Bug Bug: (???) Bad Settings (???)

So which teams can play each other?

Andrew (1400) + Barry (1500) = (1450 avg rating) willing to play 0 to 1700 avg rating.
cannot get opponents

Andrew (1400) + Chuck (1600) = (1500 avg rating) willing to play 0 to 1800 avg rating.
can play
Barry (1500) + Frank (1900) = (1700 avg rating) willing to play 1500 to 1700 avg rating.
Dan (1700) + Frank (1900) = (1800 avg rating) willing to play 1500 to 1950 avg rating.

Barry (1500) + Chuck (1600) = (1550 avg rating) willing to play 0 to 1700 avg rating.
cannot get opponents

Barry (1500) + Frank (1900) = (1700 avg rating) willing to play 1500 to 1700 avg rating.
can play
Andrew (1400) + Chuck (1600) = (1500 avg rating) willing to play 0 to 1800 avg rating.
Chuck (1600) + Edward (1800) = (1700 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2000 avg rating.

Chuck (1600) + Edward (1800) = (1700 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2000 avg rating.
can play
Barry (1500) + Frank (1900) = (1700 avg rating) willing to play 1500 to 1700 avg rating.
Dan (1700) + Frank (1900) = (1800 avg rating) willing to play 1500 to 1950 avg rating.
Dan (1700) + George (2000) = (1850 avg rating) willing to play 1300 to 2400 avg rating.
Dan (1700) + Harry (2100) = (1900 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2500 avg rating.
Frank (1900) + George (2000) = (1950 avg rating) willing to play 1500 to 1950 avg rating.
Frank (1900) + Harry (2100) = (2000 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 1950 avg rating.

Chuck (1600) + Frank (1900) = (1750 avg rating) willing to play 1500 to 1950 avg rating.
can play
Dan (1700) + Edward (1800) = (1750 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2000 avg rating.
Dan (1700) + George (2000) = (1850 avg rating) willing to play 1300 to 2400 avg rating.
Dan (1700) + Harry (2100) = (1900 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2500 avg rating.
Edward (1800) + George (2000) = (1900 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2000 avg rating.
Edward (1800) + Harry (2100) = (1950 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2000 avg rating.

Chuck (1600) + George (2000) = (1800 avg rating) willing to play 0 to 2000 avg rating.
can play
Dan (1700) + Edward (1800) = (1750 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2000 avg rating.
Dan (1700) + Frank (1900) = (1800 avg rating) willing to play 1500 to 1950 avg rating.
Dan (1700) + Harry (2100) = (1900 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2500 avg rating.
Edward (1800) + Frank (1900) = (1850 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 1950 avg rating.
Edward (1800) + Harry (2100) = (1950 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2000 avg rating.
Frank (1900) + Harry (2100) = (2000 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 1950 avg rating.

Dan (1700) + Edward (1800) = (1750 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2000 avg rating.
can play
Chuck (1600) + Frank (1900) = (1750 avg rating) willing to play 1500 to 1950 avg rating.
Chuck (1600) + George (2000) = (1800 avg rating) willing to play 0 to 2000 avg rating.
Frank (1900) + George (2000) = (1950 avg rating) willing to play 1500 to 1950 avg rating.
Frank (1900) + Harry (2100) = (2000 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 1950 avg rating.

Dan (1700) + Frank (1900) = (1800 avg rating) willing to play 1500 to 1950 avg rating.
can play
Andrew (1400) + Chuck (1600) = (1500 avg rating) willing to play 0 to 1800 avg rating.
Chuck (1600) + Edward (1800) = (1700 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2000 avg rating.
Chuck (1600) + George (2000) = (1800 avg rating) willing to play 0 to 2000 avg rating.
Edward (1800) + George (2000) = (1900 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2000 avg rating.
Edward (1800) + Harry (2100) = (1950 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2000 avg rating.

Dan (1700) + George (2000) = (1850 avg rating) willing to play 1300 to 2400 avg rating.
can play
Chuck (1600) + Edward (1800) = (1700 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2000 avg rating.
Chuck (1600) + Frank (1900) = (1750 avg rating) willing to play 1500 to 1950 avg rating.
Edward (1800) + Frank (1900) = (1850 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 1950 avg rating.
Edward (1800) + Harry (2100) = (1950 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2000 avg rating.
Frank (1900) + Harry (2100) = (2000 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 1950 avg rating.
Harry (2100) + Ian (2200) = (2150 avg rating) willing to play 1800 to 2500 avg rating.

