yes, I agree with @redbullet64 #60, @thibault
In #59, @kosciuk says in Spanish: "Si alguien puede dejar las indicaciones de como programarlo (en ingles o español) me gustaria ver si es posible programar algo por fuera de Lichess usando la API."
English translation [using Google Translate]:
"If someone can leave the instructions on how to program it (in English or Spanish) I would like to see if it is possible to program something outside of Lichess using the API."
Sería genial, kosciuk. Si lo logras envíame un mensaje privado [@Ugalde]
English translation [using Google Translate]:
"If someone can leave the instructions on how to program it (in English or Spanish) I would like to see if it is possible to program something outside of Lichess using the API."
Sería genial, kosciuk. Si lo logras envíame un mensaje privado [@Ugalde]
The bad thing about Arenas... They cannot really be used to determine who is playing chess stronger. The player A may be a slightly better chess player than B, but B is using Arenas features well - knows when to resign because the expectation from the game is less than can be earned by switching to the next, knows that you can enter the Arena several seconds just after it starts, and get a weaker player (and actually entering "weaker player pool" of pairings, not just for a single game, because pairing system seems to mix up players very slowly), keeping non-verbal mutual berserk contracts with other players who agree, playing more risky or more surprising openings which tend to end the game quicker, etc. And in the end player B ends up performing in Arenas consistently better than A, despite being weaker in pure chess head-to-head match.
I mean, it is all interesting to play and watch, but I just have no trust in Arenas as a way to determine better players, especially in longer time controls. Swiss would be a nice complement for a more competitive format. And seeing an ever-repeating argument that "it didn't work in 2014" (when lichess was 100 times smaller) makes me sad.
I mean, it is all interesting to play and watch, but I just have no trust in Arenas as a way to determine better players, especially in longer time controls. Swiss would be a nice complement for a more competitive format. And seeing an ever-repeating argument that "it didn't work in 2014" (when lichess was 100 times smaller) makes me sad.
@thibault One other point - the consecutive draw rule is nice, but even draw every 2nd game is harmful to the standings. Look at this atrocity - lichess.org/YnyWiDuG/white#16.
You will find people throwing games on any type of event.
It's not a winning strategy in Arenas. It never gets anyone to a good rank. The key to winning arenas are win streaks, which this prevents.
It's not a winning strategy in Arenas. It never gets anyone to a good rank. The key to winning arenas are win streaks, which this prevents.
I think if exists a section for coaches, maybe could exists a section for clubs, and there the swiss tournament will be useful... I only can program in PHP or Vue :(
Swiss system is clunky - have to wait for ALL games in round to finish to start your next. Number of rounds is capped. Much less incentive to finish games faster. Less incentive for late-joiners etc.
Round Robin has less obvious faults but on the whole I feel this format is a lot more appealing in theory than it is in practice
One format that may be exciting to see on lichess is elimination (/multiple elimination) although you have to be there at the outset
All in all, I feel the Arena system works wonders and apart from elimination formats, nothing readily jumps to my mind as far as enhancing formats
Round Robin has less obvious faults but on the whole I feel this format is a lot more appealing in theory than it is in practice
One format that may be exciting to see on lichess is elimination (/multiple elimination) although you have to be there at the outset
All in all, I feel the Arena system works wonders and apart from elimination formats, nothing readily jumps to my mind as far as enhancing formats
A ladder system, that less you pick only the top 4 player above your standings.
Every time you win or lose your standings will change and you will have 4 choices to pick from.
It's a wonderful pairing system. you get the choice of 4 players.
Every time you win or lose your standings will change and you will have 4 choices to pick from.
It's a wonderful pairing system. you get the choice of 4 players.
@thibault A few more anecdotal examples...
lichess.org/tournament/UAS8CtBY is an example of a tournament, where the winner and 2nd place streaked exactly the same # of games, but 2nd place played 3 more games because they played faster. They even beat the 1st place finisher! But all they had to do was win their games quicker, which they did (sometimes because their opponent resigned quickly). What do we tell the kid who finished 2nd and won all of their games, including beating 1st place? "Play faster?"? But sometimes that doesn't even depend on them - it depends on how quickly their opponents move.
lichess.org/tournament/bzyJbKRs is an example of a tournament we had last summer, where both 5th and 13th place finishers won all their games. 13th place asked their dad, "what could have I done better to win the tournament"? And he could not answer.
lichess.org/tournament/UAS8CtBY is an example of a tournament, where the winner and 2nd place streaked exactly the same # of games, but 2nd place played 3 more games because they played faster. They even beat the 1st place finisher! But all they had to do was win their games quicker, which they did (sometimes because their opponent resigned quickly). What do we tell the kid who finished 2nd and won all of their games, including beating 1st place? "Play faster?"? But sometimes that doesn't even depend on them - it depends on how quickly their opponents move.
lichess.org/tournament/bzyJbKRs is an example of a tournament we had last summer, where both 5th and 13th place finishers won all their games. 13th place asked their dad, "what could have I done better to win the tournament"? And he could not answer.
