Hikaru Nakamura's Forbidden Platform(lichess.org)
lichess.org
Hikaru Nakamura's Forbidden Platform
https://lichess.org/blog/Yt7x2BAAACkABlKS/a-first-time-grandmaster-titled-arena-winner-and-nakamuras-forbidden-platform
152 comments
Lichess is a platform though, not an accessory. I think a better comparison would be, would Nike be happy if Ronaldo played in a tournament on a field owned by Adidas, in a world in which Adidas is a nonprofit company giving shoes to anyone who wants them.
The answer may very well still be "no, they would not be happy," but I bet the public reaction to being forbidden from a public tournament would be different than if he were just punished for wearing the wrong shoes one day.
That said of course a contract is a contract, and it's probably something Hikaru should have considered in taking it. He likes to push the envelope though, which is respectable in its own right. I'm happy to just watch the drama with popcorn in hand. (After all, he's doing this for content right? he's shrewd, surely considered the positives and negatives.. don't underestimate what he stands to make from content, it could very well compete with what he gets from sponsorship, for all I know.)
The answer may very well still be "no, they would not be happy," but I bet the public reaction to being forbidden from a public tournament would be different than if he were just punished for wearing the wrong shoes one day.
That said of course a contract is a contract, and it's probably something Hikaru should have considered in taking it. He likes to push the envelope though, which is respectable in its own right. I'm happy to just watch the drama with popcorn in hand. (After all, he's doing this for content right? he's shrewd, surely considered the positives and negatives.. don't underestimate what he stands to make from content, it could very well compete with what he gets from sponsorship, for all I know.)
If we want to use sports analogies we don't have to use Nike and Adidas as stand-ins, golf is undergoing this right now, between the PGA and LIV tournaments, and members with exclusivity clauses in their contracts.
Same in MMA: athletes are stuck competing either in the UFC, Bellator, etc.
I understand PGA and LIV are both for-profit. Do either/both forbid their athletes from competing in charity/non-profit tournaments?
LIV doesn't forbid their golfers from anything, as far as I know. It's the PGA that banned LIV golfers, not the other way around. LIV golfers still compete in non-LIV, for-profit tournaments that aren't part of the PGA Tour.
Or the 80's USFL (United States Football League). But these alternative leagues do kind of color the analogy in a way that might be slightly muddying -- I mean, come on, the PGA and NFL are the prestigious competitions in the eyes of the public. Is one of Lichess, chess24, or chess.com an assumed pretender?
LIV has moral opposition.
It'd be more like if Lichess were funded by Nazi gold or something, and the person funding it was trying to do so because they want you to forget they stole a ton of Nazi gold.
PGA isn't behaving this way for moral reasons, but it's an extra component to that situation which makes this harder to analogize.
It'd be more like if Lichess were funded by Nazi gold or something, and the person funding it was trying to do so because they want you to forget they stole a ton of Nazi gold.
PGA isn't behaving this way for moral reasons, but it's an extra component to that situation which makes this harder to analogize.
It's not just Hikaru btw. Pretty much all of the chess.com sponsored streamers will specifically avoid mentioning lichess directly. I suspect it's in chess.com's default sponsorship contract.
> Lichess is a platform though, not an accessory. I think a better comparison would be, would Nike be happy if Ronaldo played in a tournament on a field owned by Adidas, in a world in which Adidas is a nonprofit company giving shoes to anyone who wants them.
I see your point. Chess played on the internet is an e-sport. So let's compare it to Fall Guys and Stumble Guys.
If a streamer is paid to advertise Stumble Guys, Kitka Games would be annoyed to see Fall Guys being played.
I see your point. Chess played on the internet is an e-sport. So let's compare it to Fall Guys and Stumble Guys.
If a streamer is paid to advertise Stumble Guys, Kitka Games would be annoyed to see Fall Guys being played.
Those are competing games, though. In this case the game is the exact same game.
It'd be more like if you could chose to play CoolGameThatPeopleLove on for-pay servers owned by a company known for sponsoring a bunch of really good players who play exciting games and who you would _love_ to have a chance to play against, or play on community-run server with people who are great, sure, but they're just randos on the internet just like you. You can either pay and feel like you're part of the big league, even if you'll never play the big players yourself, or you can pay nothing and just play the community because you don't care about big name players.
But then a big name player who you could never hope to even accidentally play decides "fuck it, why not?" and starts streaming themselves playing on the same free server you play on! That's amazing!
But not for the sponsor: the whole reason they sponsored this person is because they were very intentionally (through their sponsor contract) made unavailable as an opponent to the world at large, effectively using them as an incentive to join the paid platform. It directly damages the paid service if that player even connects to the community service under their public, adored, identity.
(Crucially in this setting, no one "owns the game", instead they "own" part segments of the player base)
It'd be more like if you could chose to play CoolGameThatPeopleLove on for-pay servers owned by a company known for sponsoring a bunch of really good players who play exciting games and who you would _love_ to have a chance to play against, or play on community-run server with people who are great, sure, but they're just randos on the internet just like you. You can either pay and feel like you're part of the big league, even if you'll never play the big players yourself, or you can pay nothing and just play the community because you don't care about big name players.
But then a big name player who you could never hope to even accidentally play decides "fuck it, why not?" and starts streaming themselves playing on the same free server you play on! That's amazing!
But not for the sponsor: the whole reason they sponsored this person is because they were very intentionally (through their sponsor contract) made unavailable as an opponent to the world at large, effectively using them as an incentive to join the paid platform. It directly damages the paid service if that player even connects to the community service under their public, adored, identity.
(Crucially in this setting, no one "owns the game", instead they "own" part segments of the player base)
I've never had anything against chess.com, and I used to be a premium member but have since moved to lichess.
I think that the chess world could do with more money so I have nothing against a site providing a revenue stream, even if their actual aim is to profit themselves.
It would be disappointing if chess.com are engaged in clandestine anti-lichess behaviour. There might already be some information out there that I'm not aware of.
Hikaru is the biggest name in chess streaming. If he's signed an exclusivity contract with chess.com that would be unfortunate, but whatever it's just one person. If chess.com have started to to add exclusivity into all of their streamer contracts then that would be much more unfortunate. It's seems likely that they do have other exclusivity contracts, perhaps Gotham or the Botez sisters. Although you could argue that "they have the right", by a similar vein we have the right to hold it against them.
> It works the other way too: Wen did you last see Magnus play on Chess.com?
Actually, I don't get your point here. Ideally players would be free to make their own decisions on an ongoing basis, which is what we assume Magnus is doing.
I think that the chess world could do with more money so I have nothing against a site providing a revenue stream, even if their actual aim is to profit themselves.
It would be disappointing if chess.com are engaged in clandestine anti-lichess behaviour. There might already be some information out there that I'm not aware of.
