I play my daily games on Chesscom and play real-time chess on Lichess. Chesscom has a better experience with team matches for daily games, so one can play and contribute to a national team or a team of friends. As for real-time chess, Lichess is better for me, the interface is light and I can focus on chess.
Lichess is both free like free bear and free like freedom because it is open source. It is much more accessible and therefore in my view better. (In chess dotcom you have to pay to be able to analyse your games and solve puzzles)
@XiangGuo818 said in #1:
> Perante uma derrota, a probabilidade de um jogar desistir é menor (muito menor) no lichess do que chess.com. Até pode ser o mesmo jogador, tem diferentes comportamentos nos dois sites.
> Jogar no chess.com é como se fosse um restaurante e no lichess é apenas um Bar para café.
Jeg synes at Lichess er bedre enn chess.com, men det er mitt valg, jeg vet at de fleste sjakkspillere jeg vet liker chess.com, en grunn er at de har kjøpt premium, men begge nettsider er bra og, jeg like lichess, men du kan også like chess.com
And why is almost everybody writing in other languages?
> Perante uma derrota, a probabilidade de um jogar desistir é menor (muito menor) no lichess do que chess.com. Até pode ser o mesmo jogador, tem diferentes comportamentos nos dois sites.
> Jogar no chess.com é como se fosse um restaurante e no lichess é apenas um Bar para café.
Jeg synes at Lichess er bedre enn chess.com, men det er mitt valg, jeg vet at de fleste sjakkspillere jeg vet liker chess.com, en grunn er at de har kjøpt premium, men begge nettsider er bra og, jeg like lichess, men du kan også like chess.com
And why is almost everybody writing in other languages?
I think that lichess.org and chess.com is compared to Lichess.com being the big market like Kiwi and Chess.com would be coop (I'm comparing stores in Norway) and both are useful, Chess.com is more prefered but that doesn't mean that the cheap prices and not so big store is bad
So they named their big store after New Zealand?
@Menneske said in #33:
> Jeg synes at Lichess er bedre enn chess.com, men det er mitt valg, jeg vet at de fleste sjakkspillere jeg vet liker chess.com, en grunn er at de har kjøpt premium, men begge nettsider er bra og, jeg like lichess, men du kan også like chess.com
> And why is almost everybody writing in other languages?
Jeg er enig i at Lichess og chess.com begge har sine egne fordeler og ulemper, og at det i stor grad kommer ned til personlig preferanse. Imidlertid vil jeg påpeke at mens det kan være sant at mange sjakkspillere som jeg kjenner liker chess.com, er dette ikke nødvendigvis en ubetinget indikasjon på at nettsiden er bedre enn Lichess. På lik linje som mange andre ting i livet, kan vi ofte finne oss selv i posisjon der vi har en tendens til å favorisere de tingene vi har investert i, og dette kan også gjelde for premium-abonnementer på chess.com.
Likevel, uansett om en person foretrekker Lichess eller chess.com, kan det ikke benektes at begge nettsidene er bra og tilbyr en rekke muligheter for sjakkspillere. Derfor er det viktig å huske på at det ikke bare er en persons valg som betyr noe, men også hva som fungerer best for dem selv.
> Jeg synes at Lichess er bedre enn chess.com, men det er mitt valg, jeg vet at de fleste sjakkspillere jeg vet liker chess.com, en grunn er at de har kjøpt premium, men begge nettsider er bra og, jeg like lichess, men du kan også like chess.com
> And why is almost everybody writing in other languages?
Jeg er enig i at Lichess og chess.com begge har sine egne fordeler og ulemper, og at det i stor grad kommer ned til personlig preferanse. Imidlertid vil jeg påpeke at mens det kan være sant at mange sjakkspillere som jeg kjenner liker chess.com, er dette ikke nødvendigvis en ubetinget indikasjon på at nettsiden er bedre enn Lichess. På lik linje som mange andre ting i livet, kan vi ofte finne oss selv i posisjon der vi har en tendens til å favorisere de tingene vi har investert i, og dette kan også gjelde for premium-abonnementer på chess.com.
