How long are we going to have to endure this site overloading every day?

This site earns millions of dollars and has lost a lot potentially a lot of extra due to the ongoing issues that have been going on for way too long.

I feel for the people who paid good money, will the get refunded, I doubt it!

It's been weeks now and nothing has been done, people are losing elo and most likely being labelled and therefore pooled with "bad sports" when they have not abandoned a single game.

It's ridiculous, I can't think why this would take so long to sort out.  System overload?  Well you have enough money to upgrade don't you?

Hi  
You are welcome to read the article on why this happened and what are their future plan:
https://www.chess.com/blog/CHESScom/chess-is-booming-and-our-servers-are-struggling?ref_id=33945736
Or GothamChess video if you like that better   : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt8Y0vvDRYI  
In a nutshell there was a absolutely HUGE increase in capacity(from 7 to 10 million players in about 20 days)

It is true that some things went bad on the last few weeks but upgrading takes time (money is not the issue here as far as I know) and i'm saying this from a network engineer perspective (which means those upgrades are part of my job) 
All in all I hope they will give SOME compensation but I wouldn't count on it  

Looks like they're planting on dead Xeons instead of EPYCs

@hiramHolliday

Well I'm a member already so...could have checked before the arogant comment buddy.

@pH34rZ

We all know what the problem is, we have heard the reasons/excuse.

A software engineer has written a detailed rebuttal to chess.coms statement and it's petty damning.

It is about money, the site has been made in such a way that everything is linked. Friends, forums, games, analysis, comments, lessons, videos, etc absolutely everything is linked, therefore if one part of the site has a high load it effects the entire site.  All because of bad site design.

Also, saying it takes weeks for certain upgrades is a lie, cloud upgrades would take minutes according to the rebuttal which I everyone should read.

I would post the link but guess what...yep, it gives me a error if I try!

The rebuttal is detailed and breaks down chess.com statement piece by piece and it all boils down to people cutting corners or simply not knowing what they were doing.

Don't take my word for it, try find the post.  It doesn't leave any room for excuses.

Chess com have e screwed up and there response just makes them sound incapable of being honest.

Good point. There should be no loss in ELO or bad sportsmanship assigned due to an overload.

The site started in 2007 and while there have been a lot of updates along the way, some earlier design decisions have influenced later architectures.  The site has been moving towards more robust systems and has many of the things mentioned in the post you're discussing and plans for continued changes to improve things.

However, the recent doubling of traffic over a very short period of time, outpaced what what was planned for. Some things can scale easily and the site does that. Other things, especially the database architecture, needs additional changes to scale and/or split loads and isn't something that can be done that quickly.

As far as I'm aware, it's not about the money but the fact the seen growth was completely unexpected and outstripped the planned capacities. They are actively working on a number of different paths to accommodate current loads and prepare for further growth. 

They actually have been trying to counteract this. If a game disconnects due to 502, they "cancel" it and it is as if it never happened. I had that in rated and the game doesn't even show up in record or affect either person's elo. I had staff explain that to me when I filed a bug report and they said if there were any games that didn't get canceled, they would refund it too.

Use AWS or Azure and just click to increase capacity (scale up or out).  Takes less than five minutes.  Do it yourself to save a buck and this is what happens.

if the site can not cope with the overload why do they keep letting new members join it's not rocket science ,I will not be renewing my membership . Thank you lichess I'm using this more and more now due to the failings on here, hey don't seem to have such problems .

If everyone gets into the bad sportmanship pool then it will act as if normal. So that doesnt matter.

And so far, I have not had or seen a single loss of rating of both me and my opponents due to connection errors.

Aside of they are, it does not matter in any way. Common users are also a resource, and providing public service, basically existent because of public attention of any kind, it is needed to keep certain level of moral resposibility. Popular paradigm that says "be silent if you dont pay or go away if you don't like it" is misleading at its best because invalidates any actual critics and therefore development and evolution. I know nowadays attention of a human does not worth a dime and only seen as a free resource for manipulation, but 'popular' does not equals right or best. By the way you've perfectly illustrated your doublethink by saying about "first world problems" - change country if you don't like it. Do you see how absurd this 'argument' is?

I thought this at first as well, but to be honest. It has been days/Weeks now.
Me not being a developer, I have no clue how a site like chess.com would be working at their archictecture. But being a Sysadmin, I would say it doesn't take weeks to scale up some AWS servers.. even if just temporary.

Yes, it's "only" a first world problem. but these issues happen often during my evenings, my off time where I like to sit at the computer and play some chess.  Now I have to sit and listen to the girlfriend instead, who wants that ;-)

I am a paying member, have been for a while now, won't stop either. But, I would like to see some progress into fixing this, instead of what seems to be situations getting worse.

I think my last comment touched on this but it seems because that's the way they avoid it counted as a loss for one of the players, but yeah I agree it would be a nice feature if you could save the game. Not sure if that is their priority rn though