Hikaru is the biggest name in chess streaming. If he's signed an exclusivity contract with chess.com that would be unfortunate, but whatever it's just one person. If chess.com have started to to add exclusivity into all of their streamer contracts then that would be much more unfortunate. It's seems likely that they do have other exclusivity contracts, perhaps Gotham or the Botez sisters. Although you could argue that "they have the right", by a similar vein we have the right to hold it against them.
> It works the other way too: Wen did you last see Magnus play on Chess.com?
Actually, I don't get your point here. Ideally players would be free to make their own decisions on an ongoing basis, which is what we assume Magnus is doing.
>> It works the other way too: Wen did you last see Magnus play on Chess.com?
> Actually, I don't get your point here. Ideally players would be free to make their own decisions on an ongoing basis, which is what we assume Magnus is doing.
In this respect Magnus doesn't think like a player. As owner/investor of Chess24 why advertise Chess.com? He sticks to Chess24 and once in a while to Lichess.
Who broke the news that Magnus wasn't going to play Nepo? Chess24 of course - not a coincidence.
> Actually, I don't get your point here. Ideally players would be free to make their own decisions on an ongoing basis, which is what we assume Magnus is doing.
In this respect Magnus doesn't think like a player. As owner/investor of Chess24 why advertise Chess.com? He sticks to Chess24 and once in a while to Lichess.
Who broke the news that Magnus wasn't going to play Nepo? Chess24 of course - not a coincidence.
It's definitely in the Botez sister's contract. They make a point of referring to lichess indirectly as "the other site" or such.
> Would Nike be happy if Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo suddenly appeared in Adidas shoes?
Back when Nike Vaporfly came out and the other shoe manufacturers de facto didn't have an answer yet, you would see e.g. Puma-sponsored athletes in Nike shoes. It's simply better for Puma to have Puma athletes win (quietly) in Nike shoes than to have them lose in Puma shoes.
Back when Nike Vaporfly came out and the other shoe manufacturers de facto didn't have an answer yet, you would see e.g. Puma-sponsored athletes in Nike shoes. It's simply better for Puma to have Puma athletes win (quietly) in Nike shoes than to have them lose in Puma shoes.
(The Adidas Predators were on a whole other level…)
Michael Jordan famously had in his contract with the Bulls a "for the love of the game" clause which entitled him to play in any game that he wanted to.
This has, rightfully, become more standard since Jordan.
I don't understand that clause as you mention it. What does "any game" mean in that context?
A lot of athletic contracts would forbid athletes from playing other sports or doing certain other strenuous activities - they were designed partially to try to avoid players injuring themselves doing something other than their contracted sport, and partially to prevent players earning money off their image outside of their team.
Jordan had a clause specifically exempting him from any restrictions around playing basketball - by his contract, he could play basketball in any league, or even any scrimmage, exhibition, or pickup game.
Jordan had a clause specifically exempting him from any restrictions around playing basketball - by his contract, he could play basketball in any league, or even any scrimmage, exhibition, or pickup game.
> Would Nike be happy if Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo suddenly appeared in Adidas shoes?
Well... it is happening the other way round, with runners wearing Nikes and painting over them to try and not annoy their other brand sponsors: https://www.businessinsider.com/nike-vaporfly-shoes-runners-...
Well... it is happening the other way round, with runners wearing Nikes and painting over them to try and not annoy their other brand sponsors: https://www.businessinsider.com/nike-vaporfly-shoes-runners-...
In the Go world it is quite common for streamers to rotate between the different servers. It adds a layer of interest since each server has a different pool of players with different styles in general. For example, PandaNet (IGS) is known for hosting passive, territorial players, while Tygem is known for aggressive players that fight over everything, while OGS is known for principled players. Sometimes you even see streamers playing on one server while using other servers’ clients for reviewing a game they played on a completely server.
I take it from this discussion that this is not so common in the chess world. If that is the case, then chess is missing out.
I take it from this discussion that this is not so common in the chess world. If that is the case, then chess is missing out.
>Would Nike be happy if Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo suddenly appeared in Adidas shoes?
how about if Ronaldo appeared wearing shoes given to him by a charity?
how about if Ronaldo appeared wearing shoes given to him by a charity?
Nike wouldn't be happy either. Probably won't make a fuss because it is bad for PR, but they will definitely take note and it will come back when it is time to talk money.
> Wen did you last see Magnus play on Chess.com?
About 10 weeks ago.
https://zwischenzug.substack.com/p/magnus-dominates-titled-t...
About 10 weeks ago.
https://zwischenzug.substack.com/p/magnus-dominates-titled-t...
[deleted]
Paying off Chess streamers is pretty much the only way Chess.com can keep people using their site. Their product is simply inferior in every way, except for their library of master lessons, and all these GMs exclusively streaming through Chess.com.
I figure all this spending on sponsorship and GM content is why the rest of their site is so inferior to Lichess. Lichess can spend all their time perfecting the platform, and it really shows.
I figure all this spending on sponsorship and GM content is why the rest of their site is so inferior to Lichess. Lichess can spend all their time perfecting the platform, and it really shows.
> Their product is simply inferior in every way
Completely untrue, I've played on both and the UX + post game Analysis, video content library, etc is far better on chess.com.
I do hope lichess.org is able to improve and find better monetization options that's able to pay for more dev + UX resources, championship prizes + GM commentators which makes watching chess far more entertaining.
Completely untrue, I've played on both and the UX + post game Analysis, video content library, etc is far better on chess.com.
I do hope lichess.org is able to improve and find better monetization options that's able to pay for more dev + UX resources, championship prizes + GM commentators which makes watching chess far more entertaining.
Some people will always disagree, but it's been my experience that when people try both sites, most people end up preferring Lichess. Certainly when comparing lichess to Chess.com's free tier, there simply is no contest.
When people say the opposite, it seems to always be people who have been chess.com customers for years, suggesting a possible post-purchase rationalisation
When people say the opposite, it seems to always be people who have been chess.com customers for years, suggesting a possible post-purchase rationalisation
It could be also said, those who tend to talk up lichess don't tend to have much experience using the paid features, so overall tricky to analyse these comments. As often it's the free versions being compared. With com users extolling the paid features, and lichess users extolling their free features.
As someone who had diamond membership on Chess.com for several years(cancelled when my card was accidentally overcharged, triggering an alert with my bank. Chess.com refused responsibility and eventually offered me a free month to make me go away. I refused and just went away instead). I then found lichess. I realised all the features I was paying for on chess.com were available for free, either through lichess, or youtube. St Louis chess club has a wealth of grandmaster lectures on their youtube channel, all free.
I personally prefer the chess.com lectures. But as long as we can agree to not use terms like 'lichess is objectively better' I'm happy we can disagree
I have accounts on both, started both when free, and eventually decided to pay for chess.com. I find the UX and overall experience better, particularly the analysis side, and I like the mobile app better as well. I feel pretty confident in a fair evaluation and not a post-purchase rationalization here.
I have accounts on both. I think the chess.com video content is great, the puzzle content is great, all the extra little features like puzzle rush is great… the one unfortunate thing is the ads. I pay for chess.com but when friends play it sounds pretty annoying.