Likevel, uansett om en person foretrekker Lichess eller chess.com, kan det ikke benektes at begge nettsidene er bra og tilbyr en rekke muligheter for sjakkspillere. Derfor er det viktig å huske på at det ikke bare er en persons valg som betyr noe, men også hva som fungerer best for dem selv.
@Schiffskoch said in #25:
> I'm sorry, I see it differently. if we only use our own language out of almost 200 languages on earth, a lot of the content and meaning of the statement is lost through the use of translation programs. Or you only want to talk to the people of your country, but I think that's not sense of an international forum. But maybe I am wrong.
Effective communication is an essential aspect of any discourse, and the ability to clearly articulate one's thoughts and ideas is imperative. When we use our most fluent and proficient language, we are better able to convey our ideas in a precise and nuanced manner, which facilitates a deeper and more meaningful exchange of ideas.
While the unofficial adoption of a common lingua franca such as English can certainly facilitate communication on an international forum, one must recognize that imposing this as a rule has the unintended consequence of hindering the exchange of ideas. Non-native English speakers may not have access to the full range of vocabulary and expressions that are available to them in their most proficient language.
To maintain nuance and precision, rather than enforcing a certain language, it should be encouraged as one option among many, and individuals should be free to choose the language in which they feel most comfortable expressing themselves.
It is the simple recognition of the inherent value of linguistic diversity that drives my argument.
No, this is not “political correctness,” for you see, the concept of “linguistic relativity,” or the idea that the language we speak shapes the way we think, is a powerful one, and it has far-reaching implications for the way we communicate and exchange ideas. When we impose language restrictions, we risk limiting the spectrum of perspectives and experiences that can be represented, and marginalize those ideas that do not arise in the dominant language.
Thus, rather than being naively tolerant or “nice,” it is rather a recognition of the importance of linguistic and neurological diversity that informs my decision. An optimally meaningful and productive exchange of ideas occurs when communication is inclusive - when nobody is censored, where all voices are heard, and all ideas are given due consideration.
So, let us embrace the rich tapestry of human language, for it is through this that we can truly flourish and thrive.
> I'm sorry, I see it differently. if we only use our own language out of almost 200 languages on earth, a lot of the content and meaning of the statement is lost through the use of translation programs. Or you only want to talk to the people of your country, but I think that's not sense of an international forum. But maybe I am wrong.
Effective communication is an essential aspect of any discourse, and the ability to clearly articulate one's thoughts and ideas is imperative. When we use our most fluent and proficient language, we are better able to convey our ideas in a precise and nuanced manner, which facilitates a deeper and more meaningful exchange of ideas.
While the unofficial adoption of a common lingua franca such as English can certainly facilitate communication on an international forum, one must recognize that imposing this as a rule has the unintended consequence of hindering the exchange of ideas. Non-native English speakers may not have access to the full range of vocabulary and expressions that are available to them in their most proficient language.
To maintain nuance and precision, rather than enforcing a certain language, it should be encouraged as one option among many, and individuals should be free to choose the language in which they feel most comfortable expressing themselves.
It is the simple recognition of the inherent value of linguistic diversity that drives my argument.
No, this is not “political correctness,” for you see, the concept of “linguistic relativity,” or the idea that the language we speak shapes the way we think, is a powerful one, and it has far-reaching implications for the way we communicate and exchange ideas. When we impose language restrictions, we risk limiting the spectrum of perspectives and experiences that can be represented, and marginalize those ideas that do not arise in the dominant language.
Thus, rather than being naively tolerant or “nice,” it is rather a recognition of the importance of linguistic and neurological diversity that informs my decision. An optimally meaningful and productive exchange of ideas occurs when communication is inclusive - when nobody is censored, where all voices are heard, and all ideas are given due consideration.
So, let us embrace the rich tapestry of human language, for it is through this that we can truly flourish and thrive.
I read what you said, and I thought it was funny, because all the people here are lichess users, and they come here because they don't like chess.com. I'm a chess.com user, and I play lichess occasionally, and I think your behavior makes us think that lichess doesn't have enough players. Of course, I don't think lichess is bad. I may prefer chess.com. By spending money, we can get different results, while lichess is fair but doesn't offer such a comprehensive course
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.