Why is Chess.com growing so quickly?

Does anyone find it rather unusual that Chess.com is increasing its daily user count by so much over such a relatively short period of time?

After all, it takes a rather long time for an individual to increase his/her chess skill over time and to naturally progress as a chess player. 

Additionally, there has not been anything ground breaking regarding chess or anything that has suddenly increased the popularity of chess in the world.  Queens Gambit raised interest amongst Netflix viewers but since that time there has been no other movie or major event that has furthered the interest in chess.

Think about it.  No one is clamoring about chess tournaments or dying to learn how to join the tournament circuit in ODB old boring chess played over a board.  Not many young people have the patience or the ability to sit down for hours on end over a board sitting across from an equally unaccomplished and boring "nerdy" type of person who often smells bad and has unusual living habits similar to that of a gremlin

Furthermore, literally no one or no ordinary person knows the Top 10 Chess players in the world so the title is meaningless.  No talk show appearances.  No throwing out the first pitch at ball games.  No meaningful statements about world peace or saving the planet.  Chess Top 10 players and in general are rather unknowns of the world.  If they were standing in the street, no one would recognize them, and in fact, when revealed people would probably say, wow I didn't know that. congrats

But I digress...

so if the relative popularity of chess has not increased exponentially, then how does one explain the rapid increase in daily user counts on chess.com?  

One would expect to find just a steady increase over time with relative usual interest in chess, but on chess.com there has been a very unusual exponential increase in daily user numbers.  This raises the question:  How and why are chess.com's numbers increasing so quickly? 

Self-promotion. Plane and simple.

I'm suspecting that many of the new accounts are simply bots. There's a program that can control 30,000 online accounts and act just like you and me. Write, talk- and play chess. I challenged four newbies, all unrated games. Two never responded (bots?) and the other two I beat. I don't see how mittens increased the sport. I keep up a little bit with the chess news, and I heard about it, but I don't think it ever really ended up on the BBC. And why should anyone care? I never even checked it out until recently and now it's gone.

I can't believe that an engine that promises to beat everyone could possibly generate interest in chess. We've had those engines for the past 40 years.

...those types of engines....

Chess has always been seen as a game of intellectuals, equivalent to math, which is too bad. I think it's losing that stigma and more people are getting interested.

It's not just chess.com. some of the top streamers also have seen very large increases in subscriptions and views as well. 

However, Chess.com has somehow outpaced even the top streamers online.  The growth of Chess.com has been disproportionate and inexplicably exponential over the recent months.  

There is literally nothing happening in chess or worldwide to explain such a dramatic increase in daily user numbers.   Some have cited Queens Gambit, but that was in 2020...  3 years ago.  For some to pretend that the current exponential growth is based on the popularity of a chess movie released nearly 3 years prior seems rather ridiculous.  

That is the reason why many are questioning the daily use numbers on chess.com and question why would there be so much increased interest in chess?  

Hmmmmmm....

Let me dissect your response so that we can better understand your argument

1) Queens Gambit was released on Netflix 3 years ago.  Based on viewership numbers on Netflix & replay and repeat user data, Queens Gambit is no longer a much watched show.  In fact, very few of the people who viewed it online in 2020 have watched the entire show again from start to finish.  

Nope.  Queens Gambit is not driving user numbers

2) the Chess world championship is virtually unwatchable to new & beginner players as they don't understand and don't follow the game from start to finish.  In addition, the shear length of time that it takes to finish a single game discourages most beginner level players from watching the entire game or games from start to finish.  That is the knock against traditional antiquated and quite honestly boring old formats of OTB chess as exhibited in the world championships.  

So, no numbers are not being driven by this

3)  Most celebrities are not very good at chess and exhibit the inability to play chess with any sense of skill or understanding of the game.  That is the reason why most if not nearly all celebrity players fall into the category of 500 to 1200 level players.  That merely puts them into the barrel of mediocrity so they draw no following in the chess world as they fare no better than beginner players with even less celebrity.  

