9 ms·

Hikaru Nakamura's Forbidden Platform

403 points by jdthedisciple 4y ago

jdthedisciple 4y ago
I already wasn't a fan of chess.com simply for their inferior user experience compared to lichess.org. But damn did this make me like them even less.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  If Chess.com allows chess players to make a living from playing chess, isn't that a good thing/valid tradeoff? A non-commercial volunteer-supported project wouldn't be in a position to do that.
  - AmericanChopper 4y ago
    I think it is. I can’t stand Danny Rensch though. His commentary is very obnoxious, and listening to him talk over the Super GMs that he’s had on the few chess.com streams that I’ve tuned into has been terribly frustrating.
    - dmurray 4y ago
      What I can't stand about him is his willingness to lie through his teeth to protect whatever party line chess.com need sold at that time. That they weren't adjusting ratings, that they weren't scraping broadcasts from other sites, that they don't forbid their streamers from using other sites...all things he's said with a straight face that got proved wrong and later had to be admitted.
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    In principle there is no reason a site like Lichess can't hold tournaments with a prize-fund sourced from commercial sponsors. The problem is that companies like chess.com and chess24 tend to sponsor these things, and they're in direct competition with lichess.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      Lichess needs money itself. It survives off donations. The evidence points that it is pretty far from being able to sponsor chess players and let them make a living from doing what they love, like a commercial platform could do.
      - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
        If you read my comment carefully you'll find I didn't say lichess themselves could sponsor prize funds. I explicitly said they'd have to source the funds from other sponsors.
        lupire 4y ago
        Who would then drown the site in annoying ads.
  - password54321 4y ago
    ... None of the people that get paid by Chess.com need Chess.com. There are plenty of sponsors out there and have earned plenty of fans from their own skills and level of entertainment they provide on Twitch and Youtube.
    - bfgoodrich 4y ago
  - synu 4y ago
    Chess.com isn't _allowing_ anyone to do anything, right? There are sponsors and streamers, and chess.com there in the middle but there's no specific reason it has to be them, or that streamers for example couldn't be sponsored directly. I think for chess.com they want to insert themselves as a kind of broker because it's good for business to put themselves in the middle like that.
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      Would clubs etc. be interested in sponsoring players, if players would just play elsewhere? I assume in that case clubs will not get any brand recognition boost from being advertised?
      - synu 4y ago
        What I was trying to say was that being sponsored by a place you play isn't the only option. Here's the list of FIDE sponsors, as one example: https://worldcup.fide.com/info/partners-and-sponsors https://worldcup.fide.com/info/partners-and-sponsors Instead of individual streamers being sponsored by venues, which then forbid them to play in other venues, they could be sponsored directly by the advertisers who sponsor the venues, and agencies could represent/group them. Just like how it works with e-sports. Riot Games for example doesn't pay all the pro players to exist, there's a whole ecosystem.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bfgoodrich 4y ago
Lapsa 4y ago
got to support somehow that Fabergé egg habit
andrepd 4y ago
Bah, the sheer audacity of that tweet! Patently lying through his teeth. This reminded me I should donate to lichess.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Wasn't lying. Tweet was old.
  - jstx1 4y ago
    He wasn't necessarily lying but from the given information I don't think that you can conclude with certainty that he wasn't lying.
    - nebulous1 4y ago
      "with certainty"? Perhaps not. However, the given information leads us to believe that it wasn't lying.
defrost 4y ago
Is there an indie documentary film in the works for this? I'm still reeling from Dirty Tricks (2021) peeling back the lid on bridge drama.
mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
Paying off Chess streamers is pretty much the only way Chess.com can keep people using their site. Their product is simply inferior in every way, except for their library of master lessons, and all these GMs exclusively streaming through Chess.com. I figure all this spending on sponsorship and GM content is why the rest of their site is so inferior to Lichess. Lichess can spend all their time perfecting the platform, and it really shows.
- dalbasal 4y ago
  There are more reasons, but... At core there is a dichotomy between Chess.com's business-model-ish approach and Lichess' communist approach... to put it in Thibault's own words. No freemium tiers. No subscription plans, ads, etc. Just donations. That approach has been good for keeping the UX lightweight and snapy. Chess.com has been around longer, so Lichess' is still catching up with features. I quite enjoy having them both compete as they are.
  - kzrdude 4y ago
    I considered getting a chess.com subscription because their puzzles are a lot better than lichess'. However, the default tier/starting tier of subscription only gives access to a pittance of "puzzles per day" which is ridiculous.
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
      Yeah it's always been pretty clear to me that the intermediate plans exist mainly to annoy people into buying the most expensive ones. You know, in for a penny...
    - ginnungagap 4y ago
      There's also chesstempo for puzzles if you are not aware of it already, the puzzles are great and free, with subscription tiers for more features (unlimited endgame puzzles, custom puzzle sets, opening trainer etc.). The UI is ugly, clunky and old, but as long as it is only for puzzles and not playing I can stand it
dylkil 4y ago
lichess is by far the better platform too
trvan 4y ago
Lichess is quite special due to the actually honest non-profit funding. In other areas of funded open source, developers are kept on leash, where those with money or foundation seats order the work horses to comply. Many of the ostensibly OSS-glorifying tweets of the powerful are as nauseating for insiders as the chess tweet cited in the blog post.
sharmin123 4y ago
orwin 4y ago
I will always like lichess more because it the platform that brought me back to chess. Also, i find the UX generally better and less clunky, but that's personnal preference and is subject to change.
synu 4y ago
That’s a quite obnoxious way to go about competing with open source.
