that a thread with this title can exist here in the forum already says ist all.
Chess.com sucks
Sort:
Nov 1, 2024
0
#83
Justbefair of course you not never going to show the dark side behind chess.com which is what I want to know. I DO NOT need anything such as an address but I need to know about the dark side of chess.com and since chess.com a article about your server’s struggling to deal with all the players why don’t you invest more in servers and or get more servers
This website has far more cheating. Lag in bullet, no players in the pool over 1700, bad sportsmanship. No useful features outside of puzzles.
6 days ago
0
#85
I’ve just been told that I have violated the rules ??? I don’t understand I’ve just joined and already I’ve violated the rules can someone explain, I just want to play chess
David wrote:
sndeww wrote:
David wrote:
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.
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.
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.
what the market will bear is not a moral question it's what happens after a roll of the dice. Is the price fair? is a different question. Personally, I don't think so. They could charge half and still make the owners rich and run the site well. It just makes the owners more money than they actually need to live a good lifestyle and be set.
David wrote:
FelixN2022 wrote:
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.
Your personal experience is not reality. Look up the thread where I've linked several of the interviews that Chess.com CEO Erik Ellebest has given to various outlets this year: one of the things he discusses is that people only feel like they are winning & losing half of their games when they are in fact winning 80% of the games, because their losses stand out so much more prominently in their thinkig than their wins.
And where does lichess even publish their fair play statistics? Google only finds https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/fair-play-stats-for-september-26546-fair-play-closures-including-15-titled-players, which is where they're actually discussing Chess.com's fair play stats.
huh i just checked out 3 random accounts and their wins/losses for blitz were split roughly 50/50. I think this is what should be expected with the algorithm for matching
David wrote:
FelixN2022 wrote:
Chess.com is asking you to pay for a bad playing experience this is a very bad type of for profit company
Asking you to pay for something is not bad: if you don't like the service they're selling, stop paying for it and go elsewhere and tell them why you're going elsewhere. It's not a monopoly where you have no other options. If you continue to pay them for something you don't like, who is being dumb here? If you log a Support ticket, they'll even refund you the amount of any future premium membership that you haven't yet used - you don't have to be locked in for the rest of the year. Constructive feedback on how they can improve their product will help them understand whether they need to price their product more competitively, balanced against the need to cover the costs they are incurring. I agree that some companies are predatory and should be fined and/or regulated, but Chess.com is not one of them.
the problem is that it's a for profit company. If you don't pay for membership the user experience will get progressively worse. Even if you do pay for membership at some point they will probably put the membership into tiers where you have to pay more to be in the higher tier but over time the stuff you used to get at lower tiers will only be available at the higher tiers. That's how capitalism works. The most effective ways to increase revenue are to pay the employees less, cut costs on the product (which generally makes it worse), and to raise the price on the product. So capitalism makes everything crappier over time by default.
David wrote:
JailhouseTaught wrote:
#13 — you have a good point, but shouldn’t they be putting some of that money into creating a better experience for their users instead of lining their pockets?
Why do you assume they're "lining their pockets" and NOT sending the money on improving their website or the services they offer or indeed trying to grow the game overall and attract new people and young people to the game? They're paying more than 30 people on their fair play team. They've bankrolled things like the POG Champs and Speed Chess Championship. They're constantly releasing new bots. They were first with Puzzle Rush - that wouldn't have existed without Chess.com taking a punt on it, and it's not something that lichess would have worked on without the demand for it emerging out of nowhere.
because the numbers don't add up. Just look at the number of memberships compared to operating costs and compare it to similar companies. They're making bank.
In the past year(s) until November, playing chess against a human opponent, included a nice layout. Chess.com would provide:
1) The name of the opening being played.
2) It would be easy to see the previous moves without need for scrolling way down.
3) the number of the move was easily visible (making search/analyzing specific moves easier.
Can we contact chess.com, to restore the pre-November Layout ??
is this a troll forum or are you serious
Stonewall_Defence wrote:
I wouldn’t doubt that this site puts bots on the playing pools as well.
Nailed it
pcalugaru wrote:
Stonewall_Defence wrote:
I wouldn’t doubt that this site puts bots on the playing pools as well.
Nailed it
Game is rigged
From post 83...... " of course you not never going to show the dark side behind chess.com which is what I want to know. I DO NOT need anything such as an address but I need to know about the dark side of chess.com". 
what are you talking about? All the forums are black! 
5 days ago
0
#97
FrancisWeed wrote:
the problem is that it's a for profit company. If you don't pay for membership the user experience will get progressively worse. Even if you do pay for membership at some point they will probably put the membership into tiers where you have to pay more to be in the higher tier but over time the stuff you used to get at lower tiers will only be available at the higher tiers. That's how capitalism works. The most effective ways to increase revenue are to pay the employees less, cut costs on the product (which generally makes it worse), and to raise the price on the product. So capitalism makes everything crappier over time by default.
Again: watch some of the interviews that Erik has given. That's not how he's running his company. Even if you just listen to the snippets he says at the very beginning of
5 days ago
0
#98
FrancisWeed wrote:
David wrote:
FelixN2022 wrote:
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.
Your personal experience is not reality. Look up the thread where I've linked several of the interviews that Chess.com CEO Erik Ellebest has given to various outlets this year: one of the things he discusses is that people only feel like they are winning & losing half of their games when they are in fact winning 80% of the games, because their losses stand out so much more prominently in their thinkig than their wins.
And where does lichess even publish their fair play statistics? Google only finds https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/fair-play-stats-for-september-26546-fair-play-closures-including-15-titled-players, which is where they're actually discussing Chess.com's fair play stats.
huh i just checked out 3 random accounts and their wins/losses for blitz were split roughly 50/50. I think this is what should be expected with the algorithm for matching
And yet, those people probably feel like they're losing more than they win, just like you're perceiving cheating when there is none.
5 days ago
0
#99
FrancisWeed wrote:
because the numbers don't add up. Just look at the number of memberships compared to operating costs and compare it to similar companies. They're making bank.
How do you know what Chess.com's operating costs are? Again, check out some of Erik's interviews - he talks about the problem of venture captial where startups want to grow as possible and then cash out. That's not the chess.com model.
5 days ago
0
#100
idkhow-to-mate wrote:
Of course chess.com sucks. But they are practically monopolist so they can do what they want.
Lichess is a perfectly fine alternative. It may be practically a duopoly, but it is most certainly not "practically a monopoly"
idkhow-to-mate wrote:
Honest players like me are still playing in the hope of maybe raising my elo but it's impossible with so many cheaters.
The only way to raise your Elo once it's reached its natural level is to get better at the game. That means reading up on theory, doing some lessons, getting some coaching, reviewing your games afterwards - both wins and losses - to see what you did well and what you can improve on. It's not because of cheating by your opponents (which is at maybe 3% according to the statistics).
idkhow-to-mate wrote:
This place is getting worse and worse.
They're making incremental changes that are generally improvements all the time. Some people don't like some of those changes: it doesn't mean they're "worse".
Very true but remember chess.com is a very obvious for profit company so of course they would not look into it plus they don’t care about quality only money.