We bought John Bartholomew!

They bought Ben Finegold as well ...

I'm not familiar with the circumstances around this, but I think some people are making assumptions about what is in this contract. From the quote above:

I can still record a bit on [another site] as of now, but eventually 100% of my recorded/streaming play will be on Chess.com.

In other words, his contract clearly does NOT forbid him from playing on other sites.

Equally obviously, Chess.com is not paying him to stream from other chess sites, so John is choosing to go with the site that IS paying him and giving him a "career-changing opportunity"; he says that he is 

really excited to be a part of their push to professionalize chess (especially when it comes to streaming). I'll still be producing as much of the same content as ever, just on Chess.com

I would actually suggest that because Chess.com is paying him for stuff he was previously not being paid as much for, that he will be able to start producing even better content, attracting more people to the game and helping grow the overall market for Chess.

According to the quoted material, sure. 

But why would he if Chess.com is willing to pay him to stream from here? If you can do virtually the same thing at two locations but one place is going to pay you for it, why would you choose to keep on doing the unpaid one?

You need to go to room 101 for reconditioning if you think that capitalism produces better results than altruism.  Look at the open source software community, it produces better software simply because it has a much broader range of expertise than do closed systems.  Also other completely free and unmentionable chess sites are beautifully programmed, work flawlessly and have equably as good players streaming with none of the inane and annoying advertisements that capitalist sites do.  You have not made any case why capitalism is better than altruism.

You need to go to room 101 for reconditioning if you think that capitalism produces better results than altruism.  Look at the open source software community, it produces better software simply because it has a much broader range of expertise than do closed systems.  Also other completely free and unmentionable chess sites are beautifully programmed, work flawlessly and have equably as good players streaming with none of the inane and annoying advertisements that capitalist sites do.  You have not made any case why capitalism is better than altruism.

According to the quoted material, sure. 

But why would he if Chess.com is willing to pay him to stream from here? If you can do virtually the same thing at two locations but one place is going to pay you for it, why would you choose to keep on doing the unpaid one?

According to the quoted material, sure. 

Because of huge tournaments on "elsewhere" that aren't as present here. I don't really understand what you're trying to say with "according to the quote material" didn't you write that yourself? Or are you referring to something else? And is or isn't that a definitive yes?

sorry, that's just wrong. John clearly says he is allowed to stream on other sites "as of now", which he obviously wouldn't mention if he was indeed allowed to stream on other sites after "as of now", would he?

also, it's even forbidden to just mention the name of this other chess site in this forum, so it's quite ridiculous to believe that chess.com would allow John to play on this site

There probably isn't a requirement not to play on other sites but just not to stream from them, starting at some point. If that is part of the contract I'm sure that both parties negotiated the details and if John agreed to it, then he apparently found it worthwhile.

There probably isn't a requirement not to play on other sites but just not to stream from them, starting at some point. If that is part of the contract I'm sure that both parties negotiated the details and if John agreed to it, then he apparently found it worthwhile.

The fact that he isn't allowed to stream from other sites is the whole point...

If a company wants to pay someone to do a particular job for them in an exclusive format, then there isn't anything wrong with that. Apparently the compensation being provided was not a deal-breaker or the contract would not have been signed. edit: assuming that is part of the terms, since "for now" may not actually be as restrictive as it sounds.