Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hikaru Nakamura's Forbidden Platform

lichess.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 153 posts

Re: Hikaru Nakamura's Forbidden Platform

#131

Post by ashtonbaker »

arwineap wrote: post #110
dubeye wrote: post #37

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.

> 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.

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.

Re: Hikaru Nakamura's Forbidden Platform

#132

Post by TameAntelope »

fragmede wrote: post #65
radarsat1 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lichess is a platform though, not an accessory. I think a better comparison would be, would Nike be happy if Ronaldo played in a tournament on a field owned by Adidas, in a world in which Adidas is a nonprofit company giving shoes to anyone who wants them. The answer may very well still be "no, they would not be happy," but I bet the public reaction to being forbidden from a public tournament would be different than…

If we want to use sports analogies we don't have to use Nike and Adidas as stand-ins, golf is undergoing this right now, between the PGA and LIV tournaments, and members with exclusivity clauses in their contracts.

LIV has moral opposition.

It'd be more like if Lichess were funded by Nazi gold or something, and the person funding it was trying to do so because they want you to forget they stole a ton of Nazi gold.

PGA isn't behaving this way for moral reasons, but it's an extra component to that situation which makes this harder to analogize.

Re: Hikaru Nakamura's Forbidden Platform

#133

Post by dubeye »

arwineap wrote: post #110
dubeye wrote: post #37

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.

> 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.

What do you find is significantly better on lichess? (Vs diamond)

Re: Hikaru Nakamura's Forbidden Platform

#134

Post by bee_rider »

fragmede wrote: post #65
radarsat1 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lichess is a platform though, not an accessory. I think a better comparison would be, would Nike be happy if Ronaldo played in a tournament on a field owned by Adidas, in a world in which Adidas is a nonprofit company giving shoes to anyone who wants them. The answer may very well still be "no, they would not be happy," but I bet the public reaction to being forbidden from a public tournament would be different than…

If we want to use sports analogies we don't have to use Nike and Adidas as stand-ins, golf is undergoing this right now, between the PGA and LIV tournaments, and members with exclusivity clauses in their contracts.

Or the 80's USFL (United States Football League). But these alternative leagues do kind of color the analogy in a way that might be slightly muddying -- I mean, come on, the PGA and NFL are the prestigious competitions in the eyes of the public. Is one of Lichess, chess24, or chess.com an assumed pretender?

Re: Hikaru Nakamura's Forbidden Platform

#135

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

radarsat1 wrote: post #48
soegaard wrote: post #25

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. Streami…

Lichess is a platform though, not an accessory. I think a better comparison would be, would Nike be happy if Ronaldo played in a tournament on a field owned by Adidas, in a world in which Adidas is a nonprofit company giving shoes to anyone who wants them. The answer may very well still be "no, they would not be happy," but I bet the public reaction to being forbidden from a public tournament would be different than…

It's not just Hikaru btw. Pretty much all of the chess.com sponsored streamers will specifically avoid mentioning lichess directly. I suspect it's in chess.com's default sponsorship contract.

Re: Hikaru Nakamura's Forbidden Platform

#136

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

nebulous1 wrote: post #95
soegaard wrote: post #25

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. Streami…

I've never had anything against chess.com, and I used to be a premium member but have since moved to lichess. I think that the chess world could do with more money so I have nothing against a site providing a revenue stream, even if their actual aim is to profit themselves. It would be disappointing if chess.com are engaged in clandestine anti-lichess behaviour. There might already be some information out there that…

It's definitely in the Botez sister's contract. They make a point of referring to lichess indirectly as "the other site" or such.

Re: Hikaru Nakamura's Forbidden Platform

#137

Post by sib301 »

jstx1 wrote: post #26
bitcharmer wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their product is simply inferior in every way, except for their library of master lessons That's just not true. I've been using both for a long time and chess.com has more intuitive UI. I frequently find myself exporting my games from lichess into chess.com simply because the latter offers superior game analysis experience.

> chess.com has more intuitive UI This is just mindblowing to me. It's not just that I disagree but I think the opposite is true, and by a very large margin too. I guess people just have different preferences when it comes to UI but especially for fast time controls, I don't get how people put up with chess.com, it's outright unusable for me.

I think you're right that it's mostly subjective. I slightly prefer chess.com, to lichess, but I wouldn't call either "outright unusable".

Re: Hikaru Nakamura's Forbidden Platform

#138

Post by legalcorrection »

TameAntelope wrote: post #132
fragmede wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we want to use sports analogies we don't have to use Nike and Adidas as stand-ins, golf is undergoing this right now, between the PGA and LIV tournaments, and members with exclusivity clauses in their contracts.

LIV has moral opposition. It'd be more like if Lichess were funded by Nazi gold or something, and the person funding it was trying to do so because they want you to forget they stole a ton of Nazi gold. PGA isn't behaving this way for moral reasons, but it's an extra component to that situation which makes this harder to analogize.

Orange man bad

Re: Hikaru Nakamura's Forbidden Platform

#139

Post by dmurray »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #9
throwaway290 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Hikaru Nakamura's Forbidden Platform

#140

Post by ByThyGrace »

Tarsul wrote: post #93
soegaard wrote: post #25

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. Streami…

Michael Jordan famously had in his contract with the Bulls a "for the love of the game" clause which entitled him to play in any game that he wanted to.

I don't understand that clause as you mention it. What does "any game" mean in that context?
Post reply on HN