Express if you like or do not like the new version of the site

Well I don't know if I am obtuse or not. But it was my impression that if you rewrote the code, the features were different.

Does that make me obtuse? 

Perhaps I am too obtuse for chess.com?

Windows10 of chess

       "As I said, I can't imagine".            There's your problem right there!

"We are making some improvements right now that we hope to have out early next year." (7 Days).

chess.com staff have criticised the ongoing alternative poll I organised

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/v3-v-v2

as its less than one % of members and therefore can't be taken as a yardstick,

Fair enough.....

Chess.Com at the flick of a switch can poll the entire membership in a once and for all census of opinion ,Question is why aren,t they doing that now ,afterall they've been bombarding us with V3 propagana for 2.5 years ,don't they want to know if their pitch has

worked .?

Is it an ostrich approach to commerce in case they got it wrong and don,t want to admit it even to themselves Chess.Com advises us' V2bees 'to bite the bullet' (tinny)*

,"DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO" translate in Latin and use as chess.coms mantra

very woody word obtuse ,like 'gorn' or 'erogenous zone' not (tinny)* at all ,shreik...

'Monty Pythons greatest sketch ever' :-)

JustADude80 wrote:

Well I don't know if I am obtuse or not. But it was my impression that if you rewrote the code, the features were different.

Does that make me obtuse? 

Perhaps I am too obtuse for chess.com?

Joined 7 days ago, seems to know awfully lot about Chess.com. Tell me, why was your previous account banned?

oh ho ,:-)

Take a respite for one day.  Let's reconvene after Christmas. 

I use to play over three years ago but I gave up because of the quality of play and players. I was even a subscriber for a short time. I came back because I heard of the new version so I wanted to see if they did anything to address the quality play and I observed absolutely nothing was done. Fair players get penalized while the other sorts get rewarded in all manner. It is frustrating for players who are simply looking to enjoy a game of chess against another player. So be it. I'm going back to practicing piano and table tennis. Why would I possibly subscribe for such quality of play?

Merry Christmas Spacebux.  

I use to play over three years ago but I gave up because of the quality of play and players -

I'm not sure what you mean by "quality of play", were your opponents too bad? So much so that you felt bored to play them? Or were they way too strong for you? Either ways, the rating system should have corrected itself over time and you should have eventually been paired with people of similar strength. Or are you trying to say that you're too strong for anyone on this site and no one can offer you a worthy challenge? If so, I'd be really impressed, however this is a little difficult to believe.

Also what does "quality of players" mean? Were they rude to you? Were you harassed in live chess to such an extent that you decided to leave the site? I find this reason very trivial, having played over 3000 bullet games, I might have come across hardly 5 to 10 people who have misbehaved, they get blocked instantly so I never have to see them again. Did you find difficulty in finding the Block button? Or was every opponent you played rude to you? I find this a little hard to believe too.

Fair players get penalized while the other sorts get rewarded in all manner -

What other sorts get rewarded? Can you explain a little more?

From what I've seen, it is no where near a complete rewrite. It looks to me like most of the core code was left untouched-

I'm not sure where you were able to gain access to Chess.com source code, can you post a link or something because I really want to go through it too. Oh, or were you just guessing? It does looks like you were guessing. If it was just a guess, can you explain what made you come to the conclusion that the code was left untouched? I'm really looking forward for this answer.

But the structure remains the same and the essential issues left unaddressed -

Again, can you name those issues that were left unaddressed?

The play value, which I guess most players care most about has been reduced or remained the same-

I'm not sure what you mean by play value, but if you're referring to live chess then I can assure you that it is definitely a lot lot lot better than V2.

Do they have any idea what it means to bring value and quality to a subscriber? It is the one and only thing hugely successful sites focus in on- 

Does a site that has survived and grown over a span of 10 years, a site in which 7000 accounts are created every hour qualify as a successful site in your opinion? Or do you think you can do much better, it seems like you know a lot about how to build a hugely successful site from the ground up, heck, you can even make comments about a website's source code without even looking at it. So, what are you waiting for? Go ahead and build a website of your own, you can even compete with Chess.com and become the best chess site in the world. But let's face it, if you knew how to do that, you would've done it already instead of whining about the product of someone's hard work.

I cannot imagine one v reason why I would all of a sudden say now it's worth it based upon the new design-

Go through #2582 [page 130] where I've explained not one, but 15 reasons why V3 is better than V2. 

If you don't know what quality of play means then you haven't played chess.com. I am playing on another site, (will not mention which site or of deference to the owners of this site), where quality is taken very seriously and where play more closely feels like OTB play. I really enjoy the games on the other site. I would compare Chess.com with the Wild Wild West World of eBay vs. the other chess site which resembles the more quality oriented Amazon site. Just a totally different playing experience between the two sites. If anything, Chess.com has deteriorated since last play as low quality pushes out quality. Both kind of sites have their adherents. Chess.com is not for me and V3 is evidence that quality is not a priority on Chess.com. 

Btw, the editor for this forum is driving me crazy. What a mess.

After 184 games with a rating of 1175, I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry reading your statement.

@Nimzo -

Have a cup of Christmas Cheer and give it rest for a day.  ☕☕

@JustADude -

 Merry Christmas!

       This thread was started a yr ago. More reading for you code writers, and code breakers, and family wreckers and......               https://www.chess.com/forum/view/suggestions/the-new-chess-com-review-feedback?page=1

I don't want to put words in hbergson's mouth, but I believe there are a plethora of  instances of what he may be referring to.  (It's also a reason why I do not play much Live chess or Trounaments anymore.)  In my experience, unless the staff are consicuously covering a match or a game, few cheaters are caught in Live play.  There seems to be more vigilance given to online/daily play, though I have no statistics to back that claim up.

(I was about to post someone's play versus Computer4-IMPOSSIBLE as evidence, then I remembered the site's ToS.  I cannot impune others without due process.  So I've retracted my evidence... I'll leave you to search for it yourself.)  His(?) case is not alone.  I've seen several accounts where you have someone playing Far, Far, Far beyond human levels and they seem to continue to be able to play here.  The cheating algorithms here are just algorithms... and the cheaters who know this, know how to circumvent detection.  (Again, I would give examples of how this is done, but I won't .. it'd likely be Mod-deleted anyway.)  So, I've resigned to the fact that chess on chess.com is primarily online/daily stuff, where I'm less likely to run into a CPU-assisted player.  Doesn't always happen---I still believe I get between 10~15% of CPU-assisted players in online/daily chess.  But, in Live chess, it seems to be higher, more like 25~30%.  In tournaments, for whatever reason, that percentage feels even higher.

To your second point, NimzoM, past success does not portend future success.  Some like to point to 'track records' in the stock markets around the world; I have a different philosophy towards investment ideals.  I believe a company must have a current, competitive product to survive in to the future.  Few companies seem impervious to that fact; I doubt chess.com is one as well.  

Merry Christmas!

I put down my AK to hurl my own poop at these whiny babies.