Why would anyone pay for membership on chess.com?
Sort:
Because for $4 a month (absolutely nothing to me) I get... The data base, no adds, unlimited tactics, more vacation time for daily games, the ability to host tournaments, plus the cool little badge that goes by my user name.
Homsar wrote:
Because for $4 a month (absolutely nothing to me) I get... The data base, no adds, unlimited tactics, more vacation time for daily games, the ability to host tournaments, plus the cool little badge that goes by my user name.
BUT WAIT
THERE'S MORE
Feb 16, 2018
0
#24
That's right sign up today and you could learn how to be a fascist censor too!
I'm a paid member. I actually can't remember what upgrades I got when I started paying, but I know there was a few. I'm gold, not sure I need diamond, that comes with video lessons one on one right? so maybe one day, go all out and get the premium.
Feb 16, 2018
0
#26
Statute wrote:
That's right sign up today and you could learn how to be as narcissist as Danny wrench or as gay as the CEO how's that vitriol you know what ...truth is not for sale
Please note: using "gay" as an insult is a homophobic comment and is not acceptable behaviour here on Chess.com - this is your first and last warning.
David, moderator
Statute wrote:
That's right sign up today and you could learn how to be as narcissist as Danny wrench or as gay as the CEO how's that vitriol you know what ...truth is not for sale
It makes me feel like I need to wash my hands when troglodytes drag their knuckles across my comments.
BlargDragon wrote:
m_connors wrote:
Cheaper than coffee and more satisfying . . .
Preposterous. The only thing more satisfying than coffee is more coffee. It is the one commodity to which the law of diminishing returns doesn't apply.
Why would I buy it? https://www.chess.com/membership Simple. No more questions asked
So to sum up it seems the most common reasons are
- Avoiding advertisement
- Tactical exercises
- Video lessons
- Other content (database, some mentioned a stronger engine (?))
- Supporting the site (I guess "the cool little badge" of @Homsar falls in this category as well
)
)The ads thing is seems most important. Does this depend on country? I have heard from one Norwegian who is not bothered with ads, but she is mostly just doing correspondence games.
I am currently a member of a few different sites, each for different reasons.
- I joined a free site (its layout was terrible and "old", but still free!) some time around
- Then around 2006 I joined a paid site, mostly because it was the site on which many Norwegian OTB players played. Also, the possibility to play some really strong players was there in their 5-minute pool. There is also some video content, but I never really liked the layout of the videos
- When I bought Chessbase I got a one year membership (no idea if this is still the case)
- chess.com because I liked that it was playing was free (in 2012 or something). I have also used some of the video content for preparations (only a very small sample, but it felt somewhat superficial -- perfect when you want to quickly absorb some ideas, but not ideal as a cornerstone of your repertoire)
- In 2016 I joined a free site that has quite a lot of content, but I mostly use it for its playing. It is non-profit and ad free, those who want to support the site are free to donate if they want.
- In 2016 I got a paid membership at a site for its video lesson content that I find amazing. Don't think I have played any games there yet, and I don't use most of its other content.
Many of the sites have commentary during big tournaments, but which to prefer usually comes down to specific commentators and taste.
I am still a paying member of the site I joined in 2006, but mostly because I payed for many years at once a while ago . My playing has moved, first partly to chess.com and then fully to the free site I joned in 2016. And still paying for the video content on another.
One here mentioned being a paying member of chesstempo to support them, besides chess.com. Are others here also members of different sites for different content or are @MRM2112 and I exceptions?
@Statute: Not sure what your video has to do with chess site memberships?
Statute appears to be just a troll
Feb 17, 2018
0
#35
MRM2112 wrote:
Sandstad wrote:
@MRM2112: So your membership here is to support the operation of the site or the founders, rather than the specific extra content you are getting?
Both!
Same here
Feb 17, 2018
0
#37
Sandstad wrote:
Why would anyone pay for membership on chess.com when there exists great alternatives that are free?
this is the question.....
I think I read somewhere on the forum that naming "competitors" is frowned upon. If that is the case, moderators, just remove this post.
[Indeed - I have removed just that portion. People can find other places that do things they way they like, and that's fine. Chess.com has a lot of that stuff in one place, and hopefully the quality of the content means people are willing to pay for it. The tiered membership allows people decide how much they want to pay for which features.
Chess.com is always interested in specific feedback about what they could change to better meet your preferences, but that can be done without comparing to another site.
Cheers,
David, moderator]
Feb 17, 2018
0
#40
Sandstad wrote:
Why would anyone pay for membership on chess.com when there exists great alternatives that are free?
So what's it to you if someone wants to pay for diamond membership? If someone wants to pay, let them. They obviously are getting something out of it? Are you suggesting that maybe perhaps people who pay for this site are in fact stupid? That there is absolutely no reason to pay for the site?
Do you feel you are above us that have to pay that which you get for free? Do you think that is offensive for me to ask that question? Think about the question you are asking 
Cheaper than coffee and more satisfying . . .
Bullet Proof Coffee