Dan (1700) + Harry (2100) = (1900 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2500 avg rating.
can play
Chuck (1600) + Edward (1800) = (1700 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2000 avg rating.
Chuck (1600) + Frank (1900) = (1750 avg rating) willing to play 1500 to 1950 avg rating.
Chuck (1600) + George (2000) = (1800 avg rating) willing to play 0 to 2000 avg rating.
Edward (1800) + Frank (1900) = (1850 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 1950 avg rating.
Edward (1800) + George (2000) = (1900 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2000 avg rating.
Frank (1900) + George (2000) = (1950 avg rating) willing to play 1500 to 1950 avg rating.

Edward (1800) + Frank (1900) = (1850 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 1950 avg rating.
can play
Chuck (1600) + George (2000) = (1800 avg rating) willing to play 0 to 2000 avg rating.
Dan (1700) + George (2000) = (1850 avg rating) willing to play 1300 to 2400 avg rating.
Dan (1700) + Harry (2100) = (1900 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2500 avg rating.

Edward (1800) + George (2000) = (1900 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2000 avg rating.
can play
Chuck (1600) + Frank (1900) = (1750 avg rating) willing to play 1500 to 1950 avg rating.
Dan (1700) + Frank (1900) = (1800 avg rating) willing to play 1500 to 1950 avg rating.
Dan (1700) + Harry (2100) = (1900 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2500 avg rating.
Frank (1900) + Harry (2100) = (2000 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 1950 avg rating.

Edward (1800) + Harry (2100) = (1950 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2000 avg rating.
can play
Chuck (1600) + Frank (1900) = (1750 avg rating) willing to play 1500 to 1950 avg rating.
Chuck (1600) + George (2000) = (1800 avg rating) willing to play 0 to 2000 avg rating.
Dan (1700) + Frank (1900) = (1800 avg rating) willing to play 1500 to 1950 avg rating.
Dan (1700) + George (2000) = (1850 avg rating) willing to play 1300 to 2400 avg rating.
Frank (1900) + George (2000) = (1950 avg rating) willing to play 1500 to 1950 avg rating.

Frank (1900) + George (2000) = (1950 avg rating) willing to play 1500 to 1950 avg rating.
can play
Chuck (1600) + Edward (1800) = (1700 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2000 avg rating.
Dan (1700) + Edward (1800) = (1750 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2000 avg rating.
Dan (1700) + Harry (2100) = (1900 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2500 avg rating.

Frank (1900) + Harry (2100) = (2000 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 1950 avg rating.
can play
Chuck (1600) + Edward (1800) = (1700 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2000 avg rating.
Chuck (1600) + George (2000) = (1800 avg rating) willing to play 0 to 2000 avg rating.
Dan (1700) + Edward (1800) = (1750 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2000 avg rating.
Dan (1700) + George (2000) = (1850 avg rating) willing to play 1300 to 2400 avg rating.
Edward (1800) + George (2000) = (1900 avg rating) willing to play 1700 to 2000 avg rating.

Harry (2100) + Ian (2200) = (2150 avg rating) willing to play 1800 to 2500 avg rating.
can play
Dan (1700) + George (2000) = (1850 avg rating) willing to play 1300 to 2400 avg rating.

In this example Harry and Ian have problems getting opponents because Edward and Frank have specified outgoing seek restrictions of +200 and +50.  But that's their choice.  In the real world there will be more players at all of these ratings and more will optionally decide not to restrict their seeks.

I should mention that I've made the assumption that outgoing seek range would operate as follows:
a) Opponent team rating is within outgoing seek range of each partner relative to their own ratings.

Another possibility would be:

b) Opponent team rating is withing outgoing seek range of each partner relative to the average team rating.

To see the difference, let's look at Frank and George.

Under (a):

Frank has an outgoing seek of -400 to +50.  He would be willing to play teams with an average rating of 1500 to 1950.

George has an outgoing seek of -infinity to +400.  He would be willing to play teams with an average rating of 0 to 2400.

