hexkid: point of order- I don’t understand the benefits nor motive behind the original question… could you elaborate, assuming ‘invisible‘ = private;?]

rewritten Feature Request: "invisible" games should also be unlisted.
And I don't think I'll use that feature more than a few times every 30 years :)

Are you agreeing that private games be unrated so they can also be unlisted? A permanent change for all for your temporary experiment;?] Surely not!

BIG BAD WOLF & mctrivia::Private games are good for some things, but I think private games should be unrated also - if a player is going to be getting ratings from a game, then other players who compete for the same ratings should be able to see the games.

grenv::Battleboats has a winning strategy? I think you want them to be private to hide the fact that there is no winning strategy
[Obviously you haven’t found it;] LOL Battleboats 2 0 2 1652
mctrivia::grenv: there are meny strategys to battleboats but the bigest strategy is look up your oponents preivious games and try to find paterns. That is why he wants it.
Exactly! Thank you for making my point not only for battle boats but other games.

grenv::mctrivia: But who would be bothered trying to do that? Get a life people! Lol
Then why are you insisting for the abolition of private games;?] ROFLMAO!

nabla::Agreed, the problem is different with games of incomplete information like Battleboats. Nevertheless, in those games the best strategy is certainly not to play each game in the same way. It is rather the most boring strategy.
Actually it would be stupid;] but then you haven’t even played battleboats this year!
The problems I have with private games :
1) They are often used by the strongest players, so that nobody can learn from seeing their games…
Unless they actually play me- a learning experience for many;] or look at tournament games- probably a better indicator of their best strategies.
2) They can be used to hide cheating, either cheating by use of playing computers, either by pre-arranged games designed to manipulate the rating system….
I didn’t know, although I wasn’t surprised, that there were programs for backgammon until I saw them discussed openly here. Programs are why I rarely play chess. As far as manipulating the rating system, I’ve neither the time nor inclination.
The second option would not be valid if private games were always unrated as have been proposed, but the first one remains.
Of course Fencer can still see the private games, but when cheating occurs it is always the users who spot it in the first place.
Well, if private games were limited to unrated games of incomplete information (Battleboats, Dark Chess, ....) it would already be a good start.
Just because a game is unrated, doesn’t preclude cheating;] Fencer is more than welcome to inspect my games- I don’t use programs and did not know any opponents before I played them, much less collude with them.

grenv::Nonsense, this isn't poker and the analogy shouldn't be drawn. Poker is all about concealing your hand if not called, it's part of the game. Keeping chess games private is not. No more private games please
I can see where playing games in private to conceal your strategy is like poker. Keeping your cards ’close to your vest’ in order to protect not only strategy but your BKR until played. Whether ‘called’ by public or private invitation, or more importantly, until entering and playing in a tournament.

Nonsense is wanting to see someone’s hand without even being in the game.
Nonsense is demanding all games be public yet you wouldn’t look at them anyway.
Nonsense would be eliminating BK Ratings entirely in order to stop cheating.

Let’s just keep things the way they are- please keep the private games option.

[I apologise for the length- but proponents to keep private games unchanged are outnumbered]

Now about that ‘average hours per move wait’ option????;?]