Automatch updates 2024-12-10

[shinuito]

@qnpnpmqppnp

• Hiding handicap and rank range settings behind an option button.
• Keep time selection visible (blitz, rapid, standard). Just three buttons, no Fischer/Byo-Yomi choice.

Something like

[shinuito]

@fuseki3

At the moment it’s true that the Fischer timesettings are so dissimilar (and difficult to manage/too low increment), so it may be worth scrapping them to simplify the overload of buttons/options, and just let that be made as a custom game if somebody prefers Fischer.

Or we could just wait a few weeks and anoek will tell us the relative popularity between the settings as the data is being collected.

Now there’s no bias toward a default where you would have to choose to “require Fischer” behind some modals.

If Fischer is as popular or more so than Byo-yomi, maybe the opposite will be considered, who knows.

[qnpnpmqppnp]

Yes, I seriously think the old design was working well.

We could have kept this with just adding a “rapid” button and getting rid of the settings (or if necessary, at least limit it to handicap/rank range).

[fuseki3]

Yes, was searching for a way to reduce option/interface overload, and I’m not sure how the system worked before as I only recalled using byo yomi (or simple time ?) in automatch and very rarely automatched.

If there were already Fischer/Byo Yomi Only options and/or they’re important to conserve, maybe it can be added somewhere as a radio button (although that does add another extra option and potentially complicate things…?),

And I would still be concerned that the current, small Fischer increments can be adjusted better & could lead to all of the settings being kind of “blitzy” and difficult to manage, especially if we’re not explicity displaying what the timesettings are and one gets placed in a match with 3-5s increments unexpectedly, possibly without knowing how to toggle or change that.

— though overall, simplifying the timesetting flexibility menu by removing the list of 3 options, and to do multi-select or single-select by default,

@Uberdude

Better would be to design the interface so that there is no need for this toggle, and delete it.

and the number of buttons to 3-4, would make it a lot less cluttered and overwhelming.

@shinuito

Something like

@qnpnpmqppnp

Yes, I seriously think the old design was working well.

We could have kept this with just adding a “rapid” button and getting rid of the settings (or if necessary, at least limit it to handicap/rank range).

Yes, it looks much nicer and simpler, there is less the feeling of being placed in front of a cockpit with many buttons and switches doing and

(which is probably better to avoid for the confusion/option overwhelm it can create & go towards simple, quickly comprehensible+quickly selectable basic interface being displayed in general, for what are meant to be "quick’’ matches)

[fizzgig]

Seems it is still (better: again) Not possible to simply request unranked Games against a bot?

[jgk]

What if the Options button was a little less obvious? Maybe a gear icon. This goes to an “Advanced quick match” or “Advanced settings” screen with more options. If there is any text like hovertext, explicitly put the word “Advanced” so that newbies know they can safely ignore it until they learn more.

Big enough that advanced players who want more control can find it, but less blue, less big so newbies can reasonably hit the play button without worrying they have to make more decisions to get into a game.

This assumes good defaults like:

• Giving making the times flexible by default.
• Default is one of the more popular non-corr time settings.

Then perhaps put the rank range into the advanced quick match screen too.

[shinuito]

@jgk

What if the Options button was a little less obvious? Maybe a gear icon.

Like

I think a number of comments are reinventing or requesting essentially the old layout, which I’m not sure is actually friendlier, given it hides most of the info you want to know about.

But then

@Longer queue time and custom/quick separated

It also feels cluttered to me now too (as an experienced Go player with a lot of experience with navigating different sites and configuration processes, and having spent 2+ years on OGS…) and was a bit much to process on first glance

is quite fair.

If you want a comparison to the (mobile) version of other popular chess sites

I think you can only avoid the cluttered-ness if it turns out that some settings are just not popular and you don’t make a button for them at all.

I think we’ll find out if certain Fischer or byo yomi settings aren’t popular per board size after some time and maybe the 9x9, 13x13, 19x19 sets of options could collapse down to a smaller list.

Imagine for example if almost nobody plays “live” 13x13 and 9x9, and nobody plays blitz 19x19.

