So I read through the changes and these two things stood out to me as a Chess.com user:

1) "We clarified the scope of the "No Ads" subscription benefit, clarifying that while it removes third-party advertising, it does not preclude the promotion of Chess.com's own products, services, or events."

2) "We have expanded the list of prohibited user conduct to include soliciting for harmful content, sharing false or misleading information" etc.

While the first change I mentioned is a little subverting (on the membership page it says "third party ads will be removed" without any mention of chess.com's ads) I think it's understandable. But the second change is a little concerning to me. If I were to say e.g. "the grob is the best opening, never play 1. d4 or 1. e4" would this get me banned? Is there a distinction between "fact" and opinion?

thank you for reading it and sharing with us

i noticed your thoughts on the second change, it looks kind of difficult to say something about this

I didn't read all of it, if anyone else found more please share.

If you read the User Agreement you will find out that your account can be closed without any reason so I would not bother

Why would a business want to close a customer's account for no reason when that hurts them? I say ... fly by the seat of your pants and take a risk. What is the worse that can happen? They close your account? Then you wouldn't want to do business with them anyway, right?

It's just like a Relationship (yes I have no real experience) but if (or when) I've been blocked, why would I WANT to then continue the relationship? This site treats its patrons wonderfully and works hard to provide a great site for us and they've mostly succeeded.

I signed it.

I did not write they want, I wrote they can pointing out the fact that the second change (c) above did not make anything worse

But I agree that any reason would sound better than no reason

No reason is just how the account's owner would feel

I agree with you on both points, but they feel very different in impact.

On the ads: this is basically a wording clarification that leans in Chess.com’s favor. “No Ads” really means no third-party ads, not no promotion at all. So you might still see Chess.com pushing its own events, products, or partners. That’s a bit misleading from a marketing standpoint, but also pretty standard across platforms—most companies reserve the right to promote their own stuff even in paid tiers.

On the “false or misleading information” part, I wouldn’t worry about normal chess opinions. Saying something like “the Grob is the best opening” is clearly opinion or even humor, not harmful misinformation. That rule is more likely aimed at things like scams, impersonation, or deliberately misleading users in a serious way. The wording is broad, though, which gives them flexibility—and that’s what can feel a bit uncomfortable.

Just curious how were you guys notified about the changes? Because I did not receive any notifications

ChatGPT's analysis of red flags and who should accept the new terms:

Here are the 10 biggest red flags across all the policies you shared, with clear impact and whether they’re acceptable.

🔴 1. Broad “misleading information” rule

Impact:Anything can be interpreted as misleading depending on context → risk of moderation or account action.

Accept?⚠️ Acceptable but watch behavior
→ Common, but requires self-awareness when posting.

🔴 2. “No Ads” still includes Chess.com promotions

Impact:You pay for “no ads” but still see internal promotions → expectation mismatch.

Accept?✅ Acceptable
→ Industry standard, just marketing wording.

🔴 3. Strong arbitration clause (JAMS + Utah + mass arbitration limits)

Impact:

• Hard to sue

• No class actions

• Company has advantage in disputes

Accept?⚠️ Acceptable but important
→ Standard, but reduces your legal power.

🔴 4. Financial liability for fair play violations

Impact:You could:

• lose prizes

• owe damages

• face legal escalation

Accept?⚠️ Acceptable ONLY if you don’t compete seriously
→ High risk for competitive players.

🔴 5. Heavy monitoring in competitive events

Impact:

• camera surveillance

• screen recording

• environment inspection

Accept?⚠️ Conditional
→ Accept only if you’re okay trading privacy for competition.

🔴 6. Account = everything (loss of access)

Impact:If your account is closed:

• you lose courses

• you lose progress

• no refunds

Accept?❌ Weak point
→ Biggest structural risk for paying users.

🔴 7. You don’t own purchased content (courses)

Impact:

• no downloads

• no backups

• access can disappear

Accept?⚠️ Acceptable for casual use
→ Not ideal for long-term investment.

🔴 8. Data collection expansion (biometrics, IDs, SSN)

Impact:

• sensitive data collected in some cases

• more tracking transparency but also more scope

Accept?⚠️ Conditional
→ Fine for casual users; higher concern for competitive/prize users.

🔴 9. Platform license over your content

Impact:

• you own content

• they can use, display, keep it

• deletion may not fully remove it

Accept?✅ Acceptable
→ Standard across all major platforms.

🔴 10. Content + account retention after deletion

Impact:

• posts may remain (anonymized)

• some data retained

• username may remain in certain cases

Accept?⚠️ Acceptable but notable
→ Common, but limits full control over your data.

🧠 Final Perspective

Safe for:

• casual players

• learning

• social interaction

Medium risk:

• heavy forum participation

• paid content investment

High risk:

• competitive events

• prize money

• automation / technical use

🧾 Bottom line

• 7/10 are industry standard

• 3/10 are meaningful risks:

  • account dependency

  • financial liability

  • surveillance in events

👉 Most users can accept these—but should adjust expectations and behavior.

A pop-up window appeared with a link to the new policy when I logged in my account.

@Hanibaaal, your 10 red flags are frightening.

Maybe one day I will see it too

I think you have to disconnect and then re-log in your account to see it.

Nah, I am lazy

My (opinion) final perspective: Chatgpt makes ya stupid.

Eric Rosen ahh chess player

So will they actually, finally, ban people who just stops playing in a lost position?