So to summarize this thread:
But at least it's a great thread about how being skilled at moving pieces on a board doesn't necessary lead to knowledge and intelligence in other areas of life.
So to summarize this thread:
But at least it's a great thread about how being skilled at moving pieces on a board doesn't necessary lead to knowledge and intelligence in other areas of life.
You're assuming that the OP was asking a genuine question in this post. He wasn't and he isn't - he's really just accusing Chess.com of faking their growth using bots because the owners are greedy and nasty and amoral.
I get the feeling you recently learned the word "exponential" and now you're using it every chance you get.
lol yes agreed
Levy Rozman
that's it
Yes 63 days is over 2 months and nearly 3 months. having passed the mid point of 1.5 months by 18 days, it is closer to 3 months than the starting point. so its almost 3 months.
Provide the actual numbers and user data so that we can correlate the chess related news and activity with the sudden spike in user daily account activity and account generation.
Open the books to the chess community so that we can see what is really going on to assist chess.com with solving the server crashing issue.
Most months are 30 or 31 days. That's just over two months. But what do I know, I only have a degree in Mathematics
You're not going to get access to the site's underlying numbers and there's no reason for them to do it. Some random people on the site aren't going to be able to add any value. If staff needs help, outside of the skills they have, they'll be able to find qualified assistance on their own.
63 days is barely over 2 months
You're assuming that the OP was asking a genuine question in this post. He wasn't and he isn't - he's really just accusing Chess.com of faking their growth using bots because the owners are greedy and nasty and amoral.
His motivation isn't necessary for my post to be relevant. Even when trolling or asking loaded question, he needs to adress the alternative explanations in better way than "nah, I don't think so".
Yes 63 days is over 2 months and nearly 3 months. having passed the mid point of 1.5 months by 18 days, it is closer to 3 months than the starting point. so its almost 3 months.
Provide the actual numbers and user data so that we can correlate the chess related news and activity with the sudden spike in user daily account activity and account generation.
Open the books to the chess community so that we can see what is really going on to assist chess.com with solving the server crashing issue.
Most months are 30 or 31 days. That's just over two months. But what do I know, I only have a degree in Mathematics
You're not going to get access to the site's underlying numbers and there's no reason for them to do it. Some random people on the site aren't going to be able to add any value. If staff needs help, outside of the skills they have, they'll be able to find qualified assistance on their own.
63 days is barely over 2 months
the last line wasn't meant to be quoted
think harder... try again
site is failing
truthfully, when the site crashes mid game & you receive messages about server capacity as a reason for the crashes and 505 errors, you know that the systems in place cannot handle the increased unusual traffic.
sadly nothing is being done & none of you know why the site is crashing so frequently or how to prevent it from happening. That's a site integrity issue at this point.
Staff have been working on a lot of different things and issues are occurring a lot less frequently. There's still work being done and it should keep getting more stable, though it's always possible there will be blips as updates are made.
According to what's been posted staff are aiming to be able to hand 3-5x the traffic when all work gets completed
give us a break
When crashes are happening daily, you know its a huge problem
Chess.com has pretended that there's no issue and attempted to sweep the issues under the proverbial rug. However, when games are crashing mid game & servers give off 505 errors daily, you know no one is doing anything to correct the real issues.
I honestly doubt that Chess.com mods are allowed to talk about what is happening to chess.com
Mods lock forum topics all the time...
It's censorship in its coldest form because it can be abused and arbitrary to be honest
Isn't it odd that daily user numbers are growing so quickly on chess.com without anything happening in chess????? I mean there is literally nothing happening right now. If anyone is objectively looking into this, then please search online for chess related events happening today. Nothing noteworthy is happening. so with nothing happening, people are rushing to open a chess.com account to play 100s of games nonstop for 30 days logging on every day because they suddenly got hooked on chess?
I do have an igloo in Montana to sell you if you believe that...
Mutes and locking aren't what the members that brought up not being able to post here were impacted by.
Not everyone getting involved in online chess is going to make the migration to over the board. Of those that do, some will only play with friends and family in person. Some will attend clubs and quickly stop. Some will keep that up and some will join tournaments and play.
