Free usernames + allow username changes from inactive accounts

Lichess locks thousands of good usernames because accounts from years ago never log in again. This forces new players to use random numbers or underscores. Even current players with years of history can’t switch to a cleaner name.

This change matters a lot and would make many players happy.

My suggestion:

1. Close accounts with no login for 5+ years. Send a warning email with 30 days to reactivate.

2. Free the usernames and delete old game data for privacy, so the new owner starts fresh.

3. Allow username changes for active accounts. Let us claim a released username. Don’t limit it to new accounts only.

4. Grace period for returning players: If the original owner comes back, give them a free username change + their old name if no one took it yet.

5. Exempt valuable accounts: Keep accounts with titles, broadcasts, studies, or donations even if inactive. Don’t delete useful content.

6. Username waitlist: Let players join a waitlist for a specific username. When it’s released, the first person gets a notification. Fair and no bot spam.

Small change, big impact. It gives fair access to usernames for everyone who actually plays lichess.

What do you think?

@i6ARE8
if closed account email can be opened with a same name everything new like ratings tho if he/she doing for just rating
that's called rating manipulation. my opinion

@SANJAY-KURAMA2003 said ^

@i6ARE8
if closed account email can be opened with a same name everything new like ratings tho if he/she doing for just rating
that's called rating manipulation. my opinion

Good point. That’s why point 2 deletes old game data but ratings shouldn’t reset to 1500. New owner should start with “provisional rating” and it adjusts fast, same as any new account. And point 5 exempts active/titled accounts anyway, so rating farmers can’t just close and reopen to farm.

If this was to be made possible, the records in the database which refer to the user who desires to change their username, would need to be updated multiple times, quite often. This is simply not viable.

@IamNOTamod said ^

If this was to be made possible, the records in the database which refer to the user who desires to change their username, would need to be updated multiple times, quite often. This is simply not viable.

You’re right, updating millions of games per username change is heavy. But lichess already handles this for account closures and renames. I’m not a lichess dev, but this is standard DB practice: store internal user_id in the DB, not the username string. Display name changes, ID stays same. Only games/ratings table needs no update. FIDE does this with FIDE IDs. It’s a one-time migration, then username changes become cheap.

"But lichess already handles this for account closures and renames"

Account closures only require a change in status. Only username-case changes are allowed currently, and only once, making it more handle-able. I am not a Lichess dev either.

Yep, its standard, but unfortunately, Lichess was structured with the Usrname as the ID at inception, and is committed to it now, so such changes are not feasible.

(@) iamNOTamod (@) CG314
what about in the future there is no user name available?

@IamNOTamod said ^

"But lichess already handles this for account closures and renames"

Account closures only require a change in status. Only username-case changes are allowed currently, and only once, making it more handle-able. I am not a Lichess dev either.

You’re right, account closure is just flipping a status flag and case changes are limited to once for a reason. Both are light operations, which is why Lichess allows them.

But that actually proves my point. Full username changes are blocked right now precisely because they’re heavy with the current schema. If Lichess migrates to using internal user_id everywhere, then a username change becomes just as light as flipping a status. One row updates, done.

The “once per lifetime” limit isn’t a design choice, it’s a workaround because the DB isn’t ready yet. Every major platform moved to userid for this exact reason. Lichess already has userids, they just need to use them as the main key instead of the username string.

@CG314 said ^

Yep, its standard, but unfortunately, Lichess was structured with the Usrname as the ID at inception, and is committed to it now, so such changes are not feasible.

Yeah you’re right, if Lichess was built with username as the primary key from day one, then it’s a massive migration. No one’s saying it’s easy.

But “committed to it now” isn’t a technical limitation, it’s a choice about priorities. Migrating from username to user_id is hard, but it’s been done before. Reddit, StackOverflow, even small forums migrated away from username-as-ID after years.

The question isn’t “can it be done” - it can. The question is “is it worth the dev time”. And that depends on how much pain the current system causes: support tickets, GDPR requests, users stuck with bad names from 10 years ago.

If Lichess never plans to allow username changes, fine. But if they ever want to, this migration is unavoidable. Better to do it once now than keep patching workarounds forever.