Talk:Chess.com/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Recreation

Well let's see how it goes. For anybody who wasn't aware, there was a user, User:Wiki brah who, along with an army of sock puppets, was the major detractor/deletion pusher for previous versions of the article. Be wary of single-purpose accounts.

I copied content from MaxBrowne's sandbox (thanks). He also compiled the list below that makes sense to copy here:

Potential sources

--— Rhododendrites talk |  16:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I had reverted an edit by one of the socks which lead me to the sock case which lead me here. That said, this article is in desperate need of sourced content if it is to survive. The web ranking that is there now is a primary source. Most of the possible sources above are trivial mentions: Chess players salivating over a Kardashian ("one of the most beautiful women in the world") in columns that are little more than their blogs is not a solid basis for an article. Summary: Kim Kardashian tweets she wants Aronian to teach her to play. Allebest, owner of chess.com, recommends Sam Shankland. How would we work that in? "Chess.com is the most visited chess website in the world. Its owner follows Kim Kardasian on twitter."?
Outside of that, we have two site reviews at about.com and a video I didn't watch. About a year ago, this article was deleted for lack of sourcing. At the moment, we need to find evidence that isn't the case now. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Yikes. Open mouth, insert foot. I hadn't seen the additions to the article since last night when I wrote that bit above. It seems to be solid now. (The Kardashian sources above still make me throw-up in my mouth a bit, though.) - SummerPhD (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah the Kim Kardashian stuff is pretty trivial, if anyone wants to try to work that into the article they're welcome (but it will probably get removed). Chess in general doesn't get much coverage in mainstream media so it's not surprising that there are few sources. This article is in fact better sourced than the majority of chess-related articles in wikipedia. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Henry Despres

I don't want to cite the NY Post in this article because it's a very low brow paper, but we can probably work this story into the article if we find a better source. http://nypost.com/2013/11/16/chess-coach-im-not-a-cheater/ MaxBrowne (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Apparently they banned Yelena Dembo a few years ago too... only sources are blogs and forums however. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again

Disappointing that an admin has responded to the blatant canvassing by a banned user. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Put your money where your mouth is, MaxBrowne. You may have noticed that said admin has also blocked said banned user's latest sock. Or what else were you talking about? Drmies (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    MaxBrowne is currently discouraged and is looking to be cheered up. (So are you sure challenging him at this time is helpful?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    So besides direct personal attacks you've also added trolling to your arsenal? MaxBrowne (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    If that was a direct personal attack, or even an indirect personal attack, I'll eat it. The editsum was extremely clear in it's context it was all and only about your edit-warring and skipping WP:BRD. The fact that's all you got shows that you have *nothing*, meanwhile your recent vandalism, "anal" comment re Toccata, edit-warring, and misleading + WP:POLEMIC user page should shed a pretty accurate light on you without even trying. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, Ihardlythinkso, that wasn't a nice thing to say, but it's not much of a personal attack. I doubt that I can cheer anyone up (I just watched the last hour of Saving Private Ryan...), but this wasn't much of a challenge: I have no doubt that they were talking about me, and if someone is going to make such charges they should name names. It's the honorable thing to do. BTW, that's a pretty silly edit war y'all are waging there. Strange how such a peaceful game provokes such animosity, and I wish you all the best with it. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. If you have concerns regarding various editors' editing, please take those concerns to the appropriate forum. Please limit discussion on this page to discussing improvements to the article and cheap shots at Santa Claus.