I think ultimately the main things to consider here are
1. There is a swell of individuals looking for online swiss tournaments who are lacking computer literacy required to simply use discord to recieve pairings. This may seem like a trivial obstacle but think of your local chess club and what percentage of those players could actually go through and start a time controlled game with several rounds at the right time. With a TD only present through some form of digital communication be it slack, discord, or email, I do think that delays with the average chess club is inevitable. Ideally, you send them a link to join a club, and a link to a tournament where they just sit in front of the screen at the right time and the game pops up in front of them, greatly cutting down the work required by TDs.
2. Chess players ultimately value tradition. While I agree that the current arena system does not have flaws as a method of determining the best player, it does fail to replicate the many smaller experiences of a swiss tournament at your local club: killing time between rounds with some blitz, spectating the last remaining game and discussing with others from afar, post mortems with your opponent. These are things which are completely unnecessary for typical online chess but they do enable certain social behaviors that you don't get with arenas which are inherently higher pace and lack down time. It also makes sense in current times when people are missing the social interactions they once had at the club.
3. The winning strategy in arena is not the same as swiss. There is a priority on maintaining your streak, emphasizing positions which are less drawish. Additionally, the lack of breaks between games is, in my opinion, not suitable for long time control tournaments where you ideally have a bit of time between rounds to prep, do post mortems, and review games on your own.
Swiss tournaments IMO do have their place in online chess. Maybe a quarter of chesscom tournaments are swiss format, and I think they ultimately are more suitable for small clubs when compared to the arena system as it promotes the discussion. With all that being said though, I am not certain if the introduction of swiss tournaments on lichess would see the same spike in popularity as on chesscom, as people here have gotten quite used to the arena format. It's possible that the time spent developing the feature would not be worth it when only a tiny tiny fraction of clubs end up picking it up over running their club on chesscom.
@Ugalde #48 and $56 are unfortunately only half solutions. Getting tokens beforehand is a pain, and I personally wouldn't give it out to someone that I do not already have a relationship with.
1. There is a swell of individuals looking for online swiss tournaments who are lacking computer literacy required to simply use discord to recieve pairings. This may seem like a trivial obstacle but think of your local chess club and what percentage of those players could actually go through and start a time controlled game with several rounds at the right time. With a TD only present through some form of digital communication be it slack, discord, or email, I do think that delays with the average chess club is inevitable. Ideally, you send them a link to join a club, and a link to a tournament where they just sit in front of the screen at the right time and the game pops up in front of them, greatly cutting down the work required by TDs.
2. Chess players ultimately value tradition. While I agree that the current arena system does not have flaws as a method of determining the best player, it does fail to replicate the many smaller experiences of a swiss tournament at your local club: killing time between rounds with some blitz, spectating the last remaining game and discussing with others from afar, post mortems with your opponent. These are things which are completely unnecessary for typical online chess but they do enable certain social behaviors that you don't get with arenas which are inherently higher pace and lack down time. It also makes sense in current times when people are missing the social interactions they once had at the club.
3. The winning strategy in arena is not the same as swiss. There is a priority on maintaining your streak, emphasizing positions which are less drawish. Additionally, the lack of breaks between games is, in my opinion, not suitable for long time control tournaments where you ideally have a bit of time between rounds to prep, do post mortems, and review games on your own.
Swiss tournaments IMO do have their place in online chess. Maybe a quarter of chesscom tournaments are swiss format, and I think they ultimately are more suitable for small clubs when compared to the arena system as it promotes the discussion. With all that being said though, I am not certain if the introduction of swiss tournaments on lichess would see the same spike in popularity as on chesscom, as people here have gotten quite used to the arena format. It's possible that the time spent developing the feature would not be worth it when only a tiny tiny fraction of clubs end up picking it up over running their club on chesscom.
@Ugalde #48 and $56 are unfortunately only half solutions. Getting tokens beforehand is a pain, and I personally wouldn't give it out to someone that I do not already have a relationship with.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.