Chess.com sucks

Title says it all

Hmm. You sound mad.

You have played nearly 26,000 games here. What happened?

Did something change? There must have been something of redeeming value to keep you here all those thousands of hours.

The paywall sucks. Tear down this wall, Mr Stahl.

Seriously though, this site used to be a lot better back in the day when you didn’t have to pay for everything. Of course, they didn’t have all the features they had now like assisted analysis and bot opponents.

It does suck that they have succumbed to that to the capitalist mindset. Refusing to invest any kind of effort into their mobile users experience is also pretty stupid considering that we’re a user base that is only guaranteed to expand.

Like so many other companies they will eventually be destroyed by their decisions to value profit above else. At least the C-levels and investors got rich though. After all, isn’t that what really matters?

Except they're not valuing profit above everything else - watch any of the videos in https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general-chess-discussion/erik-allebest-interview-on-scaling-to-100m-revenue-150m-members-and-700-people-99989457 from earlier this year and you'll see what really motivates them.

Chess as a sport is boring when u play alone.

when i joined in 2019 you used to be able to do 5 puzzles a day. Now it's down to what, three? With no membership.

For game analysis you could do the free analysis at depth 10 in 2019 and it'll still work pretty well but now I don't think that exists anymore.

like u

Let’s see: terrible lag times, annoying ads, every feature costing money, and my opponents time always being rounded up. Not to mention constantly being flagged in winning positions.

I wouldn’t doubt that this site puts bots on the playing pools as well.

I don't understand how the lag is so inconsistent, one game perfect no lag the very next game bad lag

Again: watch the video in the thread I posted where Erik talks about how new members are 40% more likely to stay if they win their first match as opposed to a loss, and how that presents a moral challenge because that's an incentive to fake a person's first win. It's not what they've done. They instead encourage people to play their first games against a bot that's easy to beat rather than the wider playing pool. Chess.com don't put bots in there. There are more than enough real people playing on the site at any one time that for the most common time controls there is essentailly zero wait time to find a game. If you try for one of the less common or custom time controls, you may have to wait longer, but Chess.com don't need bots to provide games.

Getting paid fairly for the services you provide is perfectly reasonable. Are they charging up to what the market will bear? I think they're charging considerably less.

Mr stahl also does not want to give me info for my project also chess.com is definitely lying to you.

Also membership is a scam and is useless to me.

Articles are also useless also I look for fair play stats to look for evidence. If you have any fair play stats please tell me.

The fair play article is useless, even though it provides the fair play stats you claim that you want to get? https://www.chess.com/fair-play

They also provide monthly updates that include the fair play closures for that month, like

https://www.chess.com/article/view/chesscom-update-september-2024#FairPlayhttps://www.chess.com/article/view/chesscom-update-august-2024#FairPlay

You can find the rest yourself by updating the month and year in the URL.

The fair play closures per month are very suspicious to me

Oh, please - you're letting your biases affect how you interpret the data. That's bad research that leads to bad conclusions.

There are a lot of other things that I personally experienced that are bad. From what I know there are way too many cheaters on chess.com which means that they either are lying about the numbers or there are just so many cheaters because they know they will not get banned for a longer time than on lichess.

Also in one of his posts David went off topic which makes me suspicious he supportschess.com like that is what I think please correct me if I am wrong