The Downfall of Chess.com

Free will and choice is a great thing.  Part of why i canceled my paid membership is because i as able to get for free on other sites what i was paying for here.  I thought bigger might be better.  But it wasnt.  Its like buying a $100,00 car when a $40,000 car will get you there the same way.

I prophesized it years ago: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/rise-and-fall-of-chesscom

Joking apart, I don't like the direction the site has taken. Downvotes offer nothing of value and just make the forum a worse place. Leagues are, as you said, intented to boost the number of games played, but what worries me is that  they resemble those shady strategies mobile games use to make their games addictive. NFTs have no room in a chess site, even if they weren't as controversial as they are. I don't really mind verification though. Paying for a blue check and a chance to play in an online tournament doesn't appeal to me, but I'm not against it per se.

However, they have the absolute best name for a chess site and they are the first result when googling "chess", so I guess they can get away with all this nonsense.

After all, we're still here.

You say leagues are highly controversial but they're not.
You say leagues are competitive, a way to track progress, and encourage cheating, but they're none of these things. You go up in rank simply for playing. You can be rated under 1000 and in legend league. It doesn't track progress since there's no demotion, and so there's no incentive to cheat.

When you gain trophies, that's progress, isn't it? Leagues ARE competitive, as you play against other people. They DO encourage cheating to win the prizes. Now more than ever would people want to sandbag/cheat. 

The difference between membership and verification is a phone number and they say it will be expanded (beyond what it is now which is just tournaments). You quote someone who says it wont stop cheating, but no one claimed it would, and it obviously does discourages cheating. It's a perfectly sensible feature.

But isn't it supposed to "stop cheating" by pairing you against other "verified" players. Why shouldn't people who pay $100 already have access to this "verified" thing? 

NFTs are not cryptocurrency, and even if they were, why would it be unwise for chess.com (or any business) to invest in it?

Because isn't chess.com supposed to be about chess? 

Chess.com is growing and is adding new features. Your post about how it's failing is silly.

It's a business, though. Chess itself is incidental to the site. Community is even incidental. If it didn't pay, there'd be no community. They're only going to do something if it increases their profits. I look at the Players' League as a chance to actually win a tournament. I'm guessing they don't see it in any terms related to democratization. It gets more visitors showing up and staying longer. So they get more money. Verification means you get paired up with people who will actually play and not jump off the game or stall. That might be worth fifteen bucks. Still, if you think about it, being able to participate in tournaments as a result of that fifteen, as opposed to being able to participate in tournaments if you don't pay it... that's something that gets dreamed up in a boardroom. Even having a forum is just a way to drive participation, not to address community concerns. But as long as you don't expect some bro in a sports car to care about chess, it gets simpler. With the skills and resources, I'm guessing any of us actual chess nerds would wind up creating Lichess. But I love the game, and this is the place to go, no matter if it sucks.

I like Chess.com.

I think it is amazing how they take a simple board game and try to innovate a bunch of different ways to keep it interesting. The variety of bots to play, variants to try, puzzles to complete, lessons to learn, events to watch, news to read, clubs to join, blogs to write, and forums like this to comment upon all of these. I feel like there is something for everyone here. New features some might dislike (leagues, verification, NFTs) may in fact be loved by others. To each their own.

I am not saying I don't like it obviously I am still here for the time being.  The puzzles are nice tactical practice and for vision in assisted checkmates.  Lots of extra stuff to do, nice community and most people are cool both members and staff.  This is a critique of things they can improve on which I am sure they would and do strive to do.  It's called feedback.  Improved sites means more members means more money.  Only those who wrongly think they are infallible can't handle scrutiny.  Criticism leads to improvement, and common sense objections or observations from its actual users.  Chances are thousands of people who don't speak up think the same thing or have the same issues.  This helps chess.com so people don't move on to other apps.

The only thing chess.com is really lacking is a Petrosian bot.

I had two very highly ranked friends who were helping lower rated players with openings who were booted off Chess,com for cheating.  Their followers were stunned.  I did not know of many other players less likely to cheat. 

It seems to me some members are terminated because of jealosy .

The only thing chess.com is really lacking is a Petrosian bot.

LOL. Moderators are volunteers, so I doubt I will get a raise