The possible team opponents are the intersection of the team outgoing seek ranges:
Frank (1900) + George (2000) = (1950 avg rating) willing to play 1500 to 1950 avg rating.

Under (b):

Frank (1900) + George (2000) = (1950 avg rating)

Frank has an outgoing seek of -400 to +50.  With George as his partner, he would be willing to play teams with an average rating of 1550 to 2000.

George has an outgoing seek of -infinity to +400.  With Frank as his partner, he would be willing to play teams with an average rating of 0 to 2400.

The possible team opponents are the intersection of the team outgoing seek ranges:

Frank (1900) + George (2000) = (1950 avg rating) willing to play 1550 to 2000 avg rating.

Thanks Chuck. Very thorough!

The hard part right now is we don't have separate settings for bughouse seeks at this time. We will in the future. But right now, they would share/overwrite settings for other games, which doesn't work well since it would be so narrow. Your proposal is better for sure. I hope to get there. 

Yes, Erik, it would be better to have optional settings specifically for bughouse.  That is the best long term solution.  In the absence of that and in the short term, I think using the existing optional settings is better than not having any optional settings.

When I played some games of Bughouse, I noticed that too! It stopped a while ago, though. It was annoying to find I was rooting for my opponent and trying to get him the pieces he needed.

Noah, you are describing a different problem than I was.  The problem I highlighted occurs not when you are playing a game, but rather when you are observing other players while not playing yourself.

The bug I described is ongoing.  I saw it as recently as 2 nights ago, though I have not tried observing any games the past 24 hours.  I've seen no indication that bug will be fixed or is even acknowledged by anyone.  Erik has never responded to that report.

Yep, I just checked.  The observe bug is still there as of right now.  The bug occurs in every single game where the person you are following or observing is white -- which means about 50% of the total bughouse games.  It's impossible to miss the bug if anyone at chess.com was doing any testing whatsoever.  But of course they are not.

@chuckmoulton - We are working on these bugs. Some of them cannot be fixed immediately given the queue of priorities. I'm sorry this is not fast enough for you. But we are doing our best

Thank you!

@erik The problem is not that issues aren't fixed immediately.  The problem is that many issues are unacknowledged, so it is impossible to tell whether anyone (who can do anything) is aware of the problem or whether fixes are in the pipeline.  This is the first time (to my knowledge) you have acknowledged the observe/follow bug.

Nail. Head.

Regular updates on the status of bugs and fixes would be a nice addition. Estimated dates are helpful, even if they pass before receiving an update. So, in a rational sense, if we (the Chess.com community) know of something acknowledged, and regularly receive updates ... we can say to each other: "Work-In-Progress." And, if a date passes and an issue repeats (possibly in various forms or guises), we can say: "Hey, where's this at?" -- And then point each other to a log of such things.

We get feature / update (i.e. variants). We spot bugs and issues and report them. Major or Important bugs and issues are usually addressed pretty rapidly. (Thanks & Kudos. Though, this obviously impinges other development work to have to stop and deal with issues.) Sometimes we notice the changes (i.e. if we're active users, concentrating on something specific relative to features and updates). Other times, we don't know about changes and it's hard to track down one thing to the next to provide further feedback and updates. (This via experience: If you're on-top of your responsibilities, sometimes you connect the dots, but sometimes keeping people in the loop helps others help you connect the dots by pointing out common but possibly or seemingly disconnected issues.)

I also understand why you wouldn't want to divulge and keep a running list of issues and estimated fix dates. (Two sides to a coin.)

One thought I had a while back was a small club, forum or community for those interested in or actively involved in providing specific feedback and user experience reports. Not public, but, for those of us interested in some of the more technical details and willing to contribute thoughts, ideas, technical support on the back-end. (Food for thought. Maybe not such a good idea. A passing thought ... such that I thought I'd mention the idea.)

$0.02, FWIW.

Thanks. I'm dealing with 40+ developers on thousands of tickets and issues. I do not know a feasible way to give estimates on each issue. I can understand you wanting to know - makes sense. I need to think on this, but I don't see an easy solution. My apologies. 

All good. I understand.

The increased communication direct with the community over improving Bug after the v3 deploy is a step in the right direction. (And, as always, my perpetual apologies for when I'm a thorn.)

No problem. I'm working on it. Among many other things