Then maybe you can already collapse down to just a few buttons like

Blitz 9x9
Blitz 13x13
Rapid 9x9
Rapid13x13
Rapid 19x19
Live 19x19

and depending again on whether Fischer or byo-yomi is possible you could either duplicate a button or make it specific to that time control. Maybe only Fischer is ever played on 9x9 etc.

Anyway I think data driven decisions there would be better than just feelings.

---

I think what you can see from lichess is the way they make the buttons very compact, while for chesscom, the takeaway could be on how to organise multiple popular settings.

Again imagine if there were only 3 popular settings per board size, then you could do a chesscom like grid

9x9
30s + 5x10s ……. 2m+5s …… 2m + 5x30s

13x13
……….

19x19
……….

Again with the layout dictated by only the most popular settings.

@fuseki3

Or perhaps put a checkbox for Fischer Byo

It could be the case that a checkbox is cleaner for toggling handicap on or off, or if one really needs to toggle Fischer to byo-yomi, but my guess is it won’t be one or the other only that popular - and I don’t think one should hide popular UI choices.

I think hiding things is less intuitive even if it’s “more clean”.

For me I like that we can collapse the custom match stuff like

because that is actually complicated, and if you want a simple game, and you don’t have to worry if someone has picked 12m + 4x8s byo-yomi for some strange reason, or a 30 min absolute time game.

[fuseki3]

@jgk

What if the Options button was a little less obvious? Maybe a gear icon. This goes to an “Advanced quick match” or “Advanced settings” screen with more options. If there is any text like hovertext, explicitly put the word “Advanced” so that newbies know they can safely ignore it until they learn more.

Big enough that advanced players who want more control can find it, but less blue, less big so newbies can reasonably hit the play button without worrying they have to make more decisions to get into a game.

I really like that as an idea.

@shinuito

given it hides most of the info you want to know about.

@shinuito

I think hiding things is less intuitive even if it’s “more clean”.

Yes, I also actually think it’s clearer to be able to see what timesettings one is choosing and that it was a downside of the previous layout (and somewhat prevented me from trying automatch at first, actually, not knowing if I’d be put into a game with unknown settings I may not prefer), though I’m not sure what the best way to do that would be with many options.

@shinuito

If you want a comparison to the (mobile) version of other popular chess sites

Of note, though, other sites for Go (which may have a different portion of players/beginner-base/expectations) like KGS and Fox tend to have only 2-3 options for automatch ( basicallly blitz, fast and medium settings) also

I’m not sure whether having more timesetting options, even if desired, is noticeably impactful on being beginner/confusion-friendly ?

(they’re also in different time formats (Fischer and byo yomi), with various numbers+symbols, which maybe makes it a bit less easy to scan, or if one isn’t familiar with the time systems, it adds extra layers of things to process)

@shinuito

I think you can only avoid the cluttered-ness if it turns out that some settings are just not popular and you don’t make a button for them at all.

On the one hand – it’s true that if we wanted to include all popular settings, even something like 30:00+5:0:30 or a “classical”/Slow option with something longer, would be potentially popular – that’s a common setting on KGS.

But that gets to be a bit much at some point – there would be a proliferation of extra buttons – so there’s a balance between including the popular options one may choose and giving potential users -or newcomers or beginners ) decision/information overwhelm.

On the other hand – Maybe we’re mistaken and it’d be fine even for new users or beginners, with 6 buttons labelled with byo yomi / fischer rather than 3, but less other cluttering options too, though it does currently give more to process and choose from and look more cluttered to me to at least some extent.

(I’m not sure to what extent it’s because it feels like being hit with a mass of numbers in that area, without easily readable/scannable labels like “Rapid” or “Fischer” or “Byo Yomi” to orient oneself)

(and I think I’d feel that as a new user to the chess sites screenshotted, or a beginner without experience with the tiime systems, what they mean etc… regarding which option to choose, why, decisions, decisions… ).

I do like the cute labels/icons in the first screenshot of " Bullet, Blitz, Rapid"… it makes it easiliy distinguishable that these are 3 categories rather than just a mass of 9 buttons.

And I find the first screenshot’s interface a lot more easily, quickly parsable (even if unfamiliar with the symbols + meanings + why/what to choose , at least as 3 categories with 3 timesetting options)/less like a slightly overwhelming mass of buttons with various numbers+text+symbols on first glance, than the second.

So maybe clearer labels/interface would help.

How was Fischer vs Byo Yomi etc selection for automatch handled previously prior to this update ?

[qnpnpmqppnp]

@fuseki3

I’m not sure whether having more timesetting options, even if desired, is noticeably impactful on being beginner/confusion-friendly ?

The concern is mostly about the userpool being too thin to enable quick matching over many options.

OGS cannot afford to propose plenty of automatch options like chess servers.

[fuseki3]

@qnpnpmqppnp

The concern is mostly about the userpool being too thin to enable quick matching over many options.

In that case, it seems better to simplify the options to be fewer too.

On thinking about it, I think that part of the information/option overload also involves having to read a lot of explication in the menus.

For example, the current handicap menu has this, which feels a bit complicated and wordy to read through :

It could probably be simplified to a radio button type option (or drop-down selection), with the beginning explication sentence if needed, but simpler choices without extra, and maybe in Advanced Options :

Handicap
Handicaps balance games between players of different ranks by adjusting starting stones and komi points.

Handicap Required Handicap Disabled Accept either

Or for the 3rd option, Standard (Use handicap by default but accept either)

(it seems to accomplish the same thing but with much less text and explication)

[Uberdude]

Even simpler: for automatch, handicaps are on, no choice (but prefer to match for even games, but once you are waiting for 30 seconds start to look for low handi matches, after 1 minute look for high handi). If you don’t like handicap, use custom game. Be bold, simplify.

[stone.defender]

automatch: same as now, but “Explore custom games” button is a link instead of expand
custom: no automatch included, but maybe place little link button somewhere

[shinuito]

@fuseki3

I’m not sure whether having more timesetting options, even if desired, is noticeably impactful on being beginner/confusion-friendly ?

For fox, having the settings in Chinese in some clients is also not beginner friendly - so we can probably remove Fox as a comparison for beginners, unless we’re talking about beginners that want to find a tutorial video on how to get registered and installed etc.

Generally the Fox interface looks like a mess, and I think people just learn to click some button and it puts them in a game and they don’t worry about the rest.

@fuseki3

that’s a common setting on KGS.

But we’re also not necessarily trying to be KGS or fox. There’s a good chance someone happy playing on fox stays playing on fox, either because of the number of players or level of the players. For KGS, I wonder does our automatch already cover their settings more or less anyway:

Medium: 25m +5x30s ~ 20m +5x30s
Fast: 10m+5x20s ~ 5m 5x30s
Blitz: 1m +3x10s ~ 30s +5x10s

For me those are already so close it wouldn’t make sense to add an additional KGS setting clone right beside one that seems fundamentally the same.

---

@qnpnpmqppnp

The concern is mostly about the userpool being too thin to enable quick matching over many options.

OGS cannot afford to propose plenty of automatch options like chess servers.

Again we can probably be sure about those kinds of statements with data rather than based on feeling, so I’m looking forward to more data like

@anoek

What the numbers are telling me is that Fischer is emerging as a popular setting, but there is an understandably larger base of folks that still prefer byo-yomi.

This shows the number of games created on a given day using auto match, direct challenges, or open challenges. There’s obviously some significant bias based on default settings and whatnot. The biggest surprise to me in these numbers is how even the fischer/byoyomi split is for direct challenges, and how skewed they are for open challenges.

Anyways, all this to say I understand folks would love to have their favorite option as the only option, and I too would love to have just one option, but I think we need to let things simmer a bit more.

---

@fuseki3

For example, the current handicap menu has this, which feels a bit complicated and wordy to read through :

Except everytime something isn’t explained, someone wants a tooltip for it, which doesn’t really work on mobile.

---

@Uberdude

Even simpler: for automatch, handicaps are on, no choice (but prefer to match for even games, but once you are waiting for 30 seconds start to look for low handi matches, after 1 minute look for high handi). If you don’t like handicap, use custom game. Be bold, simplify.

Seems like a valid option, given that that’s how the automatch was kind of working, where it had a delay with matching users that weren’t close in rank.

Main problem is that some people will never play or queue up for a handicap match, and so either they’ll stop using automatch which is counter productive, or they’ll cancel all the handicap matches and requeue, which is a waste of time.

