Pro's and Con's of Chess.com

What greater "pro" can there be than the fact that the site is free (if you want it to be)?  I even like the way you are sometimes reminded that you could pay - to me this is a reminder that yes, indeed, I don't have a trial membership which is about to expire...I am actually a member. 

As for restrictions pertaining to non-paying members, such as only being able to do three tactics-trainer puzzles per day: better to complain about this than to complain about not being able to do any at all. 

Finally, as for advertisements: I have no problem with them at all.  In fact, I hope this site is making good money despite making its most important feature - being able to play chess via the internet - essentially free.  If they took away the advertisments and forced a membership fee, then I would complain...and so would most of you I bet :)

I've only played turn-based games, so I can't comment on any real-time features.

For me, a big pro is the Tactics Trainer; it's a large part of why I got a paid membership when I started getting back into the game a couple months ago.

At my level of problem (1200 +/- 100 right now), I haven't run into the sort of incorrectly-marked-wrong answers that others have commented on more than a couple times.  Typically, if I go for a "good" move that gets marked wrong, when I look a little longer, I see that I missed a better move. Taking a rook free versus seeing mate in two is useful in training vision for me. I have a list of "things to check" that have come out of such "errors."

I like the game analyzer as well, for showing me different/better lines.

It could be that stronger players are dealing with nuances that make these tools less useful, but at my level they are wonderful.

I appreciate that I can easily indicate I'm looking for a game, and that the community is big enough that I get a taker pretty quickly.

If I had to pick a con it would be the performance of the iPhone app.  It's not bad for me usually (definitely better than nothing), but it does seem slow.  And not having access to my game notes has been an issue in the past.  I'd also like to have access to the Computer Workout feature in the app, but that's a wish list thing.

Thanks for the great post...I want to see more things like that in this forum.

Didn't care for the pop music / physics tangent? I thought it was quite entertaining.

First let me say that I am greatful recovering addict.  obviously I am not ashamed of this fact.  This site and my local chess clubs are what has kept and keeps me sober for them moment, obviously your game greatly suffers under any infuence but that is for another thread.  I spend vast amounts of time on this site and for me:

1) The Chess Play Formats are just swell

2) The community as in the people you meet in places like votechess or even forums, I just started tournaments and will likely get active in certian clubs.

3) Game analysis is ok

4) All the various resources from chess mentor to forums to watching GM games add tib bits of knowledge,

5) ok what do I like most, as of the moment the analize feature on Online games, it helps me a great deal trying to see a position say 10 moves out.  Almost like cheating though as obviously this wont be available to OTB

Don't like:

CHess.com needs more in depth study of the openings, opening explorer does little more then show you the positions.   Need a database of each opening in detail with critical analysis of positions, now that would cool.

Pros:

1. Great forum

2. The daily puzzles

3. Free online playing

4. Chess mentor

5. Great links to other areas

6. Lessons and articles

7. Membership is very affordable

Cons:

1. Don't really have anything negative to say about Chess.com

I know, that really gets under my skin too.

Heh, I could agree with that.

However, the rationale behind the kittycat thought experiment ran a little deeper. Quantum theory holds that before the observation, the matter is undecided. So the cat isn't dead and alive, it is neither. The matter is only decided after the observation, when it is always either one of the two. 

The difference may seem trivial, but was the key point of a scientific argument (involving Einstein on the losing side).

Einstein liked this idea that the world wasn't random. Quantum physics describes things in terms of odds, and it does so with great precision.  Einstein et al appreciated that, but thought that was a sign of our limited understanding rather than a sign of true randomness in the world.

Einsteins group fancied the idea that the 'perfect' theory of physics would describe a world behaving according to set rules and values, where change is described by the theory (a deterministic world, fundamentally). Quantum theory was imperfect in that sense, since it assumed some values were undetermined until measured. Einstein suspected that there was in fact a hidden value, but that Quantum theory just didn't come close enough to the perfect theory to predict at all times what said value would be.

