Bugs I don't see listed in the known bugs list and a personal opinion on the paid aspect for choosin

There have been a lot of technical issues since this last update; seems like it's created more problems than fixes; being able to filter out FFA \ Teams games in the list is admittedly a nice touch; however, I've run into the following bugs within two games: A) I sent an invite to a partner but it wasn't accepted right away so I started observing a game; a minute or so later the invite was accepted and a game "started" with the usernames in the correct positions; however, the board still showed the position of the game I was observing and I could see their moves being played out; every 20 or so seconds it would briefly flash to the position of the brand new game...I could also see the /all chat of the observed game still being typed out; flashback of the movie "The Fly" - type combination happening between the new gamed being played out and what I had been observing. 

Next game, I try to invite but the person I invite, albeit they can see the invite and can click ok and get the "accepted" message, no search begins at all on their end, and on my end the client makes no acknowledgement that they accepted the invitation; since a chatroom \ lobby of any sort is lacking for people not in a game together (ahem), I could well go on and assume they simply did not accept the invitation and not realize this is actually a bug if we weren't communicating over WhatsApp.

The bug with The Fly combination had occurred to me once or twice before the recent update but the second one has only been happening in the last two days, and I have played numerous games before, so it seems newly introduced.

I hope my tone isn't too critical in this post, but it is rather frustrating to have all these issues. I don't know how many, if even more than one person, are working on this four player chess, but admittedly the functionality can barely be called of beta quality, more like an alpha pre-release. If this is the case, why does chess.com require premium accounts to be able to pick a non-random partner? The quality of this section of the site is frankly far below the rest of chess.com and I honestly feel that decision is very misinformed; I know it is not my privilege to be able to play four player chess over the internet by any means, and someone or other is working hard on this, but can we not pretend this is some sort of finished product and charge money for the ability to pick partners? It is the only reason I pay for a premium account on chess.com, while the site offers tons of other great options that are far more polished and professional for free...I just don't feel like this part of it is in the spirit of the rest of the site that offers all other chess variants for free (and you can pick Bughouse partners with a non-paid account for example). Is anyone else of the opinion that this is ridiculous?

Estoy de acuerdo contigo Gustav, hay algunos fallos en las notificaciones de las invitaciones, y continua sin un servicio adecuado en four player , cuando invitas a alguien no sabes si lo ha recibido.

I totally agree Gustav. And I told the same to @ignoble (he is in chess.com team, a manager I think). It was a huge mistake to start charging a fee for an undercooked game.

I agree that having a good product for a price make sense. But how do you propose they pay for the expense's and on going cost (developers to make this 4 player chess and fix it not to mention the rest of the site). It's easy to say don't charge for something that is not great.. but then would it not be logical for them to give us 4 player beta for free and charge everyone for chess.com (*since as you stated it is great and working). Obviously that would be a huge mistake but based on your statements that's effectively what you are saying. I'm not saying there are not other ways to accomplish both goals but in my limited view/world I'm not seeing it other then more adds and I don't think anyone wants that. 

On a separate note: GustavKlimtPaints   I think you came acrossed well and not too critital its a great post and something that should be considered IMO.,

Renegade_Yoda, let's consider this particular project: 4PC at chess.com. (Not some abstract spherical project in vacuum.)

What they did? They started to make 4PC. And there was a good progress during the first few months. And it was free to play. Then they asked us to pay for the "invite a teammate" thing. And after some of us paid (including me) to support this project they ... stopped to develop it. Is it all right?

Moreover, the thing we paid for has a bug, but they do not consider it as a high priority bug.

And one more bad thing: chess.com team members seem to hide from us now. They gave club admin rights to 2 players (Martin0 and to another good guy (developer of 4PC test board)) and stopped visiting this club and forum. They hide behind Martin0's back, do not answer our questions, do not refund money, etc. They were here when all was fine. Where are they now?

Is it a Ponzi scheme? Or a project of a solid company?

My understanding is that the 4 player variant had been in development separately from chess.com and that chess.com liked it so much that they invited the developers on board to add it on as a part of chess.com; I could be wrong about this, it is only something I somewhat remember reading a couple of months ago.

I don't think chess.com is really profiting from adding this section, other than in offering a wider variety of chess experience over the longterm; the player base for four player chess is relatively small, probably a few thousand people and fewer still who play quite regularly. Out of those, a minority are choosing to pay for memberships to be able to pick partners in the teams variant. The money that chess.com might be making from this (a few dozen to a few hundred at most people who are motivated by this one feature to pay for their memberships) must honestly be small fries compared to the sums they are working with and the sums they might be paying developers working on this. I simply don't think their motivation for adding this feature has anything financial about it, since this whole section of the site is pretty obscure to begin with. The issue I have with the partnering requiring a premium account is exactly that I don't think they have any motivation behind it and they simply didn't even think about it, but someone at some point decided to tack that on there somewhat arbitrarily. And this is kind of a shame because it puts those who do not pay at somewhat at a disadvantage, which is exactly the kind of paid feature a game site of any sort should try to steer away from.

Hey! Thanks for the feedback. I'm sorry to hear you've been experiencing some bugs. I appreciate you letting us know so we can begin to correct them ASAP.

While we may tweak which features require a premium subscription, without something there we won't be able to gather the support and resources required to develop new features, which are already very limited. If you have any suggestions about which content should be premium instead, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

@ChessGamertag, thank you for answering here. (I think my words "they hide behind Martin0's back" worked.)

>  I'm sorry to hear you've been experiencing some bugs.

The bugs themselves are not a problem. The problem is: chess.com team does not fix the bugs.

You used to fix them this Summer and beginning of Autumn. Then you stopped. When are you going to start again? What is your position in the team? Are you a programmer? A manager? 

> I appreciate you letting us know so we can begin to correct them ASAP.

You are definitely kidding. (If not scoffing.) It takes 1 day for a programmer to fix a bug like "Rating range selector does not work", but your team does not fix them for months. Literally for months. From November or even October.

Moreover, in the recent update you told that you fixed this bug, but you did not. That means you did not test it properly. If you tested it at all.

Tell us honestly what is going on in your team. And how and when are you going to fix that.

Previously @ignoble used "holidays" as an excuse. Thanksgiving passed, then Christmas, then New Year. What other holidays did not allow you guys to work properly? Valentine's Day perhaps... However, it seems to be a Valentine's Month in your office, considering that even the rating range selector was not fixed.

> If you have any suggestions about which content should be premium instead ...

Look how it worked before:

@battleMind24 listened to us and created polls like this one: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/new-poll-feedback-on-new-rules

And then he implemented the suggestions quickly.

Now we give you suggestion and ideas, but you ignore them, put on a shelf. What is the point to give you any suggestions now if you do not listen?

First show us that you really have at least 1 working developer in your team. Not just a web designer making "nice tabs" (nice, but useless now, when there are lots of bugs) and redesigning the Top Game list again and again. Stop fixing what is not broken.

> without something there we won't be able to gather the support and resources required to develop new features

Well, now you pay some guys for the 3rd or 4th redesign of the Top Games list. Don't you think it is better to spend money to fix the bugs instead?

Your team collected money for the "invite a teammate" feature and did not create it properly. You can tell any excuses now. But until you fix the invitation bugs and the rating range selector bug you look like scam.

Period.