-- Shameless plug: I recently released a platform to improve tactically with puzzles and spaced repetitions, https://chess.braimax.com - feedback very welcome!

My suggestion is to just stop thinking about cheaters when playing online rated games. I started doing so years ago, and have increased my enjoyment of the game A LOT, without any visible downside.

It's free (freedom & beer), it has no ads, and it's feature-complete. It even has stuff that other websites make you pay for, like post-game computer annotation. It offers a web interface where you can play without even registering an account and free (again, freedom & beer) apps for iOS and Android.

The only downside when compared to chess.com is that fewer top-level professionals play there. Which is not an issue unless you're literally a super GM.

It doesn't matter what connection I'm on, and the website is always instant, but the Android app always takes half a second to load any screen. It's infuriating when you want to view the analysis, or just navigate around the app.

My bug is about Puzzle Storm. When you run out of time, the GUI shows you the post game screen and it takes a fraction of a second before it pops in a "daily record" banner. This fraction of a second is slow enough for me to drag my mouse cursor over the "Failed puzzles" filter, but fast enough for me to accidentally click "Play again" as it has been pushed down the page (by the daily record div) without me perceiving it yet. Once clicked, that button resets the page to start another puzzle storm and by then I've lost the failed puzzle history, so I can't go over it anymore.

It has happened already in the hundreds of times. I can't help it, hopefully the dev one day figures it out.

It must be one of the best examples of a very large scale implementation of features that are simple and easy to understand

Also puzzles are slightly better on chesscom and (arguably) the analysis interface imo

You also have unlimited free puzzles on lichess (paid on chesscom). Chess.com probably has a better library of learning content if you're into that (much of it paid though).

IMO if you're not paying I can't see why anyone would prefer chess.com over lichess: you get less and also get ass for the trouble. If you don't care about the monthly subscription cost, then maybe chess.com has fringe benefits over lichess.

1. Lichess rating is ~200-300 points ahead of a Chess.com rating. Not in the sense that players are better, but an 800 player on Chess.com will probably be 1000-1100 on Lichess.

2. Fantastic analysis tool. Chess.com analysis tends to be a bit funky sometimes.

3. Zen Mode. Not really a pro / con, but it's nice to hide the UI and just have a board on the screen when playing.

4. Free, obviously. No ads.

5. Younger audiences may want to play where their favorite streamer players, which tends to be Chess.com for nearly everyone unless you're Eric Rosen. Hikaru Nakamura, GothamChess, Magnus Carlsen, Botez Sisters, Anna Cramling, and Chessbrah are all on Chess.com.

6. Chess.com has better puzzles, although limited on the free tier.

I don't have exact numbers on population for both platforms, but if someone can correct me, I'm fairly sure Chess.com holds the majority of players.

Maia is great, probably more human than the chess.com bots.

I also like Lichess because I can play in arena tournaments against players with a much higher rating than me, which helps me learn - I'm not sure if this is so easy to do on Chess.com.

I paid for Chess.com for a while, but I stopped subscribing when I realized I never used it. Meanwhile I have multiple days of playtime on Lichess. Also, the owners of Chess.com don't seem like very nice people.

I'm pretty sure the pros and streamers prefer Lichess too, but they're sponsored by Chess.com so they have to pretend to like it.

If your goal, however, is to popularise the game of chess, i.e. to get more people to play chess, a free online service is only a necessary condition. Chess.com seems to be able to sponsor and organise tournaments, pay content creators/chess players, offer live streams with professional commentators, etc. But also take legal responsibility and stand up to lawsuits.

Interested to hear your thoughts on this. I don't see Lichess being able to provide this type of value, and I'm not sure if they want to or should.

That said, I prefer lichess and think most people should be using it. But I understand it’s not about the platform’s technical features; for most people, it’s about the network effect with their friends.

Unfortunately there isn’t an online jiu jitsu platform :)

I’ve also found there’s many many parallels between chess and jiu jitsu, which is really interesting, chess really is a super aggressive combat sport in terms of mental work.

Kids today can explore/memorize many openings and cover many more variations because of the online courses, some of which are even free. They can quiz themselves to ensure they dial in the move orders. And they can access hundreds of thousands of puzzles in rapid succession to improve their middle-game tactics and pattern recognition. And that’s not even going into having access to chess engines stronger than any human player to explore lines and learn why bad moves are bad.

All this makes studying the game so much easier, even before you test yourself against an actual opponent.

People grind for hours and they see no sense of progress as they keep always being around 50% winrate because the stronger they get, the better the opponent get. And inversely they can play drunk chess and still win 50% and burn time pushing random pieces for a little short-term fun.

It probably depends on people but I think the average ratio for people to progress optimally their should be around four wins for one loss. And the loss should be correlated to the way you played. Anything below 80% winrate, means it becomes hard to distinguish the learning signal from the variance of the matching. The brain also need some balance between the carrot and the stick otherwise the ego take a hit.

Rating system also generate some strata artefacts meaning there are levels you can't get past without spending as much time as your opponent on tactics, or openings, and you never get to experience chess on a more strategic level, or deeper understanding level. This mean that most of the fun get extracted out of chess once you get addicted/interested enough.

I think it's much better to play unrated games anonymously against a random pool of anonymous players (eventually with a min level to exclude complete novices), and offer rematch when the games were interesting. You should play to win but your reward signal shouldn't be the win but rather the interestingness of the game for both opponent.

When playing you should try to understand your opponent, his current chess understanding and how it's revealed through his current moves, and construct with the board some situations that will be interesting enough for the both of you to have a good time. Don't play the board. Play the player through the board. A good game should look more like a dance than a fight. You have to infer from a few moves who your opponent is, and how to interact with him in a constructive way.

That's what popular streamer do when they play their viewers (usually friendly and constructive). And that's probably what teens expect when they join chess after viewing a few videos. But instead they get thrown into an adverse destructive pit of soulless addicted grinders.

If your play improves to ~55% win rate, you already feel highly rewarded and most of the reward feelings come from the fact that you now play on higher elo. You don't care about single losses/wins anymore.

> Anything below 80% winrate, means it becomes hard to distinguish the learning signal from the variance of the matching.

Using winrate as a learning signal is your first mistake. You're making a million different decisions per game, and then decide to summarize it with a binary W/L? If you want proper signal, you need to analyze your games on a more fine-grained level.

> And the loss should be correlated to the way you played.

No, it shouldn't and doesn't. Dealing with variance, and things beyond your control is an essential part of developing a strong mentality. Especially when playing in-person.

> The brain also need some balance between the carrot and the stick otherwise the ego take a hit.

If your ego takes a hit from this, you need to get back to the drawing board instead of praying that the world will change to accommodate your issues.

> you can't get past without spending as much time as your opponent on tactics, or openings, and you never get to experience chess on a more strategic level, or deeper understanding level. This mean that most of the fun get extracted out of chess once you get addicted/interested enough.

I can't speak to the "lack of stategy", but what makes a game fun to compete in is highly subjective.

> soulless addicted grinders

This is the exact kind of language and attitude I would see from players who plateau hard, and looking for external factors to blame.

You do realize that a lot of players play for their definition of fun and don't derive or base their personality around their strength as chess players, I hope?

I dabble in the realm of simracing. Man, what would I do for a 50% win rate. Every race is hard fought, and the possibility of a victory is far below 15%.

The times I have won, I trained the whole week, it was hard-earned, and really, nothing has felt better since. It's a high I can still ride with pride.

IMO, if you want to win more, you should train harder, or try something easier.