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.
The free and (to me) intuitive analysis tools on Lichess are the killer feature for me.
I wonder if the peaceful co-existence of lichess and chess.com co-existing somehow disturbs some esoteric ideology.
I don't hate lichess but I hardly see chesscom as evil.
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.
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.
> 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
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.