soegaard 4y ago
There is plenty of room for all of Chess.com, Chess24 and Lichess to exist. Lichess has the best platform to play on and is free to use. Chess.com is a business. As such they want to earn money. However, without a large, online chess community there will be no subscribers. The amount of effort chess.com has made to sponsor events, streamers etc. is tremendous. Making a living as a chess professional is tough. Streaming/YouTube has opened the field somewhat: it is no longer required to be in the world top 20 to make a living in the field of chess. The Chess24 initiative is without doubt inspired by Chess.com. Chess24 gives yet another way for chess players to earn money. Via Chessable (owneed by Chess24) players can sell chess online book/booklets. If Hikaru has a clause in his contract with Chess.com, that he can't play on Lichess - then the just can't play on Lichess. That's simple. Would Nike be happy if Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo suddenly appeared in Adidas shoes? It works the other way too: Wen did you last see Magnus play on Chess.com? [I am aware that Magnus as owner/investor in Chess24 makes his own rules - and plays on Lichess]
- permo-w 4y ago
  >Would Nike be happy if Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo suddenly appeared in Adidas shoes? how about if Ronaldo appeared wearing shoes given to him by a charity?
  - GuB-42 4y ago
    Nike wouldn't be happy either. Probably won't make a fuss because it is bad for PR, but they will definitely take note and it will come back when it is time to talk money.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- janekm 4y ago
  > Would Nike be happy if Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo suddenly appeared in Adidas shoes? Well... it is happening the other way round, with runners wearing Nikes and painting over them to try and not annoy their other brand sponsors: https://www.businessinsider.com/nike-vaporfly-shoes-runners-with-other-sponsors-wear-secretly-2020-8?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/nike-vaporfly-shoes-runners-...
dubeye 4y ago
There is about one post a month on this, which seems to most serve as opportunity for lichess users to assert the site is superior in every way. It's snappier, and there are some analysis features that are better than the com's free offering. But overall, if you pay, the com is a much more complete and rewarding experience.
- lupire 4y ago
  > complete and rewarding experienc In what ways?
- arwineap 4y ago
  > But overall, if you pay, the com is a much more complete and rewarding experience. I switched to lichess while my diamond chess.com membership was still running. I definitely don't agree with this assessment.
  - ashtonbaker 4y ago
    Yeah this whole argument just seems like a litmus test for some deep underlying preference - I'm always surprised that people prefer chess.com, and those people are always surprised that others prefer lichess.
  - dubeye 4y ago
    What do you find is significantly better on lichess? (Vs diamond)
sireat 4y ago
Chess has always had this dichotomy over free/paid services. (a bit not unlike programming tools). I love lichess.org but make no mistake: without the dedication of one talented Scala programmer willing to underpay themselves that site would not exist. Commercial sites can provide more services and offer more opportunities to chess professionals simply due to the funding model. Disclaimer: I've played over 100k online chess games since 1992. Starting with original ICS (client was on Xwindows) before ICS/FICS split drama, then chessbase.com, then chess.com and now lichess.org. I slightly prefer lichess but play on chess.com as well.
- synu 4y ago
  Open source in general wouldn't exist without lots of people who contribute and underpay themselves for it, but I'm not sure what I'm not supposed to be making a mistake about? Can you clarify?
  - sireat 4y ago
    I meant to say that lichess.org is a bit of an outlier for a great service based on FOSS principles and a donation model. There are many chessplayers who think lichess > chess because it is absolutely free. That is not a sufficient condition for greatness. Having a paid model is not a horrible thing. It is not given that a nice FOSS project is sustainable. There are plenty of free projects which went nowhere. Only a handful FOSS projects can support themselves (vue, lichess and very few others). Even worse, there are many formerly great FOSS projects half-abandonded when the original creator decided to get a "real job". That is what worries me with lichess - the bus factor of one. Yes I have lichess repo on my computer but that is not sufficient. As I have grown older I've come to appreciate the value of paying for things well made.
    - eloisant 4y ago
      I guess we'll only know for sure when Thibault loses interest in lichess or gets hit by a bus, but I think lichess could continue without him. There are only people working with him, he's not alone in the project. And other people have access to the servers so even if he dies suddenly without having time to do a hand-off the project could still continue.
blastro 4y ago
lichess for life, man. it's the only website i actually respect. shoutout to ornicar.
tgtweak 4y ago
This feels like pga vs LIV in the golf world - just platforms trying their hardest to be anticompetitive and players/viewers losing out.
- galleywest200 4y ago
  The difference here is that Lichess is free and open source, where as both of the golf organizations are for profit.
_57jb 4y ago
I love playing on lichess. My kid is a fan of chess.com and I try to play with him occasionally, I just have a stronger preference towards the former. It almost feels like the Wikipedia vs Encyclopedia Britannica argument. Chess.com just feels like a company driven on profits whereas lichess has made adjustments to be reasonable about their own OpEx costs (specifically just the controls on game analysis and not wasting compute). I really respect and appreciate the work lichess does.
mark_l_watson 4y ago
Interesting. I spend about 3 or 4 hours a week watching Chess games re-streamed on YouTube and never use the Chess online platforms. I missed the drama. From my point of view, it is all good, and I am happy to see players getting compensated any way possible. BTW, Nakamura is especially entertaining!
headsupftw 4y ago
I used to play on chess.com but now I'm lichess 100%.
wly_cdgr 4y ago
I like playing on chess.com because chess.com is a business and charges for the valuable services it provides I don't like playing on lichess as much because lichess provides a product for free that they should charge money for
- davidguetta 4y ago
  They have 400k a year in donation.
heap_perms 4y ago
I'm approaching one thousand hours of play time on lichess. I love lichess. Much respect for it's benevolent dictator, ornicar. Looking forward to another thousand.

