Getting a lot of people to play on here can't be that difficult, but making them stay is a lot harder. I think developers of this site should keep their focus on making it stable and roll-out improvements twice a year, rather than incremental changes that are rather annoying (e.g familiar features disappearing).
@cynosure - maybe, if possible, just get some automated posts to twitter like upset of the day, highest average rating game of the day, most viewed?, chess puzzle of the day etc.. Could keep the feed active without having to manually post each of these.
Lol wut, no high-usage software would be able to survive if only 2 updates were released a year. And I have no idea about any features that have been removed that didn't have it coming from well off. Are you sure they haven't just moved?
@30 - IRC @lichess is a chat room/real time chat.
Social media sharing, feel free to link good games to your facebook/etc. I do it fairly regularly.
Merit system - I guess the only comparable feature is in blocking people. I'm wary about merit systems, they frequently break down into cliques (ie, reddit). It could be useful though to determine good foreign language moderators.
@31 as far as I'm aware lichess is stable. I also think having a frequent trickle of updates is better than big ones occasionally, as it shows the site is in a constant state of flux.
@32 Yeah, not a bad idea at all.
Social media sharing, feel free to link good games to your facebook/etc. I do it fairly regularly.
Merit system - I guess the only comparable feature is in blocking people. I'm wary about merit systems, they frequently break down into cliques (ie, reddit). It could be useful though to determine good foreign language moderators.
@31 as far as I'm aware lichess is stable. I also think having a frequent trickle of updates is better than big ones occasionally, as it shows the site is in a constant state of flux.
@32 Yeah, not a bad idea at all.
@cynosure IRC is a bolt on - no direct connection to your lichess account or belonging to lichess community... I guess picking the same name helps, but not enforceable. Also would tie in to a merit system if there was one (only nice people get to chat :P)
I think I have been playing here since 2012 and have been on other sites a lot longer. At other (pay) sites you never get unpleasant surprises (things work as they supposed to) and you get what you pay for (under 5 USD / month is very affordable to everyone I guess). Instantchess.com upgrades features occasionally and chess.com has never upgraded a thing since I'm on there in the last few years, if I remember correctly.
Clarkey, every time you guys introduce changes so called improvements, the site becomes unstable. I experienced errors such as piece not appearing on board, pieces that can not be moved etc. That's very annoying and not even worth time playing for free.
Thibault always says to respect him, but you guys have to respect us as well even though you're doing all this for free.
As they say, "Don't expect different results if you keep on doing the same things". Your attitude towards supporters like me is not helping at all.
Clarkey, every time you guys introduce changes so called improvements, the site becomes unstable. I experienced errors such as piece not appearing on board, pieces that can not be moved etc. That's very annoying and not even worth time playing for free.
Thibault always says to respect him, but you guys have to respect us as well even though you're doing all this for free.
As they say, "Don't expect different results if you keep on doing the same things". Your attitude towards supporters like me is not helping at all.
I think you have a difference of opinions on what you mean by upgrades/updates.
rfw, I think you're discussing big releases, like adding new variants, or changing analysis screens or UI or layout.
I think Clarkey is discussing more like the bug fixes and little tweaks to bad code which the dev team does nearly constantly in order to ensure the site is more stable.
I've only had one case of pieces not appearing, and that was over a year ago now. If you get it frequently, please do let the dev team know. But since I last saw it reported (when Anti-Chess was released) I haven't seen it reported since, leading me to suspect it's linked with updates (and fixed rapidly).
Lichess obviously does respect it's users, otherwise it wouldn't attempt to add more variants, or new features, an in-depth analysis board, and so on. I think this is also one of the few sites on the internet where a developer will listen to you and actively act on what you say if it seems practically interesting. I know Clarkey is working on a new anti-cheat detection system. He'd not be doing that if he didn't respect lichess users.
rfw, I think you're discussing big releases, like adding new variants, or changing analysis screens or UI or layout.
I think Clarkey is discussing more like the bug fixes and little tweaks to bad code which the dev team does nearly constantly in order to ensure the site is more stable.
I've only had one case of pieces not appearing, and that was over a year ago now. If you get it frequently, please do let the dev team know. But since I last saw it reported (when Anti-Chess was released) I haven't seen it reported since, leading me to suspect it's linked with updates (and fixed rapidly).
Lichess obviously does respect it's users, otherwise it wouldn't attempt to add more variants, or new features, an in-depth analysis board, and so on. I think this is also one of the few sites on the internet where a developer will listen to you and actively act on what you say if it seems practically interesting. I know Clarkey is working on a new anti-cheat detection system. He'd not be doing that if he didn't respect lichess users.
Hi C, thanks for explaining it better than me.
Paying for playing enjoyable online chess and tournaments is not the issue. Time is the issue here, so chess websites are competing for our time that we can spare to play chess online.
Chesscube and Velocitychess are good but they're doing it the wrong way so no wonder they're struggling to breakthrough from the competition.
Fix the basics; introduce breakthrough features; embrace your loyal users.... that's the only way to go for lichess.org to be a success. Otherwise newcomers like chess24 (they have the money and resource they need to do whaterver they want to do) will change the playing field totally and lichess.org would never be able to catch up.
I guess this will be a wait-and-see scenario for me. If in two years time, Lichess.org is still lacking loyal users and developers are still asking why, then I would hate to be right.
Peace :)
Paying for playing enjoyable online chess and tournaments is not the issue. Time is the issue here, so chess websites are competing for our time that we can spare to play chess online.
Chesscube and Velocitychess are good but they're doing it the wrong way so no wonder they're struggling to breakthrough from the competition.
Fix the basics; introduce breakthrough features; embrace your loyal users.... that's the only way to go for lichess.org to be a success. Otherwise newcomers like chess24 (they have the money and resource they need to do whaterver they want to do) will change the playing field totally and lichess.org would never be able to catch up.
I guess this will be a wait-and-see scenario for me. If in two years time, Lichess.org is still lacking loyal users and developers are still asking why, then I would hate to be right.
Peace :)
In your opinion, is lichess lacking loyal users at the moment? I would hazard my opinion that the vast majority of daily lichess users are loyal (by definition, a daily user presumably must be loyal).
What if natural increment in users number is better than immediate growth, because it takes time for user to become loyal, while it takes less than second for server to overload at go down.
And also, is there any chance to make the board larger at /tv page? (to watch it from larger distance)
And also, is there any chance to make the board larger at /tv page? (to watch it from larger distance)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.