Then along came the Bell Theorem*, perhaps more astounding than general relativity (certainly less well known). It basically proved that quantum particles really do NOT have a value before they are measured, and that Einstein's perfect theory could not exist - that is, unless you give up some radical other stuff.

All in all, the cat doesn't have to is and isn't to be true to Schrodinger. Not in theory, and apparantly not even in reality. Doesn't mean you should trust the guy on other stuff though  .

*I'm referring to wiki pages, but the theorem is explained in Brian Greene's  "The fabric of the Cosmos" which I thought to be a great read.

Excellent post RC!

No way are you ever going to solve that thing man.

That's probably a good thing, because I'm getting that eerie feeling that solving it would mean the end of the universe. Put it away and get the x box controller out. Good boy!

I agree.Why don't you try this puzzle instead?

http://blog.chess.com/bondocel/attacking-knights

@RC - wow.  you kinda lost me at "So the cat isn't dead and alive, it is neither." and now you broke my brain.  but i like cats, so i guess the next time someone wants to prove eintein wrong, poison dogs.  hehehe.  (ps:  i am pretty sure i know that he didn't in fact poison any cats). 

i think a big pro for chess is that it starts with a "ch".  i like words that start with "ch" like chamber, that is a good one.  however, words that have "ch" stuck in the middle just to mess with your spelling are bad.  like school, i don't care much for school.  (ps:  this is evidence that my brain is in fact broken.  let's hope it heals before it becomes my turn in any of my games). 

@ planeden - lol. I'm sorry I lost you, you brought it up so I sort of assumed you knew a bit about the cat experiment. I like cats too, and I also think you are right and that no cats were harmed. (god forbid!). I couldn't resist but giving it a last shot though. 

The 'problem' with quantum theory:

Quantum theory gives the odds that something can happen, without saying why.

So say a particle can do A or B. You don't know why it chooses one over the other, but you do know that it is A 7 out of 10 times.

Einstein was annoyed by that, because he expected the 3 B particles to be different in some way: we just didn't know how. In a perfect theory we would know, so that we could say in advance why one particle would go A or B, instead of only giving odds.

Making the 'problem' easier to understand with the cat thought experiment:

"A cat is in a box with deadly gas. The gas is only released if a particle goes B, not if it goes A. The decision moment has gone by. Quantum theory gives you some odds, but do you really think the matter is undecided until you open the box?"

A normal human being would expect, even before opening the box, that the cat is either dead or alive. In the exact same fashion, Einstein expected quantum particle to be either A or B before measuring. 

That quantum theory held the matter undecided only meant to him it was lacking. If it is crazy to say a cat is undecided about being dead, it should also be crazy to say a particle is undecided about being A or B. And since quantum theory can't tell you which one it is in specific cases, the theory is missing something.

The surprise:

It turned out that as of today, it has pretty much been proven that the crazy stuff is true. Quantum particles or systems (particle+cat) really are undecided before you measure.

This changes nothing in the rules of quantum theory. It does mean however, that there ce can not be an other theory where you would know if the cat is dead or alive, or if the particle is A or B before you open the box. And that is because in nature, the issue is fundamentally undecided before the moment of measurement. So the imperfection Einstein noted has to be present in any theory true to nature.

It is really amazing, but it is probably more amazing if you would read Brian Greene's book. He takes good time to build the riddle and show why it is so crazy. :)

alright, that one kind of made sense.  you know, to someone who is not a theoretical physicist. 

chess.com is the 7th dimension

Chess.com offers a lot and has a lot more to offer.

With this in mind, I think it would be very useful if the site improvements would be more community-driven. Something like this:

1. various users submit feature enhancements
2. chess.com consolidates the meaningful requirement into a list of issues
3. users vote for issues that matter most to them
4. chess.com prioritizes their work according to the popularity of the issues

So if your favourite issue is not addressed, at least you know that it wasn't a popular one.

lol

I think that chess.com needs to cut back on e-mail. One day I checked my e-mail and I had 57 e-mails all of the from chess.com...I "unsubscribed" immediately but I still get a couple e-mails a day...it is very annoying. 

I don't get any emails. I guess it's just a matter of how you set up your notifications.