IMO there is only one question here, at the moment: Is the subject notable. Some decent sources can certainly turn this around. At the moment, though, I don't reasonably see a "keep". - SummerPhD (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

single purpose accounts

WP:AGF but given the duration and extent of Wiki Brah's sock puppetry campaign against this article, single-purpose accounts making bold edits nonetheless raise an eyebrow. Case in point, these less than egregious edits elaborating on the accusations against the site and removing two paragraphs of features as unsourced. --— Rhododendrites talk |  23:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I restored the "unsourced" material as it is uncontroversial and easily verifiable. If the material is disputed, proper practice is to tag it with {{cn}}. In this case, it is completely ok to use chess.com itself as the source as it is a simple, neutral description of the site, and anyone who visits the site can verify it for themselves. I don't think it's necessry to provide refs and footnotes for every single statement in an article. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, Rhodenite, can you please explain this "campaign" against this article? Are you saying that the people that commented "delete" on the last AFD, and the admins that summarily deleted the article before that were well-placed sockpuppets? Gigi Powers (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
A single person was found to be operating many accounts to influence articles concerning chess.com, certain members, and deletion discussions thereof. Often these would be single purpose accounts which would only appear to edit said articles -- and who demonstrate considerably more knowledge about the history of these articles and Wikipedia processes than the average new user. --— Rhododendrites talk |  01:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I'm not saying I don't believe you, but how long has this person been operating many accounts to influence articles concerning chess.com and certain members? Do you have any edit histories that show this behavior? Are you saying that this article wouldn't have been deleted the first time but for this one person? If so, can you provide edit histories for that? Did other longstanding users also vote to delete the article? What you are saying sounds very conspiratorial. Gigi Powers (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki brah. --— Rhododendrites talk |  23:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The vandal in question have been around for several years, with chess edits specifically mentioned as early as February of this year. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki brah/Archive for details. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Gigi Powers is actually Wiki brah himself. Surely he wasn't that hard to spot? Toccata quarta (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Well of course it certainly seems that way, but I don't see that the account is banned yet...? --— Rhododendrites talk |  13:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Take it to SPI. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 14:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Golly, I hope I'm not this Wikibrah. I checked the "Sockpuppet Investigations/Wikibrah" and it wasn't quite as scintillating as I had hoped. Seems like a bunch of penny-ante complaining from Transformers people in 2010 and Chess people in 2013. You guys made this chap sound like he was some kind of evil mastermind, manipulating things behind the scenes from his underground lair. Even the last deletion discussion linked at the top of this page doesn't show him doing much of anything. Did he really get this article deleted in the past in some underhanded way? Gigi Powers (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
FYI: banned. --— Rhododendrites talk |  21:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Utterly shocking. Next thing you know someone will tell me there isn't a Santa Claus. To save people time, the new AfD comes from User:Drmies, an admin (not that that should sway your vote, just that he isn't a sock). Yes, the AfD will likely attract a new sock. Whatever. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no Santa Claus. There is, however, a Sinterklaas, and there may be a Zwarte Piet or two. Toccata quarta, you should be on payroll. Yes, it sucks if a longterm sock wants an article deleted and they're right--in this case they are, as far as I'm concerned. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Might need an autoblock on Wiki brah, the sock farm's growing. Or get a checkuser to block the IP to stop more. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 12:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Problem with that sort of measure is it hits a lot of innocent people. A Wikipedia admin accidentally blocked the whole of Qatar once. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Qatar's been blocked a lot of times, see the block log. An autoblock might be necessary because with an IP block existing unblocked socks would still be active. And with a sock farm, those two are the only two ways to prevent it. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 12:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Posting by "batgirl"

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/what-does-it-mean-when-a-forum-topic-gets-quotlockedquot?page=2

Some possible sources here: " Out of curiosity, I looked this up : Chess.com is actually not mentioned in Patrick Wolff's "Idiot's Guide to Chess," but is casually mentioned in James Eades' "Chess for Dummies." Alexey Root also casually mentions this site in "The Living Chess Game" and in "People, Places, Checkmates: Teaching Social Studies With Chess." It's also mentioned in "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Backyard Adventures" by Nancy Worrell (in the appendix for resources about games, as the source where people can find good information about chess). "How to Make Your Long-Distance Relationship Work and Flourish" by Tamsen Butler actually suggests chess.com and a good meeting place to separated couple to connenct and play some chess. "Real Kids, Real Stories, Real Change: Courageous Actions Around the World" by Garth Sundem, suggests chess.com as does "Computers For Seniors For Dummies" by Nancy Muir and "Ensembles in Machine Learning Applications" by Oleg Okun, Giorgio Valentini, Matteo Re. Surprisingly, I found two books that cited two blog articles I posted on chess.com. Go figure. "MaxBrowne (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