There’s a lot of incidental stuff I dislike in lichess’ UI, but at the end of the day chess.com offers lots of stuff to learners (straightforward reviews, with recent game review features offering _why_ moves are good)
But hey, more power to everyone! Just tired of people going out of their way to claim that chess.com is garbage. I’m glad lichess exists and will play some games on it. But there’s a reason that chess.com has more users and it’s not just the domain name.
There’s a lot of incidental stuff I dislike in lichess’ UI, but at the end of the day chess.com offers lots of stuff to learners (straightforward reviews, with recent game review features offering _why_ moves are good)
But hey, more power to everyone! Just tired of people going out of their way to claim that chess.com is garbage. I’m glad lichess exists and will play some games on it. But there’s a reason that chess.com has more users and it’s not just the domain name.
I play way more on Lichess (because I like their tournaments better), but I still prefer chess.com UX and analysis.
I'm with the above poster. I started playing online chess within the past year. I do not pay chess.com a cent. I find their UI to be more pleasing.
The fact that many paying chess.com like the product mostly suggests it's a good product.
the lichess post game analysis is as good as that of chess.com, but isn’t presented in quite such a shiny appealing way.
it’s not hard to find, but you have to seek it out, whereas chess.com shoves it in your face and tries to get you to pay for more
it’s not hard to find, but you have to seek it out, whereas chess.com shoves it in your face and tries to get you to pay for more
> but you have to seek it out,
I don't think there's any seeking out necessary - you have 3 things to click on after a game - rematch, new opponent and analysis. Like is there really a user demographic that (1) is interested in game analysis and (2) doesn't notice or understand the button that's shown as an option at the end of every game?
I don't think there's any seeking out necessary - you have 3 things to click on after a game - rematch, new opponent and analysis. Like is there really a user demographic that (1) is interested in game analysis and (2) doesn't notice or understand the button that's shown as an option at the end of every game?
To be fair, I'm pretty sure by "analysis" they mean "engine analysis" (since that's the part you have to pay for on chess.com, not just getting an analysis board of your PGN). On lichess, "Analysis" is one button, but "Request Computer Analysis" is another button _in_ the analysis screen, and its often below the fold and behind a tab on most display resolutions. Probably because even fishnet wouldn't be able to keep up with deeply analysing every game on the site, and the in-browser WASM stockfish is good enough for most blitz/bullet games.
precisely
Call me an idiot if you'd like, but it took me more time than I'd like to admit to figure out how to use Lichess' analysis. Even if I sticked to the platform, being a sucker for OSS and free, I've abandonned the analysis option for quite a while thinking it was confusing and inferior to Chesscom's.
You do have to seek it out. Even when you click on analysis, you still have to activate the engine and select a move back in time to start seeing arrows and whatever the score advantage thing is called. It's not rocket science, but you're not handheld and it's certainly not "analysis" followed by a PowerPoint of what great and terrible move happened; it's self-analysis with Stockfish.
In the end I came to prefer Lichess' analysis board, but I think they'd have to gain walking you thru it better. I kinda doubt my father, who's not a dumby nor Internet-illiterate, would find it intuitive as it is. A highlight real of important move would seemingly be trivial to implement while also being straightforward to follow for anyone clicking on analysis for the first time, bringing them to dive in the self-analysis board. It would take nothing away for those who want to flicker thru their whole games, just remember a toggle option.
You do have to seek it out. Even when you click on analysis, you still have to activate the engine and select a move back in time to start seeing arrows and whatever the score advantage thing is called. It's not rocket science, but you're not handheld and it's certainly not "analysis" followed by a PowerPoint of what great and terrible move happened; it's self-analysis with Stockfish.
In the end I came to prefer Lichess' analysis board, but I think they'd have to gain walking you thru it better. I kinda doubt my father, who's not a dumby nor Internet-illiterate, would find it intuitive as it is. A highlight real of important move would seemingly be trivial to implement while also being straightforward to follow for anyone clicking on analysis for the first time, bringing them to dive in the self-analysis board. It would take nothing away for those who want to flicker thru their whole games, just remember a toggle option.
I think their point was that Chess.com drops you into analysis mode automatically when a game ends, whereas on lichess you have to go to analysis mode.
Being auto-moved to a place I didn't select seems like a worse user experience to me. But I'm sure it helps chess.com's conversion rate to paid users or whatever.
As a subscriber I do "pay for more", so I see the complete analysis available after each game which has better UX and available content.
You make it sound like chess.com shoves heaps of dark practice's IAP in your face, which isn't true, after I've paid for a subscription [1] I've seen no more paywall content or any more monetization options, I get full access to their sub content & features, which because it's great value and tastefully done, I intend to re-subscribe next year if I'm still playing by then.
[1] https://chess.com/membership
You make it sound like chess.com shoves heaps of dark practice's IAP in your face, which isn't true, after I've paid for a subscription [1] I've seen no more paywall content or any more monetization options, I get full access to their sub content & features, which because it's great value and tastefully done, I intend to re-subscribe next year if I'm still playing by then.
[1] https://chess.com/membership
>after I've paid for a subscription
in lichess you can computer analyse the board as many times as you want, for free, without even needing an account. the only catch is that you might not notice the feature if you weren't looking for it.
chess.com shoves it in your face, lets you do a few analyses, and then asks you to pay for more. whether that is still the case after you've already paid for more isn't really the point
in lichess you can computer analyse the board as many times as you want, for free, without even needing an account. the only catch is that you might not notice the feature if you weren't looking for it.
chess.com shoves it in your face, lets you do a few analyses, and then asks you to pay for more. whether that is still the case after you've already paid for more isn't really the point
Agreed. I would say Lichess is superior in actual gameplay (apart from multi-premove, but that's not available in mobile on chess.com as well), but chess.com is better in the extra features. Their analysis is much more user friendly, especially for beginners.
I play on both, but I often find myself going to chess.com to analyze a lichess game, and I don't think I've ever done the opposite.
I play on both, but I often find myself going to chess.com to analyze a lichess game, and I don't think I've ever done the opposite.
> better monetization options
Not gonna happen. Lichess is simply not this kind of product. It's like the Wikipedia monetization
Not gonna happen. Lichess is simply not this kind of product. It's like the Wikipedia monetization
> Their product is simply inferior in every way
I disagree and I play almost exclusively on Lichess. In chess.com you can:
1. set up multiple pre-moves and
2. play several variants that aren't in lichess, including 4-player chess (this is mostly the reason I sometimes use chess.com).
I disagree and I play almost exclusively on Lichess. In chess.com you can:
1. set up multiple pre-moves and
2. play several variants that aren't in lichess, including 4-player chess (this is mostly the reason I sometimes use chess.com).
3. Daily (correspondence) tournaments and a larger correspondence community. That's mostly what I play, since it allows me to play whenever and for as long as I want. 10-20 simultaneous games means there's always something for me to play. I can blitz out moves for all games in 15 minutes, or spend an hour thinking about one game.
