Comment by shric | Hacker News Reader

Comment by shric | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Each to their own. I find lichess.org's UI and UX vastly superior.

And I'm not the GP, but I agree. To expand my thoughts:

- The free version is vastly inferior to lichess.org, and it nags you to upgrade at every opportunity.

- They are anti-competitive to the point of censoring the mention of lichess on their forums (for e.g. feature requests) [1]

- I guess it's subjective how paid chess.com compares to lichess.org but I much prefer lichess.

- Minor UX/UI annoyances (you can't give your opponent time or allow takeback requests in a rated game, etc.)

- The price of diamond membership is quite steep for a chess website, but I guess compared to lichess.org anything is quite steep.

Thinking about it further, I guess chess.com seems extra bad because of the existence of lichess.org which is just amazing (100% open source including the apps, zero ads, open API, can download the database of all games, etc.)

Full disclosure, I'm a diamond chess.com member (signed up in January for a year) because I'm quite a chess enthusiast and really wanted to see if it was worth it. It's not, in my opinion.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/qudyuq/why_streams_w...

FWIW, I'm happy to sponsor both, they innovate in different ways. Chess.com with their content sponsorship and deep player pools, lichess with ad-free, open source and unique UI features.

Yeah, I strongly dislike chess.com, but the fact that it sponsors so many amazing chess content creators makes it more useful existing than not existing. Too bad most players gravitate towards it over the superior platform (lichess).

Yeah, in an ideal world lichess would get so many donations they'd buy chess.com, make it free, and sponsor the same content creators :)

It's not just content creators. They're involved in events, marketing, and all other sorts of stuff that's dramatically increased the reach of chess. You really can't overstate how much they've done for chess.

I've played online since back in the days of ICC which was a defacto monopoly given how much larger than it was than all other sites. You can see their records here [1]. Their record for the max number of players logged in was 7,352. Chess.com at a really random time right now has 183,538 people playing.

It wasn't long ago that all of the big tournaments were gradually dying off - even Linares died, for lack of funding. And then the rise of chess.com (along with Magnus - who is an absolutely amazing world champ in terms not only of play but also 'ambassadorship for the game') just sent the game in an entirely different trajectory that nobody would have imagined just 10 or 15 years ago.

[1] - https://www.chessclub.com/help/records

> You really can't overstate how much they've done for chess.

Yes, it's great that this game is finally getting popular. About time an up and comer took the crown away from Settlers.

It’s become somewhat cool and modern again with chess.com. It’s hard to ignore that. I quit playing competitively around when I turned 14 because it was so unpopular/geeky for someone that age, but with chess.com pushing marketing and streaming so successfully it seems much more likely a teen will carry on playing.

I think it was more The Queen's Gambit.

Interesting! UI and app are way better on chess.com in my opinion. Game analysis is heaps better on chess.com (UI wise, content wise they're equal).

The money nagging is annoying, especially considering they're charging for basically just stockfish wasm running on your machine.

I stopped using chess.com because I found it way more addicting compared to lichess and I was way too invested in my chess.com rating.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com