I agree with @Zig_Zag_Zug_Zwang , but there isn't much we can actually due. The amount of chess.com users vs lichess.org is just too overwhelming. Lichess is much better due to the amount of free features it has.
<Comment deleted by user>
I recall hearing that chess.com had bought Chess24 and that they would shut it down. I said here and on r/chess that in the face of this Lichess becomes all the more important. All the time chess com is restricting the facilities that a non paying user can use, and all to try to get paid memberships. I ended my premium there recently and I'll only use the account for daily games. Buying lifetime patron here seemed a better use for my money.
@ThePoisonPawns said in #2:
> I agree with @Zig_Zag_Zug_Zwang , but there isn't much we can actually due. The amount of chess.com users vs lichess.org is just too overwhelming. Lichess is much better due to the amount of free features it has.
What we can do is remind people that Lichess exists. A lot of people don't know about us.
> I agree with @Zig_Zag_Zug_Zwang , but there isn't much we can actually due. The amount of chess.com users vs lichess.org is just too overwhelming. Lichess is much better due to the amount of free features it has.
What we can do is remind people that Lichess exists. A lot of people don't know about us.
I would like to offer an alternative opinion to put things into perspective as to why things may no longer be going as well for lichess. I used to be a great supporter of this platform to the point of sponsoring it continuously: I have however noticed a paradigm shift as the time went by that made me move almost exclusively to other platforms, nowadays. The quality of the service together with the general approach of the website have, in my opinion, deeply and inexorabily decreased and a lot of people have become disillusioned regarding the overall quality of the product.
Just to mention some points: please notice I don't mean to start a battle of opinions nor criticise the work of open source developers, but the points stand:
1. complete failure to address user's feedback both regarding the mobile app and the website altogether
2. decrease in quality of blog entries, often just sensationalist and click-bait headlines with little to no chess content
3. complete failure to address cheating in many time controls
I am sure we could discuss at length each of the aforementioned points, I don't think this is however the right place and time to do so. I just meant to offer the perspective that not everything on lichess is shiny and golden as some may claim it to be, and on the long run this will obviously affect the market share of users engaging with the platform.
Just to mention some points: please notice I don't mean to start a battle of opinions nor criticise the work of open source developers, but the points stand:
1. complete failure to address user's feedback both regarding the mobile app and the website altogether
2. decrease in quality of blog entries, often just sensationalist and click-bait headlines with little to no chess content
3. complete failure to address cheating in many time controls
I am sure we could discuss at length each of the aforementioned points, I don't think this is however the right place and time to do so. I just meant to offer the perspective that not everything on lichess is shiny and golden as some may claim it to be, and on the long run this will obviously affect the market share of users engaging with the platform.
@Hedgehog1963 said in #6:
> What we can do is remind people that Lichess exists. A lot of people don't know about us.
This is a somewhat disingenuous excuse and I cannot believe that it's being used seriously. Everybody who plays chess regularly knows that multiple platforms exist, and unless you're referring to the sub-demographics of people who are brand new to the game and to the internet as a whole (because googling "chess online" the second google result is indeed lichess, so it's right there in front of your eyes) this is just false.
Eventually users gravitate towards the better product, so if lichess isn't winning market share there are fundamental reasons that must be addressed.
> What we can do is remind people that Lichess exists. A lot of people don't know about us.
This is a somewhat disingenuous excuse and I cannot believe that it's being used seriously. Everybody who plays chess regularly knows that multiple platforms exist, and unless you're referring to the sub-demographics of people who are brand new to the game and to the internet as a whole (because googling "chess online" the second google result is indeed lichess, so it's right there in front of your eyes) this is just false.
Eventually users gravitate towards the better product, so if lichess isn't winning market share there are fundamental reasons that must be addressed.
<Comment deleted by user>
I doubt that lichess wants to generate conflict.
It's not like lichess is dying, it still has a massive userbase and took in many new people since the pandemic, and probably consists of all the people who are serious about chess and realize that it is the better site.
Several people that aren't serious about chess (or say they are but actually aren't) will join chess.com and then leave in a year, while people who are serious about chess will eventually come across lichess, be able to tell why it is better, and are here to stay.
It's not like lichess is dying, it still has a massive userbase and took in many new people since the pandemic, and probably consists of all the people who are serious about chess and realize that it is the better site.
Several people that aren't serious about chess (or say they are but actually aren't) will join chess.com and then leave in a year, while people who are serious about chess will eventually come across lichess, be able to tell why it is better, and are here to stay.