403 points by jdthedisciple 4y ago

I already wasn't a fan of chess.com simply for their inferior user experience compared to lichess.org. But damn did this make me like them even less.

throwaway290 4y ago
If Chess.com allows chess players to make a living from playing chess, isn't that a good thing/valid tradeoff? A non-commercial volunteer-supported project wouldn't be in a position to do that.
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  I think it is. I can’t stand Danny Rensch though. His commentary is very obnoxious, and listening to him talk over the Super GMs that he’s had on the few chess.com streams that I’ve tuned into has been terribly frustrating.
  - dmurray 4y ago
    What I can't stand about him is his willingness to lie through his teeth to protect whatever party line chess.com need sold at that time. That they weren't adjusting ratings, that they weren't scraping broadcasts from other sites, that they don't forbid their streamers from using other sites...all things he's said with a straight face that got proved wrong and later had to be admitted.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  In principle there is no reason a site like Lichess can't hold tournaments with a prize-fund sourced from commercial sponsors. The problem is that companies like chess.com and chess24 tend to sponsor these things, and they're in direct competition with lichess.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    Lichess needs money itself. It survives off donations. The evidence points that it is pretty far from being able to sponsor chess players and let them make a living from doing what they love, like a commercial platform could do.
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
      If you read my comment carefully you'll find I didn't say lichess themselves could sponsor prize funds. I explicitly said they'd have to source the funds from other sponsors.
      - lupire 4y ago
        Who would then drown the site in annoying ads.
- password54321 4y ago
  ... None of the people that get paid by Chess.com need Chess.com. There are plenty of sponsors out there and have earned plenty of fans from their own skills and level of entertainment they provide on Twitch and Youtube.
  - bfgoodrich 4y ago
- synu 4y ago
  Chess.com isn't _allowing_ anyone to do anything, right? There are sponsors and streamers, and chess.com there in the middle but there's no specific reason it has to be them, or that streamers for example couldn't be sponsored directly. I think for chess.com they want to insert themselves as a kind of broker because it's good for business to put themselves in the middle like that.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    Would clubs etc. be interested in sponsoring players, if players would just play elsewhere? I assume in that case clubs will not get any brand recognition boost from being advertised?
    - synu 4y ago
      What I was trying to say was that being sponsored by a place you play isn't the only option. Here's the list of FIDE sponsors, as one example: https://worldcup.fide.com/info/partners-and-sponsors https://worldcup.fide.com/info/partners-and-sponsors Instead of individual streamers being sponsored by venues, which then forbid them to play in other venues, they could be sponsored directly by the advertisers who sponsor the venues, and agencies could represent/group them. Just like how it works with e-sports. Riot Games for example doesn't pay all the pro players to exist, there's a whole ecosystem.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bfgoodrich 4y ago