I prefer lichess, but just can't have that experience so I pay for chess.com.
I prefer lichess, but just can't have that experience so I pay for chess.com.
You can setup multiple pre-moves, but each one takes a minimum of 0.1 seconds. Lichess doesn't have this minimum time requirement, so it doesn't let you setup multiple pre-moves.
I much prefer Lichess' system for Bullet.
I much prefer Lichess' system for Bullet.
As someone who started playing without having any idea about the platform landscape, and therefore chose the first Google result, which seemed to have a legit UI and domain name, and then met people who also happen to be on this platform, I would guess that their main strengths are: SEO, UI, brand, and the network effect.
How much does network effect really matter past a certain point for low-to-mid ELO chess players? Whether there are 100 or 10k players in my ELO range at any given time, I'm unlikely to even notice it. IMO you just have to get past a certain threshold (which both Lichens and Chesscom have long passed); granted it is probably higher the better of a player you are as your opponent pool thins out.
In my anecdotal experience, lichess has a smaller playerbase and it's most noticeable in the middle elo where certain lines or trends end up very popular in the lichess community and get overplayed. Whereas on chess.com I am more likely to see a bigger variety of openings. I had written off chess.com in favor of lichess but now that I play both I actually enjoy the chess.com user base as a differentiator between the two.
> Their product is simply inferior in every way, except for their library of master lessons
That's just not true. I've been using both for a long time and chess.com has more intuitive UI. I frequently find myself exporting my games from lichess into chess.com simply because the latter offers superior game analysis experience.
That's just not true. I've been using both for a long time and chess.com has more intuitive UI. I frequently find myself exporting my games from lichess into chess.com simply because the latter offers superior game analysis experience.
> chess.com has more intuitive UI
This is just mindblowing to me. It's not just that I disagree but I think the opposite is true, and by a very large margin too. I guess people just have different preferences when it comes to UI but especially for fast time controls, I don't get how people put up with chess.com, it's outright unusable for me.
This is just mindblowing to me. It's not just that I disagree but I think the opposite is true, and by a very large margin too. I guess people just have different preferences when it comes to UI but especially for fast time controls, I don't get how people put up with chess.com, it's outright unusable for me.
Strongly agree with you. Both the chess playing UI and exploring the rest of the site -- lichess is vastly superior.
Prominent example when you click "Play" you go to https://www.chess.com/play and get presented with a chess board. At this point, it actually lets you make an initial move. But you're not playing anyone! You then need to click, for example, "Play online".
The rest of the site is disorganised. For example there's stuff under "Learn" and "Resources" and I can never remember where to find things.
Prominent example when you click "Play" you go to https://www.chess.com/play and get presented with a chess board. At this point, it actually lets you make an initial move. But you're not playing anyone! You then need to click, for example, "Play online".
The rest of the site is disorganised. For example there's stuff under "Learn" and "Resources" and I can never remember where to find things.
I think you're right that it's mostly subjective. I slightly prefer chess.com, to lichess, but I wouldn't call either "outright unusable".
I find the chess.com UI utterly confusing myself.
I have a lot of friends with a mere passing interest in chess, and most of them had naturally ended up on chess.com. They had never heard of Lichess. But invariably once they tried it they all said the same thing: lichess is much more intuitive and easy to use.
As for analysis, I think computer analysis is not actually very helpful anyway, unless a lot of effort is put into analysing the computer lines and discarding those that you couldn't possibly be expected to find. Most people who use computer analysis don't do this, and they walk away with the wrong conclusions. Chess.com might have a better experience for getting those wrong conclusions, I don't know. And hell, analysing blitz and rapid games is a waste of time anyway, other than looking up opening improvements.
The only analysis I do on Lichess then is mostly looking at the opening in blitz games where the opening went wrong for me, and maybe seeing if I missed a tactic in some position I was unsure about during the game. Lichess is perfectly fine for that.
I have a lot of friends with a mere passing interest in chess, and most of them had naturally ended up on chess.com. They had never heard of Lichess. But invariably once they tried it they all said the same thing: lichess is much more intuitive and easy to use.
As for analysis, I think computer analysis is not actually very helpful anyway, unless a lot of effort is put into analysing the computer lines and discarding those that you couldn't possibly be expected to find. Most people who use computer analysis don't do this, and they walk away with the wrong conclusions. Chess.com might have a better experience for getting those wrong conclusions, I don't know. And hell, analysing blitz and rapid games is a waste of time anyway, other than looking up opening improvements.
The only analysis I do on Lichess then is mostly looking at the opening in blitz games where the opening went wrong for me, and maybe seeing if I missed a tactic in some position I was unsure about during the game. Lichess is perfectly fine for that.
> simply because the latter offers superior game analysis experience.
But it does so once per day, unless you pay (the low depth analysis you get for free on chess.com is not great to put it mildly)
But it does so once per day, unless you pay (the low depth analysis you get for free on chess.com is not great to put it mildly)
I would love to know what makes chess.com UI more intuitive in your eyes. They seem quite similar.
I agree with you on this. I hear this argument a lot and it seems like people only used parts of both sites or something. I've been using both for a while now, mainly the iOS apps, I have a paid diamond chess.com account. They both have strong and weak points in their UX.
for me it's having my game records accessible on the front page, I spend more time analyzing my games than playing.
You could just bookmark https://lichess.org/@/yourusername/all
Also, does chess.com have anything similar to https://lichess.org/insights/yourusername or https://lichess.org/analysis#explorer where you can select "Player" and see how openings play out for your games only (as well as masters and the whole of lichess of course)?
(for the obtuse, replace "yourusername" above with your actual lichess username)
Also, does chess.com have anything similar to https://lichess.org/insights/yourusername or https://lichess.org/analysis#explorer where you can select "Player" and see how openings play out for your games only (as well as masters and the whole of lichess of course)?
(for the obtuse, replace "yourusername" above with your actual lichess username)
Chess.com has plenty of value, it just isn't as free or open as lichess.
Cheds.com supports more game modes / variations (bughouse and puzzle rush are two favorites!), better social features, built in lessons and lectures you can buy or subscribe to, the client is snappy and lets you set up a sequence of premoves instead of just one, etc.
Lichess also has some killer features of it's own: everything is free, including tournaments, the titled arenas are nice, the analysis tools are free and easy to use, etc.
There doesn't have to be just one platform. A paid and open source platform can both offer different value propositions even if there's some overlap.
Cheds.com supports more game modes / variations (bughouse and puzzle rush are two favorites!), better social features, built in lessons and lectures you can buy or subscribe to, the client is snappy and lets you set up a sequence of premoves instead of just one, etc.
Lichess also has some killer features of it's own: everything is free, including tournaments, the titled arenas are nice, the analysis tools are free and easy to use, etc.
There doesn't have to be just one platform. A paid and open source platform can both offer different value propositions even if there's some overlap.