A couple more books that mention chess.com (in a business context): [1] MaxBrowne (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
searching for the creator or chess.com inside the books to find out what they say results in zero hits for any content so they are not really helpful in actually determining notability unless someone can find a hard copy and find where and how chess.com is included. it could just be from a kind "thank you" in the acknowledgments or from a promo blurb written by the creator.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Include or not?

I know it's the NY Post but court records (also linked in the previous version of the article) confirm the story. Possible to argue WP:UNDUE. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

just because something is true doesnt mean it belongs in the article. this is just a run of the mill lawsuit that all companies face, many times. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
ok but your original edit summary said it was an unreliable source. I don't like the NY Post either but maybe that's just my liberal bias. It's not an unreliable source per se, just one to be used with caution (like the Daily Mail or any number of British tabloids). The court records confirm the substance of the article so it can be considered a reliable source in this instance. So the issue is whether or not including this information is giving it undue weight. I'm neutral on this issue. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
"Just because it's true" is a rhetorical move that can be used to denigrate anything. While I'm not entirely sold on its notability either, "run of the mill lawsuit that all companies face, many times"? Lawsuits about chess, lawsuits about cheating, lawsuits because of cheating accusations, defamation of chess players' character, lawsuits based on events on a gaming site ... what about that is run of the mill? Or do you mean that companies are sued for libel all the time? (In which case I'd say yes -- and there are new Hollywood blockbusters released all the time -- what's frequency have to do with notability here)? "All companies face"? McDonald's? Joe's Cleaning? All gaming sites? Let's stick to using reliable sources for determining notability rather than legal novelty evaluations. --— Rhododendrites talk |  06:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Can I just point out that I've twice tried to view the Techcrunch link and both times it has frozen my computer and dumped a load of malware on me. I'd strongly recommend that we delete that particular link. Maybe I'm the only one using a susceptible browser around here ... but nevertheless, the general public will do too and it may not say a lot about Techcrunch's integrity. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
If your getting malware it's likely on your own computer. Google says it's fine http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=TechCrunch.com. Many times on Wikipedia users report at WP:VPP and elsewhere that an article as having malware but in almost all cases it's the user computer not Wikipedia. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 13:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
No, it's obviously nothing to do with Wikipedia, just the website that the article directs you to. Brittle heaven (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Does the TechCrunch article direct you somewhere? It doesn't for me. Sounds like you have malware in your browser. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 14:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Norton and Bullguard also say Techcrunch is safe, the malware is probably already on your computer. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 14:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Not at all. Used Bullguard to clear after the first time I went to Techcrunch. Surfed the net for two weeks with no problems, re-visited Techcrunch - and it happened exactly the same again. That can't really be a coincidence in my book, but believe what you like. It just means I can't take an informed view of the article, if Techcrunch is an important source; but no problem, I'm sure you'll all do a fine job in my absence. Brittle heaven (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
It's probably just that it's a "busy" site with lots of widgets, rather than anything malicious. Older computers might have a problem with it. See this review: https://safeweb.norton.com/reviews/1888. Disable flash maybe? MaxBrowne (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you want to call tracking cookies 'widgets' ... but Bullguard calls them malware. Thanks, but I'll give this one a miss. Chess.com holds no particular interest for me. Brittle heaven (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Controversies:

An edittor has keeping removing this well sourced and well written statement: The site has come under fire from former employees and current members who allege that the site runs on a Fascistic business model and that the site deploys bots and sockpuppets on unrelated sites and discussion forums in order to artificially boost the site's visibility and reputation. It is sourced. Also, the author "David Pruess" is a renowned expert in his field making his writings relaible. Deceptobot67 (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a lie and blatant attack on chess.com. Dark Sun (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Deceptobot67 seems to have taken to personal attacks and warnings rather than defending this ridiculous paragraph. I'm reverting again. Among other issues is WP:BRD. You boldly added this, I reverted. It is now up to you to defend it on the talk page and gain consensus. Edit warring is not a good option. --— Rhododendrites talk |  19:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Funny how a simple, truthful, neutral, and sourced addition to an article about a freaking internet Chess site has caused these people to be practically stumbling over themselves to uphold Chess.com. "That's a lie! Blatant attack on chess.com!" Yeah, get some perspective in life. And to Rododendroman, I am defending it, the passage is sourced, David Pruss is an expert in his field. That source is a blog but its no less flimsy than any of the other sources in the article, whether you want to admit it or not. You were the person that found that source anyway. Deceptobot67 (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
If it's truthful and neutral I'll eat my hat. If you think it is you obviously have some WP:COMPETENCE issues. The source is unreliable and does not support it. Dark Sun (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I could use some support on my talk page. After Decepto posted a couple warnings, an admin decided to tell us both to stop editing the article in a rather bizarre move. --— Rhododendrites talk |  20:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
You should stop reverting, you're on 3RR and someone might report. You can still edit though. Dark Sun (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)...There is nothing controversial at all about removing this paragraph. No way it could be interpreted as vandalism to revert it, and in fact completely within the scope of what's supposed to happen. There is no way any group at any noticeboard is going to disagree with removing it. Whether it's truthful is not relevant. It's just a lousy paragraph with a poor source to justify it's accusations -- and even if it were a good source, it would be entirely undue to feature these grumblings in the article. --— Rhododendrites talk |  20:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not at 3RR. I removed part for one reason, removed another part for another reason, he undid the latter, I reverted. The end. --— Rhododendrites talk |  20:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Did any of Wiki brah's accounts post attacks like this or did they just lobby to get it deleted? Dark Sun (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Hey what do you know, this was Deceptobot's first edit! Again demonstrating a great deal of knowledge of WP policies, again employing sarcastic nonsense as rationale... --— Rhododendrites talk |  20:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Requested SPI. FYI: In addition to Gigi Powers (see above), User:MikeLowryFanatic2 is also a banned sock -- both created just to defend the inclusion of these accusations just like [allegedly so far], Deceptobot67. --— Rhododendrites talk |  21:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am not against negative or controversial information about this website appearing on its wikipedia page provided it is properly sourced. Pruess's article is a blog post and doesn't meet the WP:RS criteria. NY Post is an iffy publication but the article in question is supported by court records so details of the court case could be included if the concensus is that to include this information would not violate WP:UNDUE. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree the Despres lawsuit is marginal, but this latest issue was over the other items I removed (I didn't remove the paragraph that uses the NY Post article): a completely unsourced other lawsuit and the employee blog post (which might be a reliable source, but would certainly require additional sources for the subject to amount to anything here). --— Rhododendrites talk |  00:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Update: Deceptobot67 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wiki_brah banned as Wiki brah sock. --— Rhododendrites talk |  00:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Chesskid

I think Chesskid deserves a mention. A single line maybe, and if I can get more sources; a section of it's own. What do you say? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It already has a single line mention. Is there anything more to be said about it? MaxBrowne (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I did not see that. I personally feel, Chesskid deserves a bigger mention. I'm looking for more sources. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

anti-cheating measures and lawsuit

The information is sourced, and a single sentence mentioning that a lawsuit was filed is not giving it "undue weight". MaxBrowne (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the fourth time TRPoD has removed this, without further debating it here aside from the above line, more or less repeated in the more recent edit summaries. I'll point to my response up there, before it turned into a "does techcrunch have malware" discussion somehow. Look at the sources, look at the subject, