Can't create game with specific side any more

@BeDecentForAChange said in #435:
> That's not how matchmaking works. Fair players were auto-matched against people with advantageous and unfair settings, and had no option to be shielded from abusers like that.

Since you obviously know a lot here and perhaps also make decisions, I would like a more detailed explanation of exactly how matchmaking and auto-matching work here.

Why was a player automatically matched with a player who created his bid with a color default? Then the problem is not the player with the color default, but the automatic matching with this player.

So why isn't automatic matching only carried out with players for whom no color default is set? The players with the color default could then continue to wait in the lobby and can assume that someone else will consciously accept the suggestion.

That would be much easier than having to search for players and invite them manually.

@NotTakenUsername said in #437:
> Thats not a solution, why are we even pretending that inviting random people is just fine?

It is a solution, albeit not a perfect one for everyone.

>
> If chess com allows for choosing color, I doubt it truly causes any true problems, it's just pure laziness to remove a feature entirely. What really bothers me is that practicing certain openings in casual isn't possible anymore.

These people built and maintain a chess server for tens of thousands of players. Calling them lazy is a gross mischaracterization looking at the insane amounts of code they have written without any compensation.

> Also, why don't you comment using your real account?

Which account is that? Please provide me with the username

@teddyd said in #439:
> Since you obviously know a lot here and perhaps also make decisions, I would like a more detailed explanation of exactly how matchmaking and auto-matching work here.

I can assure you that Thibault has not consulted me personally on any of his decision making regarding his site. But you're put in a lobby when you create a custom challenge or a quick challenge. Then, if I play random sides, and you only play a certain color, we are a technical match for color (and time control).
>
> Why was a player automatically matched with a player who created his bid with a color default? Then the problem is not the player with the color default, but the automatic matching with this player.

Because from a perspective of this feature, that's actually the ideal case. Except if people start abusing it, then this becomes an issue.

> So why isn't automatic matching only carried out with players for whom no color default is set? The players with the color default could then continue to wait in the lobby and can assume that someone else will consciously accept the suggestion.

So you propose that, if you pick a color, you have to either be matched against someone who picked the opposite color or be chosen from the lobby by a player? I can see multiple issues with that, one of them being that it will fill up the lobby with a lot of players that for example only want to play white. This would cause UI clutter for people that want to be matched fairly, since it would then seem that their only option is to play white.

So that means a separate lobby would need to be made: 1 for color picking, 1 for normal matches. That, in turn, means that someone needs to develop this and maintain it. I'm assuming the resource-intensiveness of this does not justify the benefit for a chess server that is maintained for free.

> That would be much easier than having to search for players and invite them manually.

couldnt you somehow line up in a queue? max of 20 white player searches displayed in lobby?

I canceled my monthly donation after 93 months since I can no longer select my setup color. I have played for 129 days and the analogy is that I am offering to play at my table. I will select my color not be to be controlled by the computer. Restore the right to choose since challengers can choose to play with me or not

I mean, when a lot of waiting is involved, less people would want to play with a certain color, or would agree to be black.

@Munich said in #442:
> couldnt you somehow line up in a queue? max of 20 white player searches displayed in lobby?

And all the other white player searches are then not shown? That means insane waiting periods if you're unlucky. That also means people might be idle during the wait, and once they get a game may not be back in time and get aborted.

yes, it would mean, if you insist playing white you need to wait. But I guess there is a limit of how long someone would want to wait, and thus some would give up ("not worth the wait") and the problem of too many white seeks would go away.

@GregMillsUSA1 said in #443:
> I canceled my monthly donation after 93 months since I can no longer select my setup color. I have played for 129 days and the analogy is that I am offering to play at my table. I will select my color not be to be controlled by the computer. Restore the right to choose since challengers can choose to play with me or not

You can actually still do exactly that! You can challenge people to a game with a pre-selected color , and they can accept or not.

@Munich said in #446:
> yes, it would mean, if you insist playing white you need to wait. But I guess there is a limit of how long someone would want to wait, and thus some would give up ("not worth the wait") and the problem of too many white seeks would go away.

Yes, or it will cause a lot of unstarted games due to idleness. The problem of too many white seeks has gone away now too