There are more reasons, but...
At core there is a dichotomy between Chess.com's business-model-ish approach and Lichess' communist approach... to put it in Thibault's own words.
No freemium tiers. No subscription plans, ads, etc. Just donations. That approach has been good for keeping the UX lightweight and snapy.
Chess.com has been around longer, so Lichess' is still catching up with features. I quite enjoy having them both compete as they are.
At core there is a dichotomy between Chess.com's business-model-ish approach and Lichess' communist approach... to put it in Thibault's own words.
No freemium tiers. No subscription plans, ads, etc. Just donations. That approach has been good for keeping the UX lightweight and snapy.
Chess.com has been around longer, so Lichess' is still catching up with features. I quite enjoy having them both compete as they are.
I considered getting a chess.com subscription because their puzzles are a lot better than lichess'. However, the default tier/starting tier of subscription only gives access to a pittance of "puzzles per day" which is ridiculous.
Yeah it's always been pretty clear to me that the intermediate plans exist mainly to annoy people into buying the most expensive ones.
You know, in for a penny...
You know, in for a penny...
There's also chesstempo for puzzles if you are not aware of it already, the puzzles are great and free, with subscription tiers for more features (unlimited endgame puzzles, custom puzzle sets, opening trainer etc.).
The UI is ugly, clunky and old, but as long as it is only for puzzles and not playing I can stand it
I’m getting increasingly frustrated by the puzzle quality. Puzzle difficulty is determined algorithmically using an Elo system (where essentially puzzles play against players). That sounds great in theory. The problem is that there’s no penalty for guessing, in fact, the UI forces you to make a guess. This means the rating partly measures guessability instead of solvability. At my low-ish rating, I get a mixture of puzzles I can realistically solve, and extremely hard puzzles where the obvious dumb guess happens to also be the correct solution. I’m not sure if anybody else is annoyed by that as much as I am.
The biggest benefit, in my opinion, of doing puzzles is building pattern recognition. If that obvious dumb guess is consistent for the structure presented in the difficult-but-guessable puzzle, then I think there's still value to doing it.
It's not; that's the point.
Level 1000 puzzle: obvious pattern move is correct, no surprise.
Level 1400: obvious pattern move is correct, but you have to check a potential threat unless you are guessing.
Level 1800: obvious pattern move is incorrect, need to notice the threat and findnthr better move.
Level 1000 puzzle: obvious pattern move is correct, no surprise.
Level 1400: obvious pattern move is correct, but you have to check a potential threat unless you are guessing.
Level 1800: obvious pattern move is incorrect, need to notice the threat and findnthr better move.
Well, chess.com spend quite a bit of dev time on gimmicks like their custom 4-player chess variant, that was followed by a torrent of 4 player chess content from their army of chess streamers. To convince someone to buy chess.com, they need to make themself look like the de facto standard site. They also need to invent new features because charging people just to play chess and solve puzzles online is sort of ridiculous when that's been available to people since the damn 90s.
I don't think commercial vs communist has anything to do with it. Thibault is just a very good, hard working programmer. If his political views were different then Lichess would still have the best platform and he would have way more money. There is no reason what so over for chess com playing area being as bad as it is other than them not being able to find a programmer as good as Thibault. It's not only about money, such people are just very rare.
I would agree with you in a lot of cases, especially public administration but...
In Thibault's case, he has consciously and deliberately made it so that his political views do affect choices at all levels. A lot of it is quite direct. If you are "communist^," then you think differently about login, data retention. You make feature decisions differently. You also make hiring/expansion/strategy decisions differently.
Chess.com needs to worry about free-paid conversion rates, crippling features to differentiate subscription plans, analytics people/code to tie it all together. Those require code, infrastructure. They come with performance costs, technical debt. Thibault has explicitly identified these, and deliberately carved advantages out of them. What can you do with much less bloat.
Even just having more money has disadvantages, besides the obvious advantages. You now have teams and senior people responsible for analytics, commercial performance, an extensive (and restrictive) streamer sponsorship program. You have a bigger accounts dept. etc. Modern companies have a lot of bloat, and administrative analogues to technical debt.
That stuff inevitably leads to a difference in product, even if you had the exact same programers. Environments matter. Thibault is trying to win. I like it.
^I'm going to call this ideology "Thibault Communism" to keep it narrow.
In Thibault's case, he has consciously and deliberately made it so that his political views do affect choices at all levels. A lot of it is quite direct. If you are "communist^," then you think differently about login, data retention. You make feature decisions differently. You also make hiring/expansion/strategy decisions differently.
Chess.com needs to worry about free-paid conversion rates, crippling features to differentiate subscription plans, analytics people/code to tie it all together. Those require code, infrastructure. They come with performance costs, technical debt. Thibault has explicitly identified these, and deliberately carved advantages out of them. What can you do with much less bloat.
Even just having more money has disadvantages, besides the obvious advantages. You now have teams and senior people responsible for analytics, commercial performance, an extensive (and restrictive) streamer sponsorship program. You have a bigger accounts dept. etc. Modern companies have a lot of bloat, and administrative analogues to technical debt.
That stuff inevitably leads to a difference in product, even if you had the exact same programers. Environments matter. Thibault is trying to win. I like it.
^I'm going to call this ideology "Thibault Communism" to keep it narrow.
But it's not about all the choices, logins, subscriptions or anything like that. It's about the game play alone. It's smooth and fast while you play. The servers don't lag, don't crash, the UI is very responsive, you don't feel like overall slowness and lag of all of it robs you of time or experience.
You can debate all other surrounding stuff being influenced by the author's politics but this one is purely about him being able to implement it and the commercials competitors failing spectacularly.
It's not unique to Lichess btw, back in the day ICC had smooth, responsive gameplay as well. It was commercial and it was great.
You can debate all other surrounding stuff being influenced by the author's politics but this one is purely about him being able to implement it and the commercials competitors failing spectacularly.
It's not unique to Lichess btw, back in the day ICC had smooth, responsive gameplay as well. It was commercial and it was great.
This doesn't seem to be much to do with communism. You can operate not for profits or charities in capitalist systems (in fact some of its strongest proponents would much prefer people give money directly to charities to help people, rather than pay taxes to a government that might help people).
I don't see what's communist about it. It's just that the developer has arrived at "charity" via the route of communism. The biggest societal difference is that chess.com allows people to play chess for a living, whereas a free platform does not.
I don't see what's communist about it. It's just that the developer has arrived at "charity" via the route of communism. The biggest societal difference is that chess.com allows people to play chess for a living, whereas a free platform does not.
That's why I noted "Thibault Communism" to narrow it to his specific thinking on this, which IMO is quite lovely and unique.
TD is the one who who articulated it this way, and there are pretty strong logical and operative links between his ideas and actions.
There are lots of differences between chess.com and Lichess, societal and otherwise.
Anyway, I'm not claiming that Lichess is superior in every way, just that it's great and unique. There are lots of successful companies/startups/sites operating on the chess.com mindset. Lichess is quite unique.
