chesscom is paytowin. Those who are not smart enough to get that should better stay at cc anyways
There's a substantial percentage of humans that are not flexible enough to accept that something free could be better than something they pay for.
Chesscom tries to make new players feel good about themselves, marking basically any obvious move as a "brilliant". I've seen some obvious moves like basic rook skewers shown as "brilliant", lots of players posting them on forums ("my first brilliant, look at that!"). They make their players live in the fantasy land, basically any movement there you receive a "!" after it.
@gabrr82 said in #14:
> Chesscom tries to make new players feel good about themselves, marking basically any obvious move as a "brilliant". I've seen some obvious moves like basic rook skewers shown as "brilliant", lots of players posting them on forums ("my first brilliant, look at that!"). They make their players live in the fantasy land, basically any movement there you receive a "!" after it.
That's true and a good example of the difference I sense, which is that chessdotcom feels it has to implement anything for which there is popular demand despite often not really being able to do it properly. On chessdotcom players want to see moves automatically labelled as good or brilliant so they must have their way. On lichess.org our intelligence isn't insulted and it is explained to us why chess software is unable to label moves as good from a human perspective, or only with enormous technical difficulties, so we can better do without it.
> Chesscom tries to make new players feel good about themselves, marking basically any obvious move as a "brilliant". I've seen some obvious moves like basic rook skewers shown as "brilliant", lots of players posting them on forums ("my first brilliant, look at that!"). They make their players live in the fantasy land, basically any movement there you receive a "!" after it.
That's true and a good example of the difference I sense, which is that chessdotcom feels it has to implement anything for which there is popular demand despite often not really being able to do it properly. On chessdotcom players want to see moves automatically labelled as good or brilliant so they must have their way. On lichess.org our intelligence isn't insulted and it is explained to us why chess software is unable to label moves as good from a human perspective, or only with enormous technical difficulties, so we can better do without it.
Different people value different things and that's fine.
Chess.com is run like a traditional enterprise, and has a bunch of paywalled content that some people value. And that's ok. There are some complaints about how they try to make money, etc. But they also pay people to make chess accessible and that's kinda cool!
Lichess has a very unusual governance model. Donation only, open source, a really nice example of how an online community can form around a really simple and clear idea (courtesy Thibault). People are also finding ways to use lichess to grow the game via streaming/YouTube.
Ultimately it's kind of a good thing to have options. Lichess developers would have less incentive to try to make things better if there was no competitor, and vice versa.
Chess.com is run like a traditional enterprise, and has a bunch of paywalled content that some people value. And that's ok. There are some complaints about how they try to make money, etc. But they also pay people to make chess accessible and that's kinda cool!
Lichess has a very unusual governance model. Donation only, open source, a really nice example of how an online community can form around a really simple and clear idea (courtesy Thibault). People are also finding ways to use lichess to grow the game via streaming/YouTube.
Ultimately it's kind of a good thing to have options. Lichess developers would have less incentive to try to make things better if there was no competitor, and vice versa.
Use the money you saved on a chess.com subscription to buy him a gift. Maybe that'll drive the message home.
Show them this image of my recent game history on chess.com vs my profile here. Note the lack of cheaters and closed accounts on lichess.org in my rating pool. Now note that 5 of the last 7 were banned on chess.com. Why would anyone play there?
Image of closed accounts on chess.com, my profile name is deliberately cut off for privacy.
ibb.co/Y0kwLwZ
Image of closed accounts on chess.com, my profile name is deliberately cut off for privacy.
ibb.co/Y0kwLwZ
chess.com passes an idea to you that you have to pay to be good at chess. It's wrong. I've developed my chess much more here than there.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.