4 ms·

I and many others find the UX to be worse, the tutorials/lessons definitely way less interactive (usually consist of just a text dump) and the sheer number of g

I and many others find the UX to be worse, the tutorials/lessons definitely way less interactive (usually consist of just a text dump) and the sheer number of games where the opponent doesn’t make a single move to be extremely frustrating. It’s also impossible to discuss anything related to chess.com on here or Reddit because lichess people tend to downvote and brigade anyone who doesn’t praise it.

kthxb 3y ago
UX is probably a matter of habit, I for one find the chesscom UI unintuitive and I can never find what I'm looking for, but Lichess certainly also has its problems. The free and (to me) intuitive analysis tools on Lichess are the killer feature for me.
- acangiano 3y ago
  The UX for the analysis part is actually significantly better on Chess.com
  - yinser 3y ago
    Word
  - stavros 3y ago
    I very much disagree. Chess.com has analysis being more human-readable, the Lichess graph of move strength is amazing for zooming in to your major gamechangers.
hitekker 3y ago
The people I've met from chess.com were straightforward and focused on their craft. The product they work on doesn't seem to hurt anyone and I haven't see any exploitation common to tech companies. I heard they don't pay Bay Area salaries, which is probably makes them more sustainable over the long-term. I wonder if the peaceful co-existence of lichess and chess.com co-existing somehow disturbs some esoteric ideology.
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  Their website also came out at a time when it was common for competitors like ICC to charge people to play chess online, chesscom being his huge well featured free website helped push forward the popularity of online chess, and their for-profit model is what allows many of the aforementioned streamers to make a living. I don't hate lichess but I hardly see chesscom as evil.
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    This is a weird rivalry to read about. There should be an agreeable way for them to settle it, maybe some competitive game they both enjoy.
    - hobobaggins 3y ago
      stockfish v stockfish!
  - Levitating 3y ago
    > for-profit model is what allows many of the aforementioned streamers to make a living The streamers will be fine. Eric Rosen is one steamer who refuses to sell out to chess.com. Chess.com is beginner friendly but not fee, doesn't even let you analyse your games properly without a subscription. I do see harm in it, considering their competitor is a non-profit which has done great things for the chess community. Including open sourcing many things like icons and webassembly chess engines.
    - faeriechangling 3y ago
      I just sort of see Chesscom as expanding the chess market overall more than it's constraining the expansion of lichess. I'm pretty sure many of the people who eventually make their way to lichess end up at chesscom first.
- Levitating 3y ago
  chess.com's popularity is derived from their SEO and twitch. They have a deal with nearly all chess twitch streamers which forces them to only play on chess.com and prohibits them from saying anything negative about the platform. Combine that with their competitor being a non-profit organization which has created numerous open source[1] chess tools like engines, icons and boards and I would call them pretty harmful. https://github.com/lichess-org https://github.com/lichess-org
TylerLives 3y ago
Iirc, some of the hate comes from the fact they were paying popular chess streamers not to play/stream on lichess.
- hitekker 3y ago
  Exclusivity contracts seem pretty common in sports media, streaming, and other fields. I don't know the details but a quick google search turns news like https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/7v7xhp/downvotes_wouldnt_surprise_me_but_my_motive_is/ https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/7v7xhp/downvotes_wou... > In a nutshell, Chess.com is sponsoring me to continue making my free YouTube/Twitch content, but playing on their site. Apparently, some people thought Chess.com was trying to paywall chess streaming content. Strange
Levitating 3y ago
Lichess has quite decent interactive tutorials these days, although not as interactive as the named bots at chess.com. Personally never had issues with people rejecting games on lichess.com. But lichess is a non-profit that has done great things for the world of chess and open source and open source chess. You'll find almost all better players there, with the exception of those who are payed by chess.com to only play on their platform. Part of the reason is that chess.com has some latency issues. It's hard not to like lichess, considering their competitor needs to pay dozens of twitch streamers to stay on top, and require you to pay for a subscription just to have a decent game analysis.

kthxb 3y ago

UX is probably a matter of habit, I for one find the chesscom UI unintuitive and I can never find what I'm looking for, but Lichess certainly also has its problems. The free and (to me) intuitive analysis tools on Lichess are the killer feature for me.

acangiano 3y ago
The UX for the analysis part is actually significantly better on Chess.com
- yinser 3y ago
  Word
- stavros 3y ago
  I very much disagree. Chess.com has analysis being more human-readable, the Lichess graph of move strength is amazing for zooming in to your major gamechangers.

hitekker 3y ago

The people I've met from chess.com were straightforward and focused on their craft. The product they work on doesn't seem to hurt anyone and I haven't see any exploitation common to tech companies. I heard they don't pay Bay Area salaries, which is probably makes them more sustainable over the long-term. I wonder if the peaceful co-existence of lichess and chess.com co-existing somehow disturbs some esoteric ideology.

faeriechangling 3y ago
Their website also came out at a time when it was common for competitors like ICC to charge people to play chess online, chesscom being his huge well featured free website helped push forward the popularity of online chess, and their for-profit model is what allows many of the aforementioned streamers to make a living. I don't hate lichess but I hardly see chesscom as evil.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  This is a weird rivalry to read about. There should be an agreeable way for them to settle it, maybe some competitive game they both enjoy.
  - hobobaggins 3y ago
    stockfish v stockfish!
- Levitating 3y ago
  > for-profit model is what allows many of the aforementioned streamers to make a living The streamers will be fine. Eric Rosen is one steamer who refuses to sell out to chess.com. Chess.com is beginner friendly but not fee, doesn't even let you analyse your games properly without a subscription. I do see harm in it, considering their competitor is a non-profit which has done great things for the chess community. Including open sourcing many things like icons and webassembly chess engines.
  - faeriechangling 3y ago
    I just sort of see Chesscom as expanding the chess market overall more than it's constraining the expansion of lichess. I'm pretty sure many of the people who eventually make their way to lichess end up at chesscom first.
Levitating 3y ago
chess.com's popularity is derived from their SEO and twitch. They have a deal with nearly all chess twitch streamers which forces them to only play on chess.com and prohibits them from saying anything negative about the platform. Combine that with their competitor being a non-profit organization which has created numerous open source[1] chess tools like engines, icons and boards and I would call them pretty harmful. https://github.com/lichess-org https://github.com/lichess-org

TylerLives 3y ago

Iirc, some of the hate comes from the fact they were paying popular chess streamers not to play/stream on lichess.

hitekker 3y ago
Exclusivity contracts seem pretty common in sports media, streaming, and other fields. I don't know the details but a quick google search turns news like https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/7v7xhp/downvotes_wouldnt_surprise_me_but_my_motive_is/ https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/7v7xhp/downvotes_wou... > In a nutshell, Chess.com is sponsoring me to continue making my free YouTube/Twitch content, but playing on their site. Apparently, some people thought Chess.com was trying to paywall chess streaming content. Strange

Levitating 3y ago

Lichess has quite decent interactive tutorials these days, although not as interactive as the named bots at chess.com. Personally never had issues with people rejecting games on lichess.com. But lichess is a non-profit that has done great things for the world of chess and open source and open source chess. You'll find almost all better players there, with the exception of those who are payed by chess.com to only play on their platform. Part of the reason is that chess.com has some latency issues. It's hard not to like lichess, considering their competitor needs to pay dozens of twitch streamers to stay on top, and require you to pay for a subscription just to have a decent game analysis.