TD is the one who who articulated it this way, and there are pretty strong logical and operative links between his ideas and actions.
There are lots of differences between chess.com and Lichess, societal and otherwise.
Anyway, I'm not claiming that Lichess is superior in every way, just that it's great and unique. There are lots of successful companies/startups/sites operating on the chess.com mindset. Lichess is quite unique.
I love Lichess. I just don't think it's Communism when someone volunteers their time.
It's a bit tongue-in-cheek, but Thibault gives chesd according to his ability, and users get chess according to their needs.
https://github.com/ornicar
> Save the trees
> Maker of lichess.org, a hippie communist chess server for drug fueled atheists
https://github.com/ornicar
> Save the trees
> Maker of lichess.org, a hippie communist chess server for drug fueled atheists
chess.com satisifices. Have had several times where I thought "Even I could make a better platform than this" (for instance: their PGNs always used to show today's date in the game metadata instead of the date the game was played and it took four emails over a week to make support understand why this was wrong).
When I open the app and look for a 10/0 match though, I always find one right away, and this + cursory game reviews covers ~100% of my use case, so shrug.
When I open the app and look for a 10/0 match though, I always find one right away, and this + cursory game reviews covers ~100% of my use case, so shrug.
[deleted]
Chess has always had this dichotomy over free/paid services. (a bit not unlike programming tools).
I love lichess.org but make no mistake: without the dedication of one talented Scala programmer willing to underpay themselves that site would not exist.
Commercial sites can provide more services and offer more opportunities to chess professionals simply due to the funding model.
Disclaimer: I've played over 100k online chess games since 1992. Starting with original ICS (client was on Xwindows) before ICS/FICS split drama, then chessbase.com, then chess.com and now lichess.org. I slightly prefer lichess but play on chess.com as well.
I love lichess.org but make no mistake: without the dedication of one talented Scala programmer willing to underpay themselves that site would not exist.
Commercial sites can provide more services and offer more opportunities to chess professionals simply due to the funding model.
Disclaimer: I've played over 100k online chess games since 1992. Starting with original ICS (client was on Xwindows) before ICS/FICS split drama, then chessbase.com, then chess.com and now lichess.org. I slightly prefer lichess but play on chess.com as well.
Open source in general wouldn't exist without lots of people who contribute and underpay themselves for it, but I'm not sure what I'm not supposed to be making a mistake about? Can you clarify?
Not the same.
With opensource tools businesses often do contribute back, via their paid employees.
This is because the business wants to use the tool, but wants some new features / bugfix, and the opensource license means they legally have to contribute back to the opensource project if they want to add that feature and keep using the project.
With lichess the players are almost entirely just consumers of a free product.
> Open source in general wouldn't exist without lots of people who contribute and underpay themselves for it
If you want proof this statement is wrong just look at the open source companies that were created by for-profit companies, such as React by Facebook, Visual Studio Code by Microsoft, or Golang by Google. These are some of the biggest opens source projects, developed by very highly paid software engineers.
All that said, of course there is many OSS projects out there maintained by some unpaid person doing it out of the kindness of their heart.
It goes both ways of course, when a business open sources their project they benefit from the contributions of others.
With opensource tools businesses often do contribute back, via their paid employees.
This is because the business wants to use the tool, but wants some new features / bugfix, and the opensource license means they legally have to contribute back to the opensource project if they want to add that feature and keep using the project.
With lichess the players are almost entirely just consumers of a free product.
> Open source in general wouldn't exist without lots of people who contribute and underpay themselves for it
If you want proof this statement is wrong just look at the open source companies that were created by for-profit companies, such as React by Facebook, Visual Studio Code by Microsoft, or Golang by Google. These are some of the biggest opens source projects, developed by very highly paid software engineers.
All that said, of course there is many OSS projects out there maintained by some unpaid person doing it out of the kindness of their heart.
It goes both ways of course, when a business open sources their project they benefit from the contributions of others.
I meant to say that lichess.org is a bit of an outlier for a great service based on FOSS principles and a donation model.
There are many chessplayers who think lichess > chess because it is absolutely free. That is not a sufficient condition for greatness. Having a paid model is not a horrible thing.
It is not given that a nice FOSS project is sustainable. There are plenty of free projects which went nowhere.
Only a handful FOSS projects can support themselves (vue, lichess and very few others).
Even worse, there are many formerly great FOSS projects half-abandonded when the original creator decided to get a "real job". That is what worries me with lichess - the bus factor of one.
Yes I have lichess repo on my computer but that is not sufficient.
As I have grown older I've come to appreciate the value of paying for things well made.
There are many chessplayers who think lichess > chess because it is absolutely free. That is not a sufficient condition for greatness. Having a paid model is not a horrible thing.
It is not given that a nice FOSS project is sustainable. There are plenty of free projects which went nowhere.
Only a handful FOSS projects can support themselves (vue, lichess and very few others).
Even worse, there are many formerly great FOSS projects half-abandonded when the original creator decided to get a "real job". That is what worries me with lichess - the bus factor of one.
Yes I have lichess repo on my computer but that is not sufficient.
As I have grown older I've come to appreciate the value of paying for things well made.
Lichess has >300 contributors. Probably not all of them could take over the project, but probably some could if needed. It also accepts donations, so isn't an unpaid model (it's just designed to cover costs, not generate profits).
- https://github.com/lichess-org/lila
- https://lichess.org/patron
- https://github.com/lichess-org/lila
- https://lichess.org/patron
I guess we'll only know for sure when Thibault loses interest in lichess or gets hit by a bus, but I think lichess could continue without him.
There are only people working with him, he's not alone in the project. And other people have access to the servers so even if he dies suddenly without having time to do a hand-off the project could still continue.
There are only people working with him, he's not alone in the project. And other people have access to the servers so even if he dies suddenly without having time to do a hand-off the project could still continue.
Hello fellow chess traveller! I was one of the first 100 on ICS, first helper on ICC, TD on FICS, ran 2 popular chess bots, wrote 100s of help files etc... Sadly I'm long over 100k games, I was around 80k when I left ICC :(
I feel similarly. I play mostly on Lichess but chess.com has features which I feel are easier to use, so I use both. I find this either/or discussion to be strange since both have their strengths and weaknesses. It's a pittance for anyone working in tech to support both, and the competition has largely been amazing for the improvement of both services.
It's interesting how 27 years ago the same type of drama happened, even when FICS (the free option at the time) was a carbon copy of ICC, AND you could connect to either with the same clients. Somehow people still found ways to say one was better than the other up until the point where they became sufficiently differentiated and the discussion largely stopped.
I feel similarly. I play mostly on Lichess but chess.com has features which I feel are easier to use, so I use both. I find this either/or discussion to be strange since both have their strengths and weaknesses. It's a pittance for anyone working in tech to support both, and the competition has largely been amazing for the improvement of both services.
