- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Why I left chess.com for Lichess

#31

@killF7 I mean that they go over each move for both players and tell you if the move was best, OK, good, bad, etc. - this in addition to the normal providing of top three analysis lines and scores - which they do provide, of course, at lichess.

I'm not saying this feature is a huge difference or advantage, but it is certainly pleasant and instructive when you are reviewing games - and lichess should probably do something similar at some point.

@killF7 I mean that they go over each move for both players and tell you if the move was best, OK, good, bad, etc. - this in addition to the normal providing of top three analysis lines and scores - which they do provide, of course, at lichess. I'm not saying this feature is a huge difference or advantage, but it is certainly pleasant and instructive when you are reviewing games - and lichess should probably do something similar at some point.
#32

It's similar here lol; the times where lichess was bae are over

It's similar here lol; the times where lichess was bae are over
#33

Honestly, the CEO's reply seemed genuine. I don't think people realize the difficulty of scaling to millions of users - especially when individual complaints about fair play require considerable human involvement. Sadly, I think the original poster is going to be disappointed here at Lichess when he receives no acknowledgment or explanation at all for reports that don't lead to disciplinary action. As mentioned by others, I think he is going to find the same problem everywhere - at least to a certain extent. That said, it does seem that Lichess is better when it comes to "under the hood" cheat detection and overall experience with the interface. But there are limitations with 'customer service' that seem unavoidable given the volume of users. Either way - you can't beat the price of Lichess, so maybe that helps limit resentment to some degree.

Honestly, the CEO's reply seemed genuine. I don't think people realize the difficulty of scaling to millions of users - especially when individual complaints about fair play require considerable human involvement. Sadly, I think the original poster is going to be disappointed here at Lichess when he receives no acknowledgment or explanation at all for reports that don't lead to disciplinary action. As mentioned by others, I think he is going to find the same problem everywhere - at least to a certain extent. That said, it does seem that Lichess is better when it comes to "under the hood" cheat detection and overall experience with the interface. But there are limitations with 'customer service' that seem unavoidable given the volume of users. Either way - you can't beat the price of Lichess, so maybe that helps limit resentment to some degree.
#34

@clutchnutz it still sounds like the stock excuse of a corrupt company. Follow any trial about book cooking, mishandling fiduciary duty or insider trading. Even mortgage scandals have a variation of the theme.

@clutchnutz it still sounds like the stock excuse of a corrupt company. Follow any trial about book cooking, mishandling fiduciary duty or insider trading. Even mortgage scandals have a variation of the theme.
#35

@Ihavenothing What would a non-stock response be? It seems like any explanation at all could be interpreted as insincere. I have no idea. For all I know, there might be corruption or mismanagement. I'm just saying that the response might also be a legit reply about problems that don't have an easy solution.

I'm trying to imagine the number of staff that would be required to promptly handle complaints from millions of users when many issues require humans with a fairly extensive understanding of the game. Again.. I'm not defending the company. I'm just trying to consider the problem more deeply.

@Ihavenothing What would a non-stock response be? It seems like any explanation at all could be interpreted as insincere. I have no idea. For all I know, there might be corruption or mismanagement. I'm just saying that the response might also be a legit reply about problems that don't have an easy solution. I'm trying to imagine the number of staff that would be required to promptly handle complaints from millions of users when many issues require humans with a fairly extensive understanding of the game. Again.. I'm not defending the company. I'm just trying to consider the problem more deeply.
#36

@clutchnutz im not saying chess.Com is corrupt i just find it fascinating, that you found his reply remarkable sincere.

@clutchnutz im not saying chess.Com is corrupt i just find it fascinating, that you found his reply remarkable sincere.
#37

@killF7 I think you misunderstood my concerns as expressed. There was no "hate" and I repudiate your mischaracterization of the issues. Obviously the founders are rich now from their $30 million or so in funding, and contributes to the disease I call "the complacency of the privileged". I don't need or care about weird variants like 4 player, 3 check, king of the hill, or 5D chess, but I have played Fischer Random/Chess960. Their interface is bloated as previous posts documented, lots of javascript code layers which is not only buggy but slower than Lichess. The bloated feature set requires more server horsepower, and becomes a vicious cycle like adding luxury weight to an airplane, requiring bigger engines, need more fuel, which adds even more weight, and round and round you go. As the lady once said, "More is not always better, sometimes it's just more."

@killF7 I think you misunderstood my concerns as expressed. There was no "hate" and I repudiate your mischaracterization of the issues. Obviously the founders are rich now from their $30 million or so in funding, and contributes to the disease I call "the complacency of the privileged". I don't need or care about weird variants like 4 player, 3 check, king of the hill, or 5D chess, but I have played Fischer Random/Chess960. Their interface is bloated as previous posts documented, lots of javascript code layers which is not only buggy but slower than Lichess. The bloated feature set requires more server horsepower, and becomes a vicious cycle like adding luxury weight to an airplane, requiring bigger engines, need more fuel, which adds even more weight, and round and round you go. As the lady once said, "More is not always better, sometimes it's just more."
#38

@Ihavenothing It's not his reply as much as the problem itself. I have heard from other sources about the amount of cheaters, banned accounts, complaints, etc. So I don't think he's lying about the numbers. That makes me wonder how such a thing can be managed from a practical standpoint and how they should reply to those who complain about the problems.

My personal view is that there are no easy solutions and there will always be significant problems - so I'd rather not pay for such a service. Lichess is amazing, not because there are no problems, but because it's free and does a respectable job of managing what it can.

@Ihavenothing It's not his reply as much as the problem itself. I have heard from other sources about the amount of cheaters, banned accounts, complaints, etc. So I don't think he's lying about the numbers. That makes me wonder how such a thing can be managed from a practical standpoint and how they should reply to those who complain about the problems. My personal view is that there are no easy solutions and there will always be significant problems - so I'd rather not pay for such a service. Lichess is amazing, not because there are no problems, but because it's free and does a respectable job of managing what it can.
#39

I think @TheoGantos makes a good point about how chess dot com manages resources. They seem more concerned about adding new features to attract more paying members when the service would likely be better with a "less is more" attitude. Sadly, I think the average user is attracted to the bells and whistles, so it feeds the bloat cycle - and a less is more approach would likely mean less revenue. But ultimately, it's hard to support their approach as long as the example of Lichess exists. Maybe there is something in the old adage that scarcity inspires innovation.

I think @TheoGantos makes a good point about how chess dot com manages resources. They seem more concerned about adding new features to attract more paying members when the service would likely be better with a "less is more" attitude. Sadly, I think the average user is attracted to the bells and whistles, so it feeds the bloat cycle - and a less is more approach would likely mean less revenue. But ultimately, it's hard to support their approach as long as the example of Lichess exists. Maybe there is something in the old adage that scarcity inspires innovation.
#40

#29 The only features I find interesting at chess.com are:

  • coaching content (some of which isn't great) and blogging content
  • correspondence vacation time (although I think an increment TC would be less confusing)
  • 4-player chess

#39 I agree, simplicity is often preferable to complexity. But also I implemented blindfold puzzles at Lichess so maybe I don't believe that. :-)

#29 The only features I find interesting at chess.com are: * coaching content (some of which isn't great) and blogging content * correspondence vacation time (although I think an increment TC would be less confusing) * 4-player chess #39 I agree, simplicity is often preferable to complexity. But also I implemented blindfold puzzles at Lichess so maybe I don't believe that. :-)

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.