Because of their lack of talent and inability to progress to become faster players capable of playing blitz level 3/0 or 5/0 chess, they don't really develop a devoted following in chess.  

for these reasons, celebrity players are not driving user activity on chess.com

4)  good grief... really.  you think that Magnus questioning the legitimacy of chess play OTB by Hans helps drive chess numbers on Chess.com?  How exactly does it do that?  If anything that particular issue is a bad mark on chess itself as it brings into question legitimacy and whether chess can be played fairly on the world stage.  If anything that issue tarnishes chess rather than driving up numbers.  

Honestly no one looks at Magnus' accusations and says :  "oh that really makes me want to play chess to drop out of a world championship level tournament because I believe that my opponent is not a honorable opponent.  Does that make sense?  to me, no

so the Magnus argument definitely is not a driving force behind Chess.com numbers; exponential growth in daily users and activity that is unexplained by any event or group of events during the relevant period.  So what is the reason for the exponential growth in daily user numbers if nothing is actually promoting or driving interest in chess?

Self promotion huh...  

I honestly think the marketing efforts are horrible.  Money is tossed around with no real sense of vision or target expectation; similar to a monkey throwing its mud pies on a wall and laughing when one of those stinking patches sticks.

Has anyone ever seen a Chess.com on television or in mainstream?  

I have honestly asked people that I know who don't play chess whether they know about chess.com and they don't.  No one aside from a few people who get told about chess.com by us (real players & real people) by word of mouth of sharing know about chess.com

no commercials, no marketing push anywhere in the world.  nothing.  

So to sit there and pretend that its self promotion is just hog wash.  show me.  show us where the marketing push is.  If anything the only push in promotion is chess related to people who already play chess or already know about the site.  it is a short sighted and ineffective approach that is quite laughable to be entirely honest.  

so no...  self promotion is not driving the exponential growth in numbers on chess and to pretend that is the driving force is just worthy of a raised eyebrow

I don't think it's clear to anyone what exactly is happening but it's clearly increasing on multiple fronts. While anecdotal , other younger members have mentioned that they have also been seeing more people playing on their schools than before. 

There's no reason for the site to fake numbers and they certainly wouldn't purposely increase traffic to levels that would cause server load issues.  

I think Andrew Tate is the reason. He talks a lot about traditional manhood in a way that connects to young men, and part of his message is that chess helps one's analytical and thinking skills. These days, self-improvement is a part of many young men's lives, and they see chess as a way to do this.

Untrue

patently false statement mr stahl

Show us the chess sets around campus being used by new interested chess players in schools.  its not happening.  not here nowhere

students and school age kids are not playing chess in widely increased numbers anywhere around the world.  That is the reason why chess is still relatively low in favorite games categories in surveys amongst all age groups.  It has been and remains a fact that chess is really not that popular for several reasons... difficulty being one of them and the fact that people get discouraged by their inability to progress and get better regardless of mentoring or teaching 

Many who play chess well, simply dont know how to pass on their skills.  often it cannot be passed on either because if a student simply lacks talent or intellect, then they often lack the ability to get good or great at chess.  Not trying to be hurtful or controversial in the statement it is just a fact.  If you lack talent or intellect then you will not be a good or great chess player.  nothing controversial about that statement.  

No one is questioning the numbers as a count of user activity online.  however, it is a fair question ask why is chess.com numbers growing so exponentially if nothing in the world of chess is experiencing similar or close to matching growth?

If you throw enough spaghetti at the wall, some of it is bound to stick.

Andrew Tate is widely regarded as a misogynistic fruitcake whose statements hinge on the side of comedy rather than serious legitimate knowledge or engagement in intelligent discourse.  In other words he is a mere click bait type online that definitely doesn't drive numbers on chess.com

By extension...  by alienating himself from a wide audience of females across the globe who view him as a global pariah, you're saying that Andrew Tate is driving chess growth in chess which is predominantly male dominated?

Half the worlds population is female and you're saying that exponential growth in the interest in chess is being driven by someone who is alienating half the world population?  I find your argument laughable at best, but seriously flawed in reality.

Andrew Tate is not good at chess.  so for him to touting analytical ability from playing chess doesn't fit a logic chain if he is pretending to be analytical.  of course Tate is someone who is aiming to target a predominantly male audience by parroting a line of misogyny while becoming a global pariah amongst females who make up half the world population.