It's interesting how 27 years ago the same type of drama happened, even when FICS (the free option at the time) was a carbon copy of ICC, AND you could connect to either with the same clients. Somehow people still found ways to say one was better than the other up until the point where they became sufficiently differentiated and the discussion largely stopped.
100K games!!! That's quite an achievement. I am an average club player and I have played about 15K in more than 20 years of playing.
I joined lichess in Nov 2018 and have played 15,269 games. It'll be more by the time most people read this :p
Chess is quite a popular topic here on HN new. I propose to do a HN league / Tournament. Who is willing to join?
Sure, I'd join, also just a casual player -- still rated 1700 on lichess (1200 on chess.com) despite 15,000+ games :p
I'd join, though I'm really only a casual (bullet) player
With an average length of 5 minutes per game ( given a 3+2 time control ) and assuming you don't play more than 8 hours per day this is around 162 full days spent playing chess. Also this is an achievement!
Yeah, not particularly proud of the "achievement". I play for fun. My rating has not increased much since I started because I don't really do deliberate practice. I don't analyse my games, etc.
You're pretty much spot on. My average game length is 5 minutes and 7 seconds. lichess tells me my time spent playing is 54 days, 5 hours and 6 minutes and now 15,273 games.
It works out to average just under an hour a day, and I play most days.
Breakdown: 6,157 bullet (90+% are 1+0 but a few 2+1) 7,430 blitz (90+% are 5+0 but a few 3+2) 1,368 rapid (99+% are 10+0) 184 classical (100% are 30+0)
I've also played a small handful of correspondence, chess960, etc. which is why it doesn't quite add up.
You're pretty much spot on. My average game length is 5 minutes and 7 seconds. lichess tells me my time spent playing is 54 days, 5 hours and 6 minutes and now 15,273 games.
It works out to average just under an hour a day, and I play most days.
Breakdown: 6,157 bullet (90+% are 1+0 but a few 2+1) 7,430 blitz (90+% are 5+0 but a few 3+2) 1,368 rapid (99+% are 10+0) 184 classical (100% are 30+0)
I've also played a small handful of correspondence, chess960, etc. which is why it doesn't quite add up.
This conversation is very nostalgic for me as I used to play a lot with my father (who passed away almost 20 years ago). Now, my seven year old daughter seems to be very intrigued by chess.
You said you don't analyze your games? Is there a standard methodology for analyzing chess games, especially given that everything being discussed here is happening electronically?
I would be fascinated to hear about how people are combining technology with the practice of chess to ramp up their learning efficacy.
You said you don't analyze your games? Is there a standard methodology for analyzing chess games, especially given that everything being discussed here is happening electronically?
I would be fascinated to hear about how people are combining technology with the practice of chess to ramp up their learning efficacy.
Sites like lichess allow you to run a computer analysis of every move so you can find how often you made what the chess engine considers the strongest move. It will also clearly show you any blunders regardless of whether your opponent took advantage.
Further, you can easily compare your responses during openings to what master level players play and you can also just look at how effective certain opening lines are just for your own games.
Lichess also has an "insights" feature where you can look at all your games in aggregate and ask questions like "how often do I win playing Ruy Lopez opening compared to when I play the Italian opening", etc.
These sites also have endless tactical puzzles which you can practice with.
I guess deliberate practice to improve consists of some or all of these tools plus studying certain aspects such as end games and openings.
I'm too impatient to do any of these which is why I improve very slowly despite playing thousands of games.
Further, you can easily compare your responses during openings to what master level players play and you can also just look at how effective certain opening lines are just for your own games.
Lichess also has an "insights" feature where you can look at all your games in aggregate and ask questions like "how often do I win playing Ruy Lopez opening compared to when I play the Italian opening", etc.
These sites also have endless tactical puzzles which you can practice with.
I guess deliberate practice to improve consists of some or all of these tools plus studying certain aspects such as end games and openings.
I'm too impatient to do any of these which is why I improve very slowly despite playing thousands of games.
It averages about 10 games a day over 30 year.
Takes roughly an hour on 3 0 controls. There are days when I play 20 and some days when I play none.
Is there a corelation between games played and rating? Probably some but you hit diminishing returns at some point. As Botvinnik said - blitz rots your brain.
Over the years I have noticed some rating inflation on online chess sites. My high on lichess is 2670 and 2620 on chess.com. On older services I never broke 2500 and my highest OTB rating as an FM was 2398.
Takes roughly an hour on 3 0 controls. There are days when I play 20 and some days when I play none.
Is there a corelation between games played and rating? Probably some but you hit diminishing returns at some point. As Botvinnik said - blitz rots your brain.
Over the years I have noticed some rating inflation on online chess sites. My high on lichess is 2670 and 2620 on chess.com. On older services I never broke 2500 and my highest OTB rating as an FM was 2398.
Don’t you regret wasting so much time? Or do you just suppress these thoughts :-)
Time enjoyed is not wasted :)
Still it is a bit of addiction and I try to limit myself to 4 - 6 games in one sitting.
Still it is a bit of addiction and I try to limit myself to 4 - 6 games in one sitting.
I've got "Time spent playing: 17 days" on Lichess. Over a few years, so not too bad. But I feel it's worth it. It's not like it's all-consuming. Just a few games a day to relax.
Same when I played World of Warcraft in HS. Had probably multiples of that total playtime. I got "nothing to show" for all that time. But it was time well spent I feel. I had fun, and it's where I would hang and chat with friends during the evenings etc., so no regrets.
Same when I played World of Warcraft in HS. Had probably multiples of that total playtime. I got "nothing to show" for all that time. But it was time well spent I feel. I had fun, and it's where I would hang and chat with friends during the evenings etc., so no regrets.
Entertainment is not a waste. Arguably playing a game like chess probably has mental benefits over other forms, so it could be argued that people choosing this form of entertainment over another is an optimization in and off itself.
Some people have days of time driving 4x4s, or sitting on the beach, or reading a book. Do you consider all of that time "wasted" also? (hint, it isn't, for that person)
Some people have days of time driving 4x4s, or sitting on the beach, or reading a book. Do you consider all of that time "wasted" also? (hint, it isn't, for that person)
I love playing on lichess. My kid is a fan of chess.com and I try to play with him occasionally, I just have a stronger preference towards the former.
It almost feels like the Wikipedia vs Encyclopedia Britannica argument. Chess.com just feels like a company driven on profits whereas lichess has made adjustments to be reasonable about their own OpEx costs (specifically just the controls on game analysis and not wasting compute).
I really respect and appreciate the work lichess does.
It almost feels like the Wikipedia vs Encyclopedia Britannica argument. Chess.com just feels like a company driven on profits whereas lichess has made adjustments to be reasonable about their own OpEx costs (specifically just the controls on game analysis and not wasting compute).
I really respect and appreciate the work lichess does.
Lichess is quite special due to the actually honest non-profit funding.
In other areas of funded open source, developers are kept on leash, where those with money or foundation seats order the work horses to comply.
