please rollback the rating range change!

I realize that there are players who want to play only against stronger players and therefore want a rollback. However, this situation was undoubtedly the cause of distortion, selfishness and abuse, so it was changed. If all players think like this "only play against 100-300 rating points above" no one will have opponents. Of course, not everyone made that choice, but no doubt that number must have grown to the point of affecting the challenges. It was undoubtedly a selfish option that was rightly corrected by the Lichess. Congratulations to the administrators.

If you want only to play against a stronger player, befriend him and challenge personally.

@FernandoCombinations What nonsense are you talking? Befriend players who are 200+ points higher (in my case around 2200). How do you propose I do that? Is there a table somewhere that shows everyone on the site by their grade?? I've never seen that. I can see the top 100 players, who are all over 600 points higher rated (i have tried doing what you suggest, challenge them directly. Huge waste of time btw).

How is it that playing in a specific rating range causes abuse? I can abuse this system too. I can keep issuing challenges and simply abort the game, over and over, until i get the opponent i want. Is the 'abuse' prevented? Or have i just made the abuse even worse by wasting everyones time?

How is this an improvement? I can see no reason to make this change.

@marinkatomb I wholly agree with you. Maybe, if we are a bit lucky, they will be more inclined to listen when a patron, rather than an ordinary user, tells them obvious things.

@FernandoCombinations Thank you very much for your valuable point of concern. It is funny, though, that some of the other change defenders claimed exactly the opposite, i. e. that everybody wanted only to play against weaker opponents. In reality, I believe that both these groups were balanced and satisfied each other's needs pretty well, as indicated by lack of any major lags. Your constant use of 100% probability clauses ("undoubtedly", "no doubt", "undoubtedly" again) is bewildering, given that the developers never bothered to give us any reason behind the changes. I also find it appalling that you speak as if giving an omniscient explanation while never trying to refer to multiple serious arguments which I used in my previous posts. Thank you once again for understanding.

#AbC

@marinkatomb You can not abuse aborting matches because it can cause suspension and it gets bigger and bigger, in case of recurrence. It is not fairplay on your part.

@Otienimous I read your long posts and several others. It is not true that they defend exactly the opposite of what I said and want to play with lower rated players. A colleague claimed that he had the opportunity to play against a strong GM, related matches x and z, another said that he likes to play against stronger players yes.

Anyway, it's a change that has no effect on me, I hadn't even noticed, to tell you the truth. I only decided to give my opinion because I noticed that there was a lot of noise and crying for nothing.

And another, it is still possible to play only against stronger or weaker opponents, since we can zero out one side of the bar and leave the other. I understand how a change against abuse does. They wouldn't make a change like that for nothing.

Well, I won't be here arguing forever. I will study and play chess now.

@FernandoCombinations It is not crying for nothing, are you purposely not taking the point?

"it is still possible to play only against stronger or weaker opponents, since we can zero out one side of the bar and leave the other"

Guess what happens when you do this. Think about it....

When you do this, you end up playing someone in your rating. The first pairing is 9 times out of 10 going to be someone close to your rating,

------> WHICH IS EXACTLY THE SAME THING THAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU JUST CLICK QUICK PAIRING <------

The change has now prevented people from playing stronger opposition, as the pairing is optimised for quick pairing. It assumes that i am happy with the minimum rating. I am NOT happy with it at all, i am deeply unhappy with it, but am forced into a stupid arbitrary CAP.

Why have a cap? If i want to play a 2300, how do i do that now? I can't contact them, as i can't find them. I can specify 2300 in the rating range, but i will never get that game because I will be paired with a 1975ish player instantly every-time i submit a challenge.

In other words, no this doesn't 'change nothing'. It literally puts a cap on the quality of opposition i can face. That is a massive change! Bullshit decision.

@marinkatomb

"Guess what happens when you do this. Think about it....

When you do this, you end up playing someone in your rating. The first pairing is 9 times out of 10 going to be someone close to your rating,"

its true...

@FernandoCombinations You do not seem to comprehend what I have written. I said that I had discussed before with people who said the same what you said, with the only exception: they claimed that most players want to play only against weaker players, while you claimed that most players want to play only against stronger players. It shows the invalidity of your line of reasoning, as well as their. And since you actually managed to read and understand at least a few of my previous posts, it is even stranger that you never actually referred to my arguments. Instead of referring to them, you try to ridicule them as "a lot of noise and crying for nothing". This pattern of behaviour is typical for toddlers and politicians, but you are probably neither, so that I don't understand. Look also at the insightful comments of @marinkatomb .

#AbC

#29 It looks like we're going to argue about definitions of words... Lichess is open source:

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transparent
2a: free from pretense or deceit : FRANK
b: easily detected or seen through : OBVIOUS

I read all of these comments and #30 is the only one I understood.

http://www.sscce.org/
http://xyproblem.info/

@Toadofsky Thank you very much for the comment! Aside from the fact that we cannot reasonably expect chessplayers to be able to read source code - coincidentally, I am able (a bit), but for many of us it could as well have been written in the Armenian alphabet - I think that @SimpleMove did not mean transparency of changes as much as transparency of reasons. We haven't got to know why the developers decided upon such an important change, restraining our free choice of opponents, never consulting the community and (furthermore) not reacting despite visible outrage in the feedback forum. If you have some idea about that, I would love to hear your opinion.

#AbC