Another feature suggestion: longer time controls into "Quick pairing"

if u want 9 explicit time controls and 1 custom square then maybe make it like a phone's keypad.. 9 squares in a square and then one lone square in the bottom middle to be a square lol...

custom can be bottom square. maybe have two filler squares on the side of the bottom square to make it 3x4 (maybe they can be custom time control slots that the player can save? so if they want something like 45+45 then they can save one square on the bottom to be 45+45?)

I like isa's idea though and dont see any problem with it

@Toadofsky your point about popularity vs quality is well taken. So we have a tradeoff to make between offering people what they currently want versus nudging them towards something better.

It is easy to say "my preference is simply better". And you may be right, but just as in chess you must consider your opponent's replies, in product design you must seriously consider the possibility that you are wrong and the users are right, and that means considering the possible reasons behind their preference.

Do you think people currently prefer 5+0 over 5+1 because of ignorance of the benefits of 5+1? Or because they enjoy mayhem over "good chess"? Or simply inertia?

There is one point I made that you haven't responded to yet — people who have a fixed amount of time for chess. They have a class in 20 minutes and then they really have to go. The *+0 formats offer them significant utility, no?

Another possibility is that they actually *enjoy* the difficulties that result in time management against a brick wall?

I would support an experiment where we change the 5+0 to 5+1, 10+0 to 10+2 and so on for, perhaps three weeks, and see what it does to user statistics. I think you and I would both expect that the impact would negative on the first day and even the first week as people adjust. If your theory is correct, when would you expect the impact to become positive?

@dsjoerg I agree, absolutely there's a trade-off; and for most people it's natural to instinctively defend one's preferences without seriously considering the alternative. And I know in this forum I act uncompromising and argumentative.

Over my decades of playing online chess, I'm noticing that winning on time is unsatisfying compared to checkmate or resignation; although players are relieved to be out of time trouble (and increment does increase time pressure). So I think players prefer 5+0 over 5+1:
* out of inertia/ignorance
* preferring the time pressure to be over quickly
* because they think they enjoy mayhem until they see the result

I did mention that a person with class in 20 minutes shouldn't pick 10+0, because due to lag compensation they'll still be late. I really don't think the utility is significant although I don't know, if people live their lives in 10-minute increments I guess we could try 4+1 instead of 5+1 and 8+2 instead of 10+2?

@Toadofsky I don't believe that people live their lives in 10-minute increments. But I believe people have fixed time commitments and pick a game mode that fits the time they have available. However I'm guessing that inertia + ignorance are the top reason as well.

I would rather play 1+1 than 1+0, but 1+1 isn't one of the eight defaults so I'm out of luck.

Maybe instead of "Custom" the button could say "More..." and could lead to another page of choices. Then the first eight choices could be a mix of the most popular options & the options we are trying to encourage.

Or, a configuration way to choose which 8 buttons are shown, chosen from a wider range of options.

The top reason to prefer non-increment tcs is that they're a totally different experience;
You're never out of the game, and it's not won until it's over either.

Especially in Bullet, there are worlds between 1+0 and 1+1 - personally I prefer the latter, but I also fully understand someone might like the former.
To remove the most popular timecontrols, because you personally don't like them, while you put yourself on a pedestal and proclaim everyone else is simply an idiot who just doesn't know better.. is a joke, really.

"Carlsen only plays 1+0 instead of 1+1 because he doesn't know any better". Surely you notice how stupid that sounds?

I support this.

Popular is certainly influenced by quick pairing.

#25 Please allow the record to reflect that I've on numerous occasions made the suggestion of slightly adjusting a blitz and rapid TC (not bullet), and that although I speak plainly and clearly my intent is never to offend.

Also note that I'm not advocating removal of TCs from the site, just slightly... actually, I don't see a need to further beat a dead horse here. It's clear that no matter how many times I explain my opinion in forums, discord, etc. I'm going to be misunderstood, and I should accept that.