We could be bold and simplify and say the only game and time setting is 5m+5x30s on 19x19, send everything else to custom, but I don’t think custom is fit for purpose for a large scale number of challenges and settings. That’s my feeling anyway.

[Uberdude]

@shinuito

Generally the Fox interface looks like a mess, and I think people just learn to click some button and it puts them in a game and they don’t worry about the rest.

It is proof of the brilliant simplicity of Fox’s automatch that people can use it even if they don’t understand the language of the client user interface: just a single button you click and you get a game near instantly.

[anoek]

@shinuito

Main problem is that some people will never play or queue up for a handicap match, and so either they’ll stop using automatch which is counter productive, or they’ll cancel all the handicap matches and requeue, which is a waste of time.

This. When you don’t give folks control over the setting that is important to them, a non insignificant portion of them will cancel the games until they get a game that meets their criteria which frustrates both players.

FTR about 20% of players using automatch to find games disable handicaps.

@Uberdude

It is proof of the brilliant simplicity of Fox’s automatch that people can use it even if they don’t understand the language of the client user interface: just a single button you click and you get a game near instantly.

Do you know if Fox uses handicaps or not with their one click solution?

[Uberdude]

IIRC you will at most get matched with people 1 rank difference so get a no komi game, but not 2+ ranks different so no handicap stones. A benefit of a large player pool.

[stone.defender]

@anoek

20% of players using automatch to find games disable handicaps.

when rating difference is small, there are no handicap stones
so now users who dislike handicap play with users who like handicap
+there are users who don’t care
if handicap would be always on, those who dislike handicap will go away
players who like handicap and those who don’t care will get less opponents and will wait longer

[shinuito]

It could be useful to have a one button solution for the most popular setting on 19x19 say.

Like no handicap, match with a player within one rank, and then some popular time control whether it’s Fischer or Byo-yomi etc

[fuseki3]

@anoek

• The bot list on the Play page will now gray out bots that won’t accept your selected settings, and briefly explain why

Had a thought when trying to puzzle out why the lower left of the current interface also feels like it makes things (potentially confusingly) more complex/adds more visual things +choices.

(as intuitively, setting rank range here or in an “Advanced/Advanced Options” area, should be fairly straightforward and clear, and is available as part of KGS automatch settings as “max rank difference”)

(It’s felt like the bot list is a bit out of place, and maybe if including rank range, just “Opponent rank range” with the +/- options, makes it a lot simpler than adding 2 different types of menus & the necessity to process that that part of the “cockpit controls” is actually 2 mutually exclusive drop-downs, to choose playing Human vs. Bot)

So –

Is it necessary to place the bot controls there ?

Especially given the massive bugs in automatch with bots, and that causing issues for users wishiing to play them the past while – and needing to go thru Custom matching the bots directly now anyway, could that just be migrated to a “Play with Computer” button again ?

(maybe just allowing custom settings+ the same type of list of bots, now greying out/explaining which bots don’t “accept that setting” & why)

The dual Human/Computer side-by-side menu interface seems potentially extraneous/extra noise/confusing if one doesn’t wish to play a bot,

— whereas those wishing to play bots are probably perfectly happy with a button leading to something like a pop-up menu leading directly to that (not necessarily needing all of the bells and whistles of these, specific automatch settings & flexible multi-select etc. may confuse matters further for bots ?),

—and the way it is placed into the interface at the moment makes it almost seem visually to me when scanning, as if one can or needs to select responses in both Human and Computer “panels” – and as another option/choice to be made or understood, in addition to everything else.

Or maybe it would look less confusing if the rank range weren’t near there ?

Something about it feels more confusing than necessary or could be done.

—maybe another alternative could be to first have the play button, or some other clear “choice” first lead to “Human” vs “Bot” button/options which then offer the selection of bots or ranks, if it’s necessary to conserve Bot automatch,

“Play! (Human)” / “Play! (Computer)” ?

—but I also wonder if Bot automatch is really adding more than the potential clutter at the moment, and also whether it really helps make matches with bots appreciably simpler or easier, enough to merit the extra buttons/options …?

[anoek]

I’m 100% sure there’s a better way to present things, however I do feel playing bots is an important thing to have handy as a lot of beginners want to start off playing a bot so they can get a feel for the game.