I agree with making it harder to play but there has to be a better way, like half of the people on this site are 15 and below so maybe 16 and up instead but that would also create an issue
Site Server Problems - Possible Solution Proposal
Sort:
Nov 17, 2023
0
#3
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
As we all know the servers are crashing more and more frequently as more people join the site and more live games are being played. I know this may sound discriminatory/trolling but it may eventually have to come down to this:
It may be necessary in the future to make this a 1000+ only site. I know this sounds horrible, how can we limit a site to only chess players of a certain skill, but constant crashing limits everyone's ability to play freely as well. If chess.com becomes too congested, they may have to limit the number of accounts, and a conceivable fair way to do that may be to it by rating. New members joining could be required to play 50 to 100 games within the first month of two of joining, and have to achieve a rating of 1000 in either blitz, rapid, or bullet, or even puzzles to be allowed to stay on the site. Once they hit 1000 it wouldn't matter if they went below it after game 50 or game 100, only the peak rating would matter. The site could even set-up a stockfish/alphazero bot to test new member playing ability (they'd have to play the games against it) and it would determine of they are eligible to join. People failing to become eligible would be redirected to chesskids.com or a secondary site for example.
Now obviously this would cause some people to create duplicate accounts to artificially lower or raise one of them ratings or arrange games between friends to temporarily boost their ratings/cheat or whatever, but something like this could theoretically be implemented in some form or another. What do you think?
The site has mechanisms in place if legitimate traffic loads become an issue. However, there are multiple potential causes to site issues and only some of them may be due to legitimate traffic loads (such as early this year).
That said, the recommendation of a minimum strength/rating isn't something that would ever be implemented.
Or even if the site only allowed the top 2/3 of rated players to keep their accounts, since over 1000 may only represent the top 10,20,or 30% of chess players and they wouldn't need to limit it that much. I don't agree with doing it by age, mostly kids and teens use this site anyway, so it makes more sense to do it based on something to do with the chess aspect itself. Just brainstorming.
Nov 17, 2023
0
#5
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
As we all know the servers are crashing more and more frequently as more people join the site and more live games are being played. I know this may sound discriminatory/trolling but it may eventually have to come down to this:
It may be necessary in the future to make this a 1000+ only site.
Yes.
I know this sounds horrible, how can we limit a site to only chess players of a certain skill, but constant crashing limits everyone's ability to play freely as well. If chess.com becomes too congested, they may have to limit the number of accounts, and a conceivable fair way to do that may be to do it by rating.
Absolutely correct; it'd be worse to do it by age.
New members joining could be required to play 50 to 100 games within the first month or two of joining, and have to achieve a rating of 1000 in either blitz, rapid, or bullet, or even puzzles to be allowed to stay on the site. Once they hit 1000 it wouldn't matter if they went below it after game 50 or game 100, only the peak rating would matter. The site could even set-up a stockfish/alphazero bot to test new member playing ability (they'd have to play the games against it) and it would determine if they are eligible to join.
Seems reasonable.
People failing to become eligible would be redirected to chesskids.com or a secondary site for example.
Yes, but chesskids.com should have all the features in this site as well; so, nobody is missing out.
Now obviously this would cause some people to create duplicate accounts to artificially lower or raise one of the ratings or arrange games between friends to temporarily boost their ratings/cheat or whatever, but something like this could theoretically be implemented in some form or another.
Easy solution to fix. Ban alts until players have reached the 1000 rating goal, which would also mean to limit an email to one account to stop this. After the 1000 rating points goal is reached, limit it to 2. Also, another solution for this is to not be able to challenge any other players until the goal is reached.
What do you think?
Very good idea
People create new emails to create duplicate accounts. That what I did with YouTube. Another option could be to limit thenumber of live games being played at any given time, but I have a feeling they already implement some version of that so I don't know.
Nov 17, 2023
0
#7
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
People create new emails to create duplicate accounts. That what I did with YouTube. Another option could be to limit thenumber of live games being played at any given time, but I have a feeling they already implement some version of that so I don't know.
That's why I posted the other solution: "Also, another solution for this is to not be able to challenge any other players until the goal is reached."
You suggested limiting the number of accounts Per email to two, but you can only create one account per email anyway.
Nov 17, 2023
0
#9
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
You suggested limiting the number of accounts Per email to two, but you can only create one account per email anyway.
I suggested both. Also, two account are currently allowed for one email.
Wonder if there were ever a million on live games at once? I know over 1 Trillion games have been played on this site in total by now.
Nov 17, 2023
0
#11
llama_l wrote:
I don't think it's congestion. At the time of my writing, chess.com reports there are 160,000 players in live chess.
At the peak of the chess boom there were over 500,000 in live at once (when the site was crashing often).
The reason it's crashing now is either some malicious attacks like DDoS, or just chess.com's general incompetence (which I wouldn't rule out). Either way, the number of players doesn't seem to be the issue.
May I perhaps inquire on what the DDoS attack even was? I've heard of it, but never have known what it was.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me lol
Nov 17, 2023
0
#13
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
Or even if the site only allowed the top 2/3 of rated players to keep their accounts, since over 1000 may only represent the top 10,20,or 30% of chess players and they wouldn't need to limit it that much. I don't agree with doing it by age, mostly kids and teens use this site anyway, so it makes more sense to do it based on something to do with the chess aspect itself. Just brainstorming.
Yeah, that's never going to happen.
Nov 17, 2023
0
#14
AbyssalSludge wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
You suggested limiting the number of accounts Per email to two, but you can only create one account per email anyway.
I suggested both. Also, two account are currently allowed for one email.
Accounts have to have unique addresses. You can't have two accounts with the exact same email address.
Nov 17, 2023
0
#15
AbyssalSludge wrote:
May I perhaps inquire on what the DDoS attack even was? I've heard of it, but never have known what it was.
It's where attackers send a lot of legitimate looking traffic (and sometimes junk traffic) to the site, from a bunch of different endpoints (usually compromised), sometimes hitting a bunch of different site services, all in an attempt to degrade traffic or bring a site down.
DDoS is a Distrbuted Denial of Service attack.
For what purpose?
Nov 17, 2023
0
#17
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
For what purpose?
For fun. To advertise a botnet to sell access to other bad actors to take down other sites. Because they can. Because they hate chess 
There can be a lot of different reasons.
I would imagine with the amount of profit gained they have plenty going to provide the best options for whatever is technically needed to keep cc running smooth, you'd think.
Of course
As we all know the servers are crashing more and more frequently as more people join the site and more live games are being played. I know this may sound discriminatory/trolling but it may eventually have to come down to this:
It may be necessary in the future to make this a 1000+ only site. I know this sounds horrible, how can we limit a site to only chess players of a certain skill, but constant crashing limits everyone's ability to play freely as well. If chess.com becomes too congested, they may have to limit the number of accounts, and a conceivable fair way to do that may be to do it by rating. New members joining could be required to play 50 to 100 games within the first month or two of joining, and have to achieve a rating of 1000 in either blitz, rapid, or bullet, or even puzzles to be allowed to stay on the site. Once they hit 1000 it wouldn't matter if they went below it after game 50 or game 100, only the peak rating would matter. The site could even set-up a stockfish/alphazero bot to test new member playing ability (they'd have to play the games against it) and it would determine if they are eligible to join. People failing to become eligible would be redirected to chesskids.com or a secondary site for example.
Now obviously this would cause some people to create duplicate accounts to artificially lower or raise one of the ratings or arrange games between friends to temporarily boost their ratings/cheat or whatever, but something like this could theoretically be implemented in some form or another. What do you think?