Many of the ostensibly OSS-glorifying tweets of the powerful are as nauseating for insiders as the chess tweet cited in the blog post.
In other areas of funded open source, developers are kept on leash, where those with money or foundation seats order the work horses to comply.
Many of the ostensibly OSS-glorifying tweets of the powerful are as nauseating for insiders as the chess tweet cited in the blog post.
I already wasn't a fan of chess.com simply for their inferior user experience compared to lichess.org.
But damn did this make me like them even less.
But damn did this make me like them even less.
If Chess.com allows chess players to make a living from playing chess, isn't that a good thing/valid tradeoff? A non-commercial volunteer-supported project wouldn't be in a position to do that.
In principle there is no reason a site like Lichess can't hold tournaments with a prize-fund sourced from commercial sponsors.
The problem is that companies like chess.com and chess24 tend to sponsor these things, and they're in direct competition with lichess.
The problem is that companies like chess.com and chess24 tend to sponsor these things, and they're in direct competition with lichess.
Lichess needs money itself. It survives off donations.
The evidence points that it is pretty far from being able to sponsor chess players and let them make a living from doing what they love, like a commercial platform could do.
The evidence points that it is pretty far from being able to sponsor chess players and let them make a living from doing what they love, like a commercial platform could do.
If you read my comment carefully you'll find I didn't say lichess themselves could sponsor prize funds. I explicitly said they'd have to source the funds from other sponsors.
Who would then drown the site in annoying ads.
[deleted]
I think it is. I can’t stand Danny Rensch though. His commentary is very obnoxious, and listening to him talk over the Super GMs that he’s had on the few chess.com streams that I’ve tuned into has been terribly frustrating.
What I can't stand about him is his willingness to lie through his teeth to protect whatever party line chess.com need sold at that time. That they weren't adjusting ratings, that they weren't scraping broadcasts from other sites, that they don't forbid their streamers from using other sites...all things he's said with a straight face that got proved wrong and later had to be admitted.
... None of the people that get paid by Chess.com need Chess.com. There are plenty of sponsors out there and have earned plenty of fans from their own skills and level of entertainment they provide on Twitch and Youtube.
Chess.com isn't _allowing_ anyone to do anything, right? There are sponsors and streamers, and chess.com there in the middle but there's no specific reason it has to be them, or that streamers for example couldn't be sponsored directly. I think for chess.com they want to insert themselves as a kind of broker because it's good for business to put themselves in the middle like that.
Would clubs etc. be interested in sponsoring players, if players would just play elsewhere? I assume in that case clubs will not get any brand recognition boost from being advertised?
What I was trying to say was that being sponsored by a place you play isn't the only option. Here's the list of FIDE sponsors, as one example: https://worldcup.fide.com/info/partners-and-sponsors
Instead of individual streamers being sponsored by venues, which then forbid them to play in other venues, they could be sponsored directly by the advertisers who sponsor the venues, and agencies could represent/group them. Just like how it works with e-sports. Riot Games for example doesn't pay all the pro players to exist, there's a whole ecosystem.
Instead of individual streamers being sponsored by venues, which then forbid them to play in other venues, they could be sponsored directly by the advertisers who sponsor the venues, and agencies could represent/group them. Just like how it works with e-sports. Riot Games for example doesn't pay all the pro players to exist, there's a whole ecosystem.
[deleted]
Is there an indie documentary film in the works for this?
I'm still reeling from Dirty Tricks (2021) peeling back the lid on bridge drama.
I'm still reeling from Dirty Tricks (2021) peeling back the lid on bridge drama.
That’s a quite obnoxious way to go about competing with open source.
Interesting. I spend about 3 or 4 hours a week watching Chess games re-streamed on YouTube and never use the Chess online platforms. I missed the drama.
From my point of view, it is all good, and I am happy to see players getting compensated any way possible. BTW, Nakamura is especially entertaining!
From my point of view, it is all good, and I am happy to see players getting compensated any way possible. BTW, Nakamura is especially entertaining!
I will always like lichess more because it the platform that brought me back to chess.
Also, i find the UX generally better and less clunky, but that's personnal preference and is subject to change.
Also, i find the UX generally better and less clunky, but that's personnal preference and is subject to change.
lichess for life, man. it's the only website i actually respect. shoutout to ornicar.
This feels like pga vs LIV in the golf world - just platforms trying their hardest to be anticompetitive and players/viewers losing out.
The difference here is that Lichess is free and open source, where as both of the golf organizations are for profit.
I'm approaching one thousand hours of play time on lichess. I love lichess. Much respect for it's benevolent dictator, ornicar. Looking forward to another thousand.
got to support somehow that Fabergé egg habit
There is about one post a month on this, which seems to most serve as opportunity for lichess users to assert the site is superior in every way.
It's snappier, and there are some analysis features that are better than the com's free offering.
But overall, if you pay, the com is a much more complete and rewarding experience.
It's snappier, and there are some analysis features that are better than the com's free offering.
But overall, if you pay, the com is a much more complete and rewarding experience.
> But overall, if you pay, the com is a much more complete and rewarding experience.
I switched to lichess while my diamond chess.com membership was still running. I definitely don't agree with this assessment.
I switched to lichess while my diamond chess.com membership was still running. I definitely don't agree with this assessment.
Yeah this whole argument just seems like a litmus test for some deep underlying preference - I'm always surprised that people prefer chess.com, and those people are always surprised that others prefer lichess.
What do you find is significantly better on lichess? (Vs diamond)
> complete and rewarding experienc
In what ways?
In what ways?
I used to play on chess.com but now I'm lichess 100%.
I like playing on chess.com because chess.com is a business and charges for the valuable services it provides
I don't like playing on lichess as much because lichess provides a product for free that they should charge money for
I don't like playing on lichess as much because lichess provides a product for free that they should charge money for
They have 400k a year in donation.
lichess is by far the better platform too
Bah, the sheer audacity of that tweet! Patently lying through his teeth.
This reminded me I should donate to lichess.
This reminded me I should donate to lichess.
Wasn't lying. Tweet was old.
Lichess has the best platform to play on and is free to use.
Chess.com is a business. As such they want to earn money. However, without a large, online chess community there will be no subscribers. The amount of effort chess.com has made to sponsor events, streamers etc. is tremendous.
Making a living as a chess professional is tough. Streaming/YouTube has opened the field somewhat: it is no longer required to be in the world top 20 to make a living in the field of chess.
The Chess24 initiative is without doubt inspired by Chess.com. Chess24 gives yet another way for chess players to earn money. Via Chessable (owneed by Chess24) players can sell chess online book/booklets.
If Hikaru has a clause in his contract with Chess.com, that he can't play on Lichess - then the just can't play on Lichess. That's simple.
Would Nike be happy if Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo suddenly appeared in Adidas shoes?
It works the other way too: Wen did you last see Magnus play on Chess.com? [I am aware that Magnus as owner/investor in Chess24 makes his own rules - and plays on Lichess]