Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improve bot challenge logic #1383

Open
lucasart opened this issue Jan 28, 2025 · 0 comments
Open

Improve bot challenge logic #1383

lucasart opened this issue Jan 28, 2025 · 0 comments

Comments

@lucasart
Copy link

lucasart commented Jan 28, 2025

Current logic is Play -> Online bots, then:

  1. select from a list of all bots connected. This list is too long, and sorted in a unintuitive way: features bots, followed by others by descending time spent playing.
  2. select time control, variant, etc. and challenge

I propose to invert the logic:

  1. first select time control, variant, etc. and also elo range (relative to user)
  2. then display a list of relevant bots

This seemingly trivial inversion has many benefits IMO.

  • rating filtering For example, user selects 10+5 rated, with -300/+200 elo range. 10+5 is Rapid, so (2) should only display bots whose rapid rating is in [X-300,X+200], where X is the rapid rating of the user.
  • reliably rated bots only Use the max rd value corresponding to lichess.org showing '?' in front of ratings (unreliable). For example, if the user selects 20+10 which is Classical, very few bots have rd <= 100 (or whatever the value is) in Classical, because they don't play it, so the list should be reduced accordingly. Even more pertinent in Chess960, or any other variant, where the vast majority of bots do not play and have an rd > 100. This filter could be optional in (1), to cater for the special snowflakes that never play rated games (including Leela piece odds bots).
  • improved sorting given the context provided by (1), you know which rating should be displayed, and used as sorting criteria for (2).
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant