Hi there,

The platform is fantastic. Great job!

However, I have 2 issues. 2 big ones actually.

1) I find the pieces management awkward. On any draughts software, one can move a piece with just one click when it has only one possible move. Similarly, the destination can be enough to define a move. The problem is more acute when you need to take several pieces in a row. Clicking on each square is very unnecessary and very annoying. It would be a massive improvement if moving/capturing was faster.

2) And this leads to the second point directly. Some players may like 3+0, 1+0 formats. I personally hate them because they don't allow to play a proper endgame. Why get rid of the endgame? Now I see people playing anything to get to an endgame and win on time. It may be fun for some. I don't argue with that. But it is not 100% draughts to me, it is a variant of draughts. 20 years ago or so, Fischer was introduced with electronic clocks. And in competition, most games are played with it. A website like this one should not force us to go back in time, when we did not have electronic clocks. Moreover, no-Fischer timings have special rules which help the winning player by giving him the opportunity to force a draw if they have a clear advantage. You don't have this rule implemented because of course, there will noone here to judge what a clear advantage is.
That leads me to the 2 conclusions:
2a) could you open Fischer tournaments (at the very least 50% of the tournaments)?
2b) could you make a separate rating for Fischer / non-Fischer games? As I said, it is essentially 2 very distinct variants of the game of international draughts. I would understand if you did not want to offer 2 ratings, but then force everyone to play Fischer which is the way the game is played in competition.

Thanks for your understanding!

Hi @Roitelet,

On your first point: it is a choice you can make, but we made a different one. Some of the reasons why are discussed in another thread: lidraughts.org/forum/lidraughts-feedback/bullet-is-maybe-too-fast#4

On the second point, you're right that it is a matter of preference. The most popular timecontrols overall are 3+0 and 5+0, that is why they are most prominent. We could make tournaments with increment, although it is too early to add extra tournaments (we need more players to fill them all). We can add some variation in the current schedule, e.g. alternate 3+0 with 3+2 timecontrols.

However, timecontrols with or without increment are too similar to make them different ratings altogether. There is a wide range of timecontrols that are classified as blitz, which is determined both by the starting time and by the size of the increment (if either is high enough it will automatically become a rapid game).

Hi RoepStoep,

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

I am disappointed by your answer though.

I can assure you that I play 200-300 ELO points better in 3+2 than 3+0. I just simply can't finish a game in 1+0 and find it hard in 3+0. But worse than losing, I just hate the way it forces us to play. That's why I think two ratings are essential.

Regarding facilitating quick moves, I also feel you are in the wrong. The only valid argument against it is beginners. So minimal click moves should be an option that confirmed players set as soon as they are aware of it. I am not asking for auto-capture. It is fine to need to click to activate the move.

Finally, why do you say 3+0 and 5+0 are the most popular time controls?

PS: you should listen to your players. That's a basic rules of any startup. Especially to the early adopters. In the other thread, you appear to be not nterested in changing anything.

"We can add some variation in the current schedule, e.g. alternate 3+0 with 3+2 timecontrols."
This sounds like a good idea.

Yes alternate time controls is a minimum for now.

While I am at it, I spotted that it is not possible to create a time increment superior to 2 seconds in tournaments. In my opinion, this should be changed. It looks like a bug not a feature. :)

The most prominent part of this subject here is:
Having more time to think in games in tournaments.

We constantly look into that. What is and what isn't correct, in this moment of time, is based on several things (f.e. the amount of players; real time events; players preferences; etc.).
Now, on this website the slower time controls are most popular (3+0 and 5+0, any variant). So we can make more 5+5, 7+2 or 10+0 maybe.

The other subject is discussed in the link Roepstoep referred to.

A short thing about the browsers comparison:
Playok.com is the website where pretty much most draughts is played online. There you have to capture every piece as well. Besides that, there is not much draughts software, relatively. Comparing the available software isn't useful with so little to compare with.
So it just comes down to what is presonally preferred, and as a group, what is necessary.

Hi @Roitelet,

It is certainly not the case that we don't listen to players, you input and that of others is very much appreciated, necessary even. We have made many changes already based on suggestions and feedback, but we can't make everybody happy at the same time.

It is a good idea to have more increment options when creating custom tournaments, that one will be implemented shortly. Also to add tournaments with increment in the daily cycles seems logical, so you can look forward to that one as well.

Separating incremental ratings is a different matter though. Besides the practical challenges that come from doubling the amount the rating categories, they are both conceptually blitz as far as the average game time is concerned. I agree that it is a gamechanger to have increment (the same applies to chess as well), as it allows you to win endings that would be totally lost otherwise, but this merely means you should manage your time differently. And again, some like that and some don't, but there is little doubt that both are blitz.

In both chess and draughts it seems that 5+0 is the most common time-control for blitz, both on the internet and over the board (at least in any blitz tournament I played IRL). Looking at online play (both chess and draughts) it also seems that 3+0 and 5+0 are by far the most common, followed by 1+0 and 10+0. Don't ask me for numbers to prove this though ;)

I will answer to the one-click captures in the other topic, to avoid creating two separate threads about this subject

I suppose you live in the Netherlands. In my country, we don't play +0 tournaments anymore. Not only it is better because you can play the endgame, but it leads to fewer refereeing situations that were a plague when I was young.

Also in international competitions, I can't think of any blitz tournament where Fischer is not the norm.

To me, +0 tournaments are a thing of the past. And I really really don't understand why we should promote an old-fashioned (and wrong) way of playing.

If you want to promote very fast games, then just promote 1+1 (with minimal click feature) and everyone will be happy. I might even play this time control.

Thanks for your time and effort!

The tournament schedule has now been changed so that every other bullet tournament is 1+1, and every other superblitz tournament is 3+2

The options to create custom tournaments have also been expanded to allow for longer games

Thanks!