Some members here have already posted they have seen higher numbers at both clubs and in tournaments. You have been discounting that as not significant, however It's apparently happening in a lot of places, which shows there has been an increase in chess interest that have made it to those OTB situations.
I have not discounted accounts by members regarding increased numbers at local events and activity online.
I merely asked them to post the exact number of increase. For example. If a Chess club had 10 members & it increased by 30% that would only be an increase of 3 people. that is insignificant by any objective perspective. That does not affect chess.com's exponential growth in such a short period of time. You could multiply such similar numbers by 1000 different cities or localities and it still would be meaningless as the total number would be an average of 3 new members for 3000 total new participants.
When another members stated that a child attending school saw her classmates playing on chess.com, I asked how many what percentage of classmates were playing online now. Isn't that a legitimate question. If she saw only 10% of her classmates playing then that would be higher than average but still within the realm of possibility for chess as that would not be very surprising.
I wonder what the real numbers are on chess.com...
How many new accounts & what is the mass exponential growth factor that is causing systems to fail?
Can someone reveal this information to us so that we can assist with maintaining the site's integrity?
The site posted that they saw a 160% increase in early January. They also posted other metrics as well, some have been linked in this topic.
That said, members having that data isn't something that's going to enable them to assist with the issue. What's going to assist is staff continuing their capacity increases and optimizations.
I doubt that those numbers are accurate because a mere 160% increase in traffic should not crash a site. The crashes are very widespread and prevalent on chess.com. so much so that it happens almost every time we log on to play in Live Chess. That's a huge problem. Not something that a mere 160% increase would cause.
I believe that the real number is closer to a multiple of 2 to 5 or more in actual daily use numbers. That would make chess.com incapable of maintaining site integrity because of so much daily activity that the site would crash.
In addition, I doubt that the growth on chess.com is linear. The last 3 months is a snapshot, meaning that overtime, the current drastic increase looks like a massive outlier. That's a problem because chess.com has not identified exactly the reason for that massive outlier activity level. with nothing happening in chess at the moment that just brings into question why so many are flocking to chess.com
Levy Rozman
that's it
Well, the Queen's Gambit series on Netflix was also a big help by drawing a bunch of new public attention to chess and helping make the game more culturally mainstream. It got a bunch of new people in the door, and once they were in, then channels like GothamChess or events like Pogchamps convinced a lot of those new people to stay.
Anyway to answer the question at hand, I guess there's nuance in there but for me it's this:
1) chess is growing in general
2) domain name
There are a few other random factors, maybe connected to content creators and other platforms etc but overall I do think those two things explain almost the entire phenomenon. To my mind anyway.
Your reasoning honestly doesn't answer why chess.com is experiencing exponential growth right now.
A site name is not a driver of increased user activity. Chess.com has been around for years so to say that people are just randomly stumbling on it now and deciding to join just doesn't make sense.
Chess overall is not growing at all. Tournaments around the world are not getting any bigger and the pool of talented individuals or titled hopefuls is not growing. Skill level also takes time and dedication aside from natural talent. that means that the new players will not be any good until years from now. Meaning that many if not most will drop off from frustration or just give up entirely and give up the game also.
Levy Rozman
that's it
Well, the Queen's Gambit series on Netflix was also a big help by drawing a bunch of new public attention to chess and helping make the game more culturally mainstream. It got a bunch of new people in the door, and once they were in, then channels like GothamChess or events like Pogchamps convinced a lot of those new people to stay.
As I stated before Queens Gambit is not the reason for the most recent increase in user daily use numbers and it was released 3 years ago in 2020.
Levy Gotham Chess has "numbers" but that is suspect as well. Prove to us that those numbers are real. It is known across social media platforms that there are user numbers issues. from twitter to all other forms of social media, there has been a healthy suspicion of "followers" and "subscriber" numbers. show us the real data.
Honestly, I have watched Gotham Chess' content & it doesn't really make me want to watch more of his videos or "content" or lack thereof. His approach to chess doesn't seem to make people better chess players but that is just an opinion. It could be true for some but untrue for others.
The local chess club here in Preston, UK has had a significant increase in new people turning up this winter.
what do you mean by "significant"
significant
/sɪɡˈnɪfɪk(ə)nt/
adjective
Sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy.
