Chess.com sucks

I tend to like sarcasm, generally, but everyone has their own sensibilities.

"I didn't say I think Lichess is better."

It's implied.

"I'm not saying Lichess is better, but I support Lichess, it works better and that's where I play."

"I'm not saying you robbed that bank but we have video of you pointing a gun at the teller and demanding money."

No. They just don't like Canadians.

It's gotten so bad that I'm losing all the games with time. Chess.com has slowed down my clock big time. I'm not playing chess here, chess.com is playing it for me. Whoever heard that people who play chess will have anywhere from 200 to 500 point swing? Am I crazy or the 30 years of software engineering was just a joke?

Neither. It's just that your self-esteem is tied in with your Elo so you need an explanation that doesn't involve you being sucky at chess. You must find it mysterious that so many others, using the same platform, have no such difficulty, often able to achieve a master's level rating in a matter of hours.

Just come here to have fun. With millions of users, nobody sees us anyway, so no reason to feel shame. This site is a treasure trove of joy if you let it be.

It looks like you have played for 100,000+ games and have experienced a large swing many many times.

I you have lost on time 36,000 times and have only won 27,000 games on time.

When you're no longer enjoying it, it's time to either change your attitude or take a break. Because of the way rating systems work, and the way matchmaking on this platform works, the only way you can win or lose most games is if you lie about your skill when you make an account or you set your challenges very high or very low. So if losing upsets you, you might want to find a new hobby.

dang bro

Crazy

::: rolls eyes :::

it's a joke

We are all just pawns in a random game of online nonsense

I find match making algorithm irritating I wish we can choose our own opponents , the reviews are so wack if you dont pay does not show how to better your game chess.com has made chess so boring its simply an irritating site I prefer playing with my buddy then playing chess.com

i mean

You know what’s crazy?

I’ve been using Chess.com for months now, and I’m starting to wonder… is it really worth it?

Most disagree with you (10 to 1 over Lichess). I suspect you're unhappy with your 315 rating and all your losses and blame the site, ridiculously, just to avoid admitting you suck. And there are tons of learning materials and functions here, paid membership or not, not to mention all the material available elsewhere for free. If you don't take advantage of that, that's on you. And nothing stops you from choosing your opponents. Random matching is an option but it isn't mandatory.

Gee, I wonder why.

::: rolls eyes :::

Yeah, AI is great, isn't it?

Oh the pain, right... at most 50 cents a day for Diamond and, on the family plan, less than ten cents a day.

Exactly.

Other reasons to prefer chess.com include Lichess's apparently inferior hardware, resulting in connection issues or lag, even with stable internet. There is also, without question, the fact that chess.com's cheat detection system is completely unrivaled, not least of all by Lichess, along with the way violations are handled by its very well respected Fair Play team. At Lichess, the common perception is of inaction, compared to other sites, often blamed on understaffing… a lack of responsiveness to cheating reports. It is also the general perception that Lichess offers far less in the way of "structured learning resources" compared to other platforms, such as Chess.com. Also true is that the Lichess app is generally regarded as difficult to use and less attractive, compared to other platforms, with a "clunky" board editor and a lack of features available on the Lichess web site. Finally, Lichess's implementation of the Glicko 2 rating system is thought to be less reliable, less accurate, than, for example, chess.com's use of a modified Glicko 1, generally resulting in instability and incorrect, inflated ratings… flattering but far from ideal.