Lapsa 4y ago

got to support somehow that Fabergé egg habit

andrepd 4y ago

Bah, the sheer audacity of that tweet! Patently lying through his teeth. This reminded me I should donate to lichess.

hackerlight 4y ago
Wasn't lying. Tweet was old.
- jstx1 4y ago
  He wasn't necessarily lying but from the given information I don't think that you can conclude with certainty that he wasn't lying.
  - nebulous1 4y ago
    "with certainty"? Perhaps not. However, the given information leads us to believe that it wasn't lying.

defrost 4y ago

Is there an indie documentary film in the works for this? I'm still reeling from Dirty Tricks (2021) peeling back the lid on bridge drama.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago

Paying off Chess streamers is pretty much the only way Chess.com can keep people using their site. Their product is simply inferior in every way, except for their library of master lessons, and all these GMs exclusively streaming through Chess.com. I figure all this spending on sponsorship and GM content is why the rest of their site is so inferior to Lichess. Lichess can spend all their time perfecting the platform, and it really shows.

dalbasal 4y ago
There are more reasons, but... At core there is a dichotomy between Chess.com's business-model-ish approach and Lichess' communist approach... to put it in Thibault's own words. No freemium tiers. No subscription plans, ads, etc. Just donations. That approach has been good for keeping the UX lightweight and snapy. Chess.com has been around longer, so Lichess' is still catching up with features. I quite enjoy having them both compete as they are.
- kzrdude 4y ago
  I considered getting a chess.com subscription because their puzzles are a lot better than lichess'. However, the default tier/starting tier of subscription only gives access to a pittance of "puzzles per day" which is ridiculous.
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    Yeah it's always been pretty clear to me that the intermediate plans exist mainly to annoy people into buying the most expensive ones. You know, in for a penny...
  - ginnungagap 4y ago
    There's also chesstempo for puzzles if you are not aware of it already, the puzzles are great and free, with subscription tiers for more features (unlimited endgame puzzles, custom puzzle sets, opening trainer etc.). The UI is ugly, clunky and old, but as long as it is only for puzzles and not playing I can stand it

dylkil 4y ago

lichess is by far the better platform too

trvan 4y ago

Lichess is quite special due to the actually honest non-profit funding. In other areas of funded open source, developers are kept on leash, where those with money or foundation seats order the work horses to comply. Many of the ostensibly OSS-glorifying tweets of the powerful are as nauseating for insiders as the chess tweet cited in the blog post.

sharmin123 4y ago

orwin 4y ago

I will always like lichess more because it the platform that brought me back to chess. Also, i find the UX generally better and less clunky, but that's personnal preference and is subject to change.

synu 4y ago

That’s a quite obnoxious way to go about competing with open source.

soegaard 4y ago

There is plenty of room for all of Chess.com, Chess24 and Lichess to exist. Lichess has the best platform to play on and is free to use. Chess.com is a business. As such they want to earn money. However, without a large, online chess community there will be no subscribers. The amount of effort chess.com has made to sponsor events, streamers etc. is tremendous. Making a living as a chess professional is tough. Streaming/YouTube has opened the field somewhat: it is no longer required to be in the world top 20 to make a living in the field of chess. The Chess24 initiative is without doubt inspired by Chess.com. Chess24 gives yet another way for chess players to earn money. Via Chessable (owneed by Chess24) players can sell chess online book/booklets. If Hikaru has a clause in his contract with Chess.com, that he can't play on Lichess - then the just can't play on Lichess. That's simple. Would Nike be happy if Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo suddenly appeared in Adidas shoes? It works the other way too: Wen did you last see Magnus play on Chess.com? [I am aware that Magnus as owner/investor in Chess24 makes his own rules - and plays on Lichess]

permo-w 4y ago
>Would Nike be happy if Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo suddenly appeared in Adidas shoes? how about if Ronaldo appeared wearing shoes given to him by a charity?
- GuB-42 4y ago
  Nike wouldn't be happy either. Probably won't make a fuss because it is bad for PR, but they will definitely take note and it will come back when it is time to talk money.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
janekm 4y ago
> Would Nike be happy if Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo suddenly appeared in Adidas shoes? Well... it is happening the other way round, with runners wearing Nikes and painting over them to try and not annoy their other brand sponsors: https://www.businessinsider.com/nike-vaporfly-shoes-runners-with-other-sponsors-wear-secretly-2020-8?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/nike-vaporfly-shoes-runners-...