I understand the meaning of significant as a term. However, I am specifically asking what does he mean by "significant" How many? What is the increase being cited to support the argument that chess.com user activity is being driven by this mass increase in interest in chess. So what is the number?
30% increase since the start of the year.
And don't make the mistake of behaving like you are the arbiter of what is significant.
Significance is not arbitrary. it is quantifiable.
30% increase of 10 is 3 more people. That's insignificant
You don't get to decide what is significant. You are not in charge here.
I'm in charge here.
Start from the beginning and get caught up... its worth it.
Yes 63 days is over 2 months and nearly 3 months. having passed the mid point of 1.5 months by 18 days, it is closer to 3 months than the starting point. so its almost 3 months.
Provide the actual numbers and user data so that we can correlate the chess related news and activity with the sudden spike in user daily account activity and account generation.
Open the books to the chess community so that we can see what is really going on to assist chess.com with solving the server crashing issue.
Most months are 30 or 31 days. That's just over two months. But what do I know, I only have a degree in Mathematics
You're not going to get access to the site's underlying numbers and there's no reason for them to do it. Some random people on the site aren't going to be able to add any value. If staff needs help, outside of the skills they have, they'll be able to find qualified assistance on their own.
I doubt that you have a degree in mathematics.
If you did have a degree in mathematics, then you would be able to figure out that a mere 160% increase in daily use for a site over a period of 3 months should not crash a site or cause devastating overloads daily.
...
I merely asked them to post the exact number of increase. For example. If a Chess club had 10 members & it increased by 30% that would only be an increase of 3 people. that is insignificant by any objective perspective.
...
No, it's not. Because nobody is claiming that it is those new club players that are the majority of the newcomers to chess.com. Instead, they are a symtom of increased interest in chess. There is a much higher barrier to entry a chess club, where you have to physically go to a new place in a specific time of the week to interact and play with new people for a significant part of that day (1-2 hours), than for opening new account online and play anonymously when you're sitting on the toilet or having a break anytime and anywhere.
So, some local increase in clubs is probably nothing but if there is a more national and international increase in club players, that could indicate an increase in interest and in people who would like to play chess but don't want to go to the club.
...
I merely asked them to post the exact number of increase. For example. If a Chess club had 10 members & it increased by 30% that would only be an increase of 3 people. that is insignificant by any objective perspective.
...
No, it's not. Because nobody is claiming that it is those new club players that are the majority of the newcomers to chess.com. Instead, they are a symtom of increased interest in chess. There is a much higher barrier to entry a chess club, where you have to physically go to a new place in a specific time of the week to interact and play with new people for a significant part of that day (1-2 hours), than for opening new account online and play anonymously when you're sitting on the toilet or having a break anytime and anywhere.
So, some local increase in clubs is probably nothing but if there is a more national and international increase in club players, that could indicate an increase in interest and in people who would like to play chess but don't want to go to the club.
No it's not... 3 new members of a local chess club, raising the total number of members from 10 to 13 is a 30% increase but it is insignificant & it is not indicative of any widespread increase in interest in chess.
Think about it. When you walk down the street, do you see anyone playing chess????? If so, then how many? hundreds? thousands? nope.
In your daily conversations, are you talking to people about chess? Oh d3 or d4 that is the question right Angie?' Nope.
When you turn on the television or streaming service do you see a lot of chess? Nope. no one even knows the names of the top 10 players. some don't even know who magnus or hikaru or Ian Nepomniachtchi... heck even those who play chess or follow chess can't spell "Nepomniachtchi"
Truth is that chess remains stagnant. There is nothing happening in chess right now, but yet chess.com daily activity numbers are skyrocketing exponential growth... bizarre? unexpected? you bet
OP IS A BROKEN RECORD DUDE…… is this all you do with your day?
This is known as flooding the zone. You put out more information than people have time to deconstruct. It is an effective technique. You can learn from Krieg. His argument can be deconstructed though. For one thing he can't prove what he is saying is true. But then he just has to say the opposite can't be proven. See how you can't win here. Show us the bots Krieg.