowdin updates --> translation updates. did you know lichess support other languages?
Fix #7364 --> The tournament "weekend" tab really only has Elite tournaments. So it got renamed, "weekend" tab to "elite" tab.
also change freq name in the title - for #7364 --> change name in code, doesn't change what it does
remove cash/offset/position --> Some bug fixed?, I don't know what it fixed, if any
possible bug fix:
..........a = something
..........a = something else
NOW
.........a = something
.........z = something else
Update maestro pieces - for #7167 --> Updates some pieces.
(bullet, ultrabullet, trophies, white rook from 2d cburnett pieces, shields, lighter pieces in general, other small tweaks to pieces, lots of small tweaks to pieces, boards, you should really look at this: (github.com/ornicar/lila/issues/7167).
fix tv embed script path --> now something on lichess tv is fixed
rename round.keyboardMove plugin --> the rename in the code doesn't actually do anything
fix spam regex --> fix spam detection
/api/challenge/<gameId>/start endpoint to start the clock --> lichess.api allows bots to play. bots don't run on lichess, so they need to communicate, and that's by lichess api. now they ADDED: start game
rename clock start endpoint --> See the previous "commit"
____________
I don't know how I did, feedback wanted
@Toadofsky Fair enough, thanks for giving this response at least. Without wanting to have a complete moan (I appreciate it is technically impossible to make everyone happy all of the time), this change is having a massive effect on my day to day usage. The previous system allowed me to find a quick game against a 2200 (for example) without having to do anything special. If i have 10 minutes only to play, no worries. Set the rating, submit a challenge, get a game against a 2200, simple.
If i want to play a 2200 now, i could waste a couple of hours trying to get that game. Every time i am paired with someone under that rating, i am obliged to play the game (if i abort then eventually i serve a suspension). This is deeply frustrating! If i want a game against someone at my rating, i can just use the quick pairing buttons. Surely the whole purpose of having a 'custom' field is for the occasion when you DON'T want to play someone at your rating. This change basically invalidates the custom option almost completely. Yes, from time to time i will get my game against a 2200, but only after dozens of games against whomever the system decides to give me under this threshold.
If i want to play a 2200 now, i could waste a couple of hours trying to get that game. Every time i am paired with someone under that rating, i am obliged to play the game (if i abort then eventually i serve a suspension). This is deeply frustrating! If i want a game against someone at my rating, i can just use the quick pairing buttons. Surely the whole purpose of having a 'custom' field is for the occasion when you DON'T want to play someone at your rating. This change basically invalidates the custom option almost completely. Yes, from time to time i will get my game against a 2200, but only after dozens of games against whomever the system decides to give me under this threshold.
#65 OK, thanks for this insight and I do trust what you are saying about "custom" pairings and wanting to play opponents with different ratings.
@Toadofsky Thanks! I'm sure this wasn't the intended outcome of the change. I'm struggling to see what the outcome was intended to be. As other have mentioned, chess.com did this some years ago and i literally stopped playing there because of that. Yes some people manipulate their grade for various reasons, either up or down, but this change to custom challenges does absolutely nothing to stop that. Anyone who seriously wants to game the system will find a way, this change just SUCKS for genuine users.
@Toadofsky I explained the most important reasons why I believe these changes to be wrong in #9, probably rather harshly, but it was out of frustration that the community feedback had been apparently ignored. Now I'll try to reword them possibly cleanly and calmly:
1) Basically what @marinkatomb said in #65. The very idea behind creating a custom challenge is that you can choose to play, for example, people 100-200 points upwards from you (to learn from the better opponents) or people 100-200 points below you (to practise beating them consistently), or even people 500 and more points below you (to give them a rare experience, possibly an incentive to study chess harder). I saw that there are some concerns about it giving a possibility of rating manipulation, but as long as the rating system is mathematically sound (and Glicko2 is generally presumed to be), it shouldn't happen.
2) Limiting the opponents to 500 points relative from you, on either side, is very bad on itself, because:
2a) It removes the thrill that, theoretically, your challenge could be picked up in the lobby by an elite GM. Even if it is extremely improbable, for me such a possibility was one of the greatest flavours of Lichess. And at least one of the disputants contesting these changes claimed that it actually happened to him.
2b) If you are a very strong player in a rare variant (for example KoTH or three checks), you can wait for very long until you meet in the lobby someone less than 500 points away from you.
PROPOSED SOLUTION: a slider relative to your rating isn't a bad thing on itself. In order to address the aforementioned problems, I would suggest to change it in two ways:
1) Add position "Infinity" behind 500 on each side of the slider.
2) Make it possible to move both handles of the slider through 0 position (your rating) to the other side, so that you could set the range (for example) -400 to -50 or +100 to infinity.
Alternatively, another good solution was proposed by @GnocchiPup in #43, point 3.
Do you think that there is any chance that all these problems could be addressed as suggested (or otherwise)?
Thank you in advance.
#AbC
1) Basically what @marinkatomb said in #65. The very idea behind creating a custom challenge is that you can choose to play, for example, people 100-200 points upwards from you (to learn from the better opponents) or people 100-200 points below you (to practise beating them consistently), or even people 500 and more points below you (to give them a rare experience, possibly an incentive to study chess harder). I saw that there are some concerns about it giving a possibility of rating manipulation, but as long as the rating system is mathematically sound (and Glicko2 is generally presumed to be), it shouldn't happen.
2) Limiting the opponents to 500 points relative from you, on either side, is very bad on itself, because:
2a) It removes the thrill that, theoretically, your challenge could be picked up in the lobby by an elite GM. Even if it is extremely improbable, for me such a possibility was one of the greatest flavours of Lichess. And at least one of the disputants contesting these changes claimed that it actually happened to him.
2b) If you are a very strong player in a rare variant (for example KoTH or three checks), you can wait for very long until you meet in the lobby someone less than 500 points away from you.
PROPOSED SOLUTION: a slider relative to your rating isn't a bad thing on itself. In order to address the aforementioned problems, I would suggest to change it in two ways:
1) Add position "Infinity" behind 500 on each side of the slider.
2) Make it possible to move both handles of the slider through 0 position (your rating) to the other side, so that you could set the range (for example) -400 to -50 or +100 to infinity.
Alternatively, another good solution was proposed by @GnocchiPup in #43, point 3.
Do you think that there is any chance that all these problems could be addressed as suggested (or otherwise)?
Thank you in advance.
#AbC
#68 As a chess player and a developer (not a moderator, not a maintainer) I do enjoy having as many features as possible! I do not yet know the official reason Lichess changed this "Custom" seek filter..
Since this change could have implications related both to moderation and to ease of maintaining the codebase, I cannot estimate whether another change would be accepted at this time. But at least now I know what to ask about.
EDIT: Discussion is under way... no promises.
Since this change could have implications related both to moderation and to ease of maintaining the codebase, I cannot estimate whether another change would be accepted at this time. But at least now I know what to ask about.
EDIT: Discussion is under way... no promises.
I think the Tab ''Custom'' (at Quick Pairing) has lost it's meaning. It should be renamed to something like ''A bit of Custom'' or ''Somehow Custom'' or ''ex Custom''.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.