dubeye 4y ago

There is about one post a month on this, which seems to most serve as opportunity for lichess users to assert the site is superior in every way. It's snappier, and there are some analysis features that are better than the com's free offering. But overall, if you pay, the com is a much more complete and rewarding experience.

lupire 4y ago
> complete and rewarding experienc In what ways?
arwineap 4y ago
> But overall, if you pay, the com is a much more complete and rewarding experience. I switched to lichess while my diamond chess.com membership was still running. I definitely don't agree with this assessment.
- ashtonbaker 4y ago
  Yeah this whole argument just seems like a litmus test for some deep underlying preference - I'm always surprised that people prefer chess.com, and those people are always surprised that others prefer lichess.
- dubeye 4y ago
  What do you find is significantly better on lichess? (Vs diamond)

sireat 4y ago

Chess has always had this dichotomy over free/paid services. (a bit not unlike programming tools). I love lichess.org but make no mistake: without the dedication of one talented Scala programmer willing to underpay themselves that site would not exist. Commercial sites can provide more services and offer more opportunities to chess professionals simply due to the funding model. Disclaimer: I've played over 100k online chess games since 1992. Starting with original ICS (client was on Xwindows) before ICS/FICS split drama, then chessbase.com, then chess.com and now lichess.org. I slightly prefer lichess but play on chess.com as well.

synu 4y ago
Open source in general wouldn't exist without lots of people who contribute and underpay themselves for it, but I'm not sure what I'm not supposed to be making a mistake about? Can you clarify?
- sireat 4y ago
  I meant to say that lichess.org is a bit of an outlier for a great service based on FOSS principles and a donation model. There are many chessplayers who think lichess > chess because it is absolutely free. That is not a sufficient condition for greatness. Having a paid model is not a horrible thing. It is not given that a nice FOSS project is sustainable. There are plenty of free projects which went nowhere. Only a handful FOSS projects can support themselves (vue, lichess and very few others). Even worse, there are many formerly great FOSS projects half-abandonded when the original creator decided to get a "real job". That is what worries me with lichess - the bus factor of one. Yes I have lichess repo on my computer but that is not sufficient. As I have grown older I've come to appreciate the value of paying for things well made.
  - eloisant 4y ago
    I guess we'll only know for sure when Thibault loses interest in lichess or gets hit by a bus, but I think lichess could continue without him. There are only people working with him, he's not alone in the project. And other people have access to the servers so even if he dies suddenly without having time to do a hand-off the project could still continue.

blastro 4y ago

lichess for life, man. it's the only website i actually respect. shoutout to ornicar.

tgtweak 4y ago

This feels like pga vs LIV in the golf world - just platforms trying their hardest to be anticompetitive and players/viewers losing out.

galleywest200 4y ago
The difference here is that Lichess is free and open source, where as both of the golf organizations are for profit.

_57jb 4y ago

I love playing on lichess. My kid is a fan of chess.com and I try to play with him occasionally, I just have a stronger preference towards the former. It almost feels like the Wikipedia vs Encyclopedia Britannica argument. Chess.com just feels like a company driven on profits whereas lichess has made adjustments to be reasonable about their own OpEx costs (specifically just the controls on game analysis and not wasting compute). I really respect and appreciate the work lichess does.

mark_l_watson 4y ago

Interesting. I spend about 3 or 4 hours a week watching Chess games re-streamed on YouTube and never use the Chess online platforms. I missed the drama. From my point of view, it is all good, and I am happy to see players getting compensated any way possible. BTW, Nakamura is especially entertaining!

headsupftw 4y ago

I used to play on chess.com but now I'm lichess 100%.

wly_cdgr 4y ago

I like playing on chess.com because chess.com is a business and charges for the valuable services it provides I don't like playing on lichess as much because lichess provides a product for free that they should charge money for

davidguetta 4y ago
They have 400k a year in donation.

heap_perms 4y ago

I'm approaching one thousand hours of play time on lichess. I love lichess. Much respect for it's benevolent dictator, ornicar. Looking forward to another thousand.