Do chess clubs in the form of large, loosely connected communities make sense?

Proposal to Chess.com: Introduce a 200-Member Limit for All Chess Clubs
Why? Because Less Means More.
The current model of clubs on Chess.com—often with thousands of loosely connected members—has created an illusion of community rather than a functioning, interactive space. Massive clubs like “Turk Chess Players” with 5,000+ members may look impressive in size, but fail to deliver true social or educational value to most participants.

Let’s ask the hard question:

Are large, inactive clubs promoting chess growth and connection—or just creating empty numbers?

 Current Problems with Oversized Chess Clubs
1. No Meaningful Member Interaction
With thousands of members, only a tiny fraction (often <2%) participate actively. Most never meet, talk, or even play with one another.

2. Lack of Structure, Purpose, or Engagement
There’s no shared identity, no ongoing events, and no real sense of belonging. These clubs rarely offer tournaments, mentoring, or discussion.

3. Quantity over Quality Culture
Some club owners focus on “growing the biggest club” instead of cultivating engagement, education, or cohesion. This leads to superficial rankings and inactive groups.

4. Social Bonds Are Lost
Chess clubs should be about relationships, learning, and shared passion—not silent crowds and dead message boards.

 Why a 200-Member Limit Is a Step in the Right Direction
 1. Fosters Real Community
200 is a manageable number that encourages recognition, familiarity, and coordination among members.

 2. Shifts Focus from Quantity to Activity
Smaller clubs must actively organize games, discussions, and events to thrive—rather than rely on passive member accumulation.

 3. Promotes Thematic and Regional Clubs
A natural outcome of smaller caps is the creation of more focused clubs: by region, language, playstyle, or level (e.g., “Beginner Endgame Lab” or “Brazilian Blitz Squad”).

 4. Easier to Moderate and Manage
Smaller clubs = less spam, fewer bots, and better moderation. Club leaders can actually know who is in the club.

 Suggested Implementation Path
New clubs: hard cap of 200 members by default.

Existing large clubs: encouraged to split into sub-clubs (e.g., Club Alpha 1, Alpha 2) with optional event syncing.

Premium Verified Clubs (optional): cap lifted to 500+ only if the club shows sustained engagement and follows organizational guidelines.

 Chess.com Has the Chance to Lead the Future of Online Chess Communities
In the era of inflated social media groups and empty communities, Chess.com can be the platform that redefines what a “club” really means: not a number, but a space for real interaction and growth.

With a simple policy shift, Chess.com could:
Boost quality over quantity,

Increase real participation and bonding,

Encourage creation of vibrant, purpose-driven groups.

Small clubs create stronger connections.BLOG on this topic in Polish                                                                                                                   https://www.chess.com/pl/blog/TTYGRYS-PL/czy-kluby-szachowe-w-formie-duzych-luzno-powiazanych-spolecznosci-maja-sens

Good post. I agree completely that when it comes to community, quality beat quantity every day of the week. 
-
I don't think that large chess clubs are a problem though. It allows vote chess and more opportunities for internal and external tournaments.
- 
That being said. Maybe clubs should have the options to advertise themselves as a community (Large) or just a club (small). Of course online interaction will never beat real world connection but it is a start. If you want true community, you should find a local club where you live. 
I have my few friends who I play chess with and that connection is greater than the 100 'friends' I have on here.
-
Just my thought.

You can create a club with that limit of members and manage to make it the greatest club ever

"While such a possibility undoubtedly exists, I would like to draw attention to a different issue: clubs with memberships reaching several thousand — for example, five thousand — begin to operate more like impersonal institutions or even 'factories'. In such expansive structures, individuality tends to fade, and the individual as a person loses significance. It is no longer the person and their personality that matter, but merely their affiliation with the group."

Yes, you can create a club and care about significance of every individual there

"Yes, you can create a club and show how much each person matters. But what about the others? I can only take care of a small part — what happens to those who are lost, without anyone to turn to?"

What others?

"But what about the others?" — Exactly. If one club takes in 200 members, what happens to the rest? What about those who also want to be part of a small, tight-knit community? And don’t tell me there are too many of them — that’s simply not true.

In reality, half of the clubs out there are run by kids who start them just because it’s “cool.” Others are started by people who then do nothing with them — no activity, no purpose, no engagement.

So what about the people who truly want to be part of a good, well-organized small club, where everyone matters? There’s no space for them in the big, oversized clubs, which often feel anonymous, chaotic, and soulless.

That’s exactly why I wrote this article — to point out the meaninglessness of large clubs. They focus on numbers, not people. Small clubs have real value. They offer a space where everyone is seen, where people can actually participate, connect, and belong — not just be one face in a crowd of hundreds.

They can create their own clubs

And you — do you run a club?
Ask yourself this: Why are you just a member of a club, and not the one running it? That question often leads to an honest answer — and it’s the same for many others.

Running a club isn’t easy. It takes time, responsibility, and a vision. Not everyone wants that — or is ready for it. Many people prefer to join something that already exists, something that seems to work, rather than build something of their own from scratch.

And that’s completely fine — not everyone has to lead. But it also shows why there’s such a need for small, well-run clubs. Because so many people would love to be part of something real, something meaningful — without having to carry the full weight of organizing it themselves.

That’s why it matters who runs the club, and how they run it. A good, small club led with heart can be worth more than the biggest organization built on numbers alone.

I am not a member of any club