Let me try: I hate [language - MOD] cheaters
JK
Feedback??
Sort:
Feb 20, 2019
0
#63
spots100 wrote:
Let me try: I hate [language - MOD] cheaters
JK
Please don't fake mod actions on your comments. That's considered impersonating a mod, and can get you muted.
Feb 20, 2019
0
#64
this thread was made when i was two months old. And people are commenting on it? and it has only 4 pages?
Feb 20, 2019
0
#65
Tebow2Baker wrote:
this thread was made when i was two months old. And people are commenting on it? and it has only 4 pages?
It's developmentally retarded. (We try not to say anything about it.)
Feb 20, 2019
0
#66
There has been a ton of bumping. If not for that, the thread would have been long forgotten.
man,why do you have to pay to get extra features???[No advertising/comparison with other sites - MOD] is way better.if chess.com provides all features for free then it would be good.but it won't.that's why it sucks.
I love this site.
Yeah.
Nov 8, 2020
0
#70
MaestroZordd wrote:
man,why do you have to pay to get extra features???[No advertising/comparison with other sites - MOD] is way better.if chess.com provides all features for free then it would be good.but it won't.that's why it sucks.
Why do you think you should get everything for free? Chess.com is a business. They have employees to pay. They're running prize tournaments. Premium membership fees cover the cost of that.
And if they give everything away for free, why would anybody buy a premium membership?
Nov 8, 2020
0
#72
DeepBlue wrote:
I'm wondering if there is going to be a "play against another online chess.com member" feature here. I've heard that yahoo chess is pretty popular, and I'm hoping you are going to take some of their marketshare.
Doesn't it just seem right that the global meeting place for fans of a common game should be able to participate in that game together without leaving the meeting place???
The only feature I can find is to play vs the computer. :-( Almost defeats the purpose of joining the community, huh?
oh wow chess.com once didnt have live chess?
Nov 8, 2020
0
#73
Back when it first started, no. It got added pretty quickly, of course.
The first daily game was played in July, 2007: https://www.chess.com/daily/game/1
The first live game was aborted. The second live game was played in October, 2009: https://www.chess.com/live/game/2
Your puzzles don't say why my move was wrong, or why yours was right.
MGleason wrote:
MaestroZordd wrote:
man,why do you have to pay to get extra features???[No advertising/comparison with other sites - MOD] is way better.if chess.com provides all features for free then it would be good.but it won't.that's why it sucks.
Why do you think you should get everything for free? Chess.com is a business. They have employees to pay. They're running prize tournaments. Premium membership fees cover the cost of that.
And if they give everything away for free, why would anybody buy a premium membership?
is there a paywall at facebook? cnn? fox? they all have many employees to pay.
if i might be so bold, i'd guess the large majority of revenue here is from advertising, just like the sites i mentioned.
i'm not claiming cc has a flawed business model. i'm saying your response is flawed.
Nov 11, 2020
0
#79
Advertising is not an enormous money tree for everyone. Facebook, CNN, and Fox are huge. To make a lot of money from advertising, you have to be huge. Chess.com is the largest chess site, but chess is a small market.
Facebook has 2.7 billion users; chess.com has tens of millions. While presumably both numbers include inactive users, it's a reasonable guess that Facebook is in the region of 100 times as big as chess.com, and maybe more. Facebook also has a lot more data on its users than chess.com does, allowing extremely targeted (and therefore more profitable) advertising.
I don't have numbers, but I've heard that the vast majority of chess.com's revenue is from premium memberships, and that the ads, while providing enough to be worth keeping around, are not a major source of revenue.
No, it looks like they give us a mod about feedback.