@NeverBeenTimid Yes, I'm pretty sure they get paid.
@seanysean that's what I thought. I don't understand why Inner thinks chess.com was built by volunteers .
Pretty sure???
That means you do not know.
Eric sold chess materials. Bought the chess.com domain.
Created a "social media" site" built solely by volunteers.
The self described objective... To make a profit.
Anyone can research their history, Eric's and Sean's background, how the site evolved.
No. "They" are not paid at chess.com. Moderators and developers are all volunteers. Money is spent for promotion of the site.
Simply view the profiles of all the 60+ developers. They are chess players from around the world who volunteer their service. It's all in black in white if you take the time to do the research.
chess.com has been "developing" v3 for 3 years !
It's final release as the sole platform was promised to be today !
And guess what. It's still not ready. The release is on hold for the umpteenth time.
Yep. Those "highly paid developers" must be on strike. Demanding more money.
Glicko (used at chess.com) and Glicko-2 (used here) are considerably different than Elo. The major differences are that Glicko adds a variable to the calculation called rating deviation and Glicko-2 adds a second variable called rating volatility, and the asymmetry of rating gain/losses per game. Regarding the second point, in Elo, the winner wins the same amount of rating points that the loser loses after a game, while in the Glicko system, that is not necessarily the case.
Technically speaking, Elo is a special case of Glicko (where all players' rating deviation is equal to 0). However, no player's rating deviation can ever reach 0, so there is never a time when a Glicko calculation is the same as an Elo calculation.
Now, even if they were exactly the same, lichess and chess.com vary quite a bit for a few major reasons:
1) chess.com uses a starting rating value of 1200 for unknown skill players, lichess uses 1500.
2) lichess modifies all ratings under 800 (I think, I'm basing this off of what I remember someone else saying, never verified this myself) up to 800 - this adds even more rating points to the system.
3) lichess completely nerfs the increased accuracy afforded by the Glicko-2 system by having wildly different ratings count in the same rating pool and allowing berserking in rated games. I would actually trust chess.com ratings over lichess ratings due to points 2 and 3, and Glicko-2 (used by lichess) is a superior rating system to Glicko (used by lichess).
Wow. Didn't expect to get so many replies from many people. And I am not complaining in any way.. All of your posts were very interesting to read.
The interesting thing is, my high school's current chess team(which has been considered #1 in par with another high school) are full of exceptional players, a team I aspire to be in by next year. However, I am disappointed that they all use Chess.com instead of Lichess.org. When I confront them about it, they tell me Chess.com is better. Talk about bias! They don't provide any reasoning for it, besides the fact that most GMs play there and some other obvious pointers.
I learned a couple things from this forum. I'll be sure to tell them all the reasons why Lichess.org performs better than Chess.com by a long shot - quite a very long shot indeed. Anyone else have anything to add about Chess.com's flaws?
ICC is faster than lichess is faster than chess.com. According to Fins anyway and he should know! Whoa this captcha is not so easy lol.
i personally play on both the websites and i think one should play on both.
Once a players rating is firmly established you'll find there is very little difference in the points gained or lost at the two sites from a match. "Volatility", the amount of games and ratings played against certainly are factors and are calculated slightly different.
Once 100's of games played vs opponents in the same class have been played, the amount of points won or lost is very similar at the 4 major chess sites.
The question is will the same player achieve the same rating at the different sites? Several factors but it is not because of how ratings are calculated once a player is established.
BTW, at chess.com the starting rating can be anywhere from 800 to 1800 for a regular sign-up. Potential members are given options, various devices have restrictions, every sign-up procedure (by facebook), Android, Iphone for examples all have different boxes available to check your starting rating.
A major negative regarding CC is the chess interface runs differently on all the various phone devices, ipads, pc's etc; etc. Different developers for every device. Different bugs exist everywhere. Staff is always asking members for feedback, to take screen shots of the 100's of bugs (new ones are always creeping in as v3 keeps being rewritten), as they are unable to identify the issues themselves.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.