Hahah, chess.com trying to be diplomatic as possible. I have seen this before. Any amount of logic makes this obvious.
We bought John Bartholomew!
Sort:
ChessOfPlayer wrote:
Hahah, chess.com trying to be diplomatic as possible. I have seen this before. Any amount of logic makes this obvious.
they should just come right out and say it, yup we own him.
There are so many good chess vids on YouTube now, maybe it stops people paying membership here. Shame because it is a great site.
The amount of whining over free content here is ridiculous.
Mar 18, 2018
0
#66
Great article about online chess, including mentions of Chessbrahs, John Bartholomew, and Chess.com: https://www.topic.com/i-want-my-chesstv
Really Beautiful article... I love Eric... I'm his great fan 
I also like John... He gives best commentary of his live games
david wrote:
Great article about online chess, including mentions of Chessbrahs, John Bartholomew, and Chess.com: https://www.topic.com/i-want-my-chesstv
that's actually a very good article, yeah
Martin_Stahl wrote
getting paid for your passion is very likely going to be of better benefit to the larger range of parties than doing it for altruism.
A scandalous unmitigated fabrication, or at very least unsubstantiated by any known facts. I have provided a case in point, another chess site that works flawlessly, is beautifully programmed, has state of the art cheat detection and is done advertisement free on a pure altruistic basis. Please provide substantiation for your claim and we shall consider its merits.
LouStule wrote:
@robbie1969 “Sold our cow for some magic beans” hahaha good one.
If it raised even a smile Lou tis enough!
Mar 19, 2018
0
#74
robbie_1969 wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote
getting paid for your passion is very likely going to be of better benefit to the larger range of parties than doing it for altruism.
A scandalous unmitigated fabrication, or at very least unsubstantiated by any known facts. I have provided a case in point, another chess site that works flawlessly, is beautifully programmed, has state of the art cheat detection and is done advertisement free on a pure altruistic basis. Please provide substantiation for your claim and we shall consider its merits.
Such a site may be ran for true altruism or may be getting financial compensation through some other means. I don't have access to anything that can conclusively prove it either way. But that is beside the point. I didn't claim that there is no benefit to doing something for altruism.
Apparently John felt streaming exclusively on the chess.com platform was of more benefit to him than not doing it. Those that enjoyed viewing his streams when played elsewhere can still watch his streams and still benefit. Chess.com benefits with more exposure and content.
My statement was a reflection of the benefit to the person getting paid to do something for their passion versus not getting paid to do it, and doing it anyway. Doing something just for the love of it is great, not having to worry as much about finances in addition, is nice as well 
Martin_Stahl wrote:
Apparently John felt streaming exclusively on the chess.com platform was of more benefit to him than not doing it. Those that enjoyed viewing his streams when played elsewhere can still watch his streams and still benefit. Chess.com benefits with more exposure and content.
My statement was a reflection of the benefit to the person getting paid to do something for their passion versus not getting paid to do it, and doing it anyway. Doing something just for the love of it is great, not having to worry as much about finances in addition, is nice as well
Here was your claim my illustrious friend!
getting paid for your passion is very likely going to be of better benefit to the larger range of parties than doing it for altruism. - Martin
for which you cannot provide a single iota of substation other than to say that a single person will benefit. Ouch! I in contrast provided evidence of the open source software community and another chess site which runs beautifully smoothly with hordes of features on the basis of 'true altruism', whatever that is supposed to be.
I say people do much better because they want to, not because they are coerced by money or some other personal benefit. If you have evidence to the contrary please let it be known.
Postafi wrote:
Will there be a way to block ads on the stream?
you were actually contemplating watching it? crazee times
Mar 19, 2018
0
#77
look its not unheard of for a company to put prohibitions on someone on their payroll so competitors dont steal a march on them , in this example though you have clear posts from senior cc staff saying they didnt impose this on him , but even if they did it is common in many industries , what is important is that all parties involved in a contract are happy and can fulfill it , from reading posts saying this person is a benefit to chess i think its a win win and im going to enjoy seeing him in action
ANOK1 wrote:
look its not unheard of for a company to put prohibitions on someone on their payroll so competitors dont steal a march on them , in this example though you have clear posts from senior cc staff saying they didnt impose this on him , but even if they did it is common in many industries , what is important is that all parties involved in a contract are happy and can fulfill it , from reading posts saying this person is a benefit to chess i think its a win win and im going to enjoy seeing him in action
You capitalist bourgeoisie factory owner! have you no respect for the punk ethos? did Kurt Cobain die for nothing, say it ain’t so and you a leftie too?? 
Seriously you watch that stuff, crazee, I never seen a Titled Tuesday nor Chess TV or any of that stuff, it simply doesn’t interest me and makes no difference that Bartholomew sold his services to chess dot com. I do however reserve the right to subject statements like Martins to falsification through the application of logic.
Mar 19, 2018
0
#79
like everyone robbie im onion , theres more than one layer to me and granted each would make you weep lol , being a left winger but also paradoxically a right back who hates left wingers and wants to boot them off the pitch is just one of the the things i am lol , but even lefties have common sense and have to earn a crust in a world where the top table is stuffed to the gills whilst we graft for hopefully better than crumbs ,no
Mar 19, 2018
0
#80
robbie_1969 wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote:
Apparently John felt streaming exclusively on the chess.com platform was of more benefit to him than not doing it. Those that enjoyed viewing his streams when played elsewhere can still watch his streams and still benefit. Chess.com benefits with more exposure and content.
My statement was a reflection of the benefit to the person getting paid to do something for their passion versus not getting paid to do it, and doing it anyway. Doing something just for the love of it is great, not having to worry as much about finances in addition, is nice as well
Here was your claim my illustrious friend!
getting paid for your passion is very likely going to be of better benefit to the larger range of parties than doing it for altruism. - Martin
for which you cannot provide a single iota of substation other than to say that a single person will benefit. Ouch! I in contrast provided evidence of the open source software community and another chess site which runs beautifully smoothly with hordes of features on the basis of 'true altruism', whatever that is supposed to be.
I say people do much better because they want to, not because they are coerced by money or some other personal benefit. If you have evidence to the contrary please let it be known.
So, you apparently think John should just do it for the feels? The fact is, he benefits from the arrangement, Chess.com benefits, members of Chess.com are now presented with the streams under the umbrella of Chess.com TV (which very likey will include people that didn't watch him before) and people that watched before can continue to do so.
You may be right and I am overestimating the net benefit in the quantity of individuals. It doesn't really matter; John benefits finacially and still streams. Chess.com benefits also.
Being offered financial benefit for exclusivity is not coercion (it is neither by force nor threat) and doesn't negatively cause a change in the quality of the service he can provide. If he thought it would, he could have kept doing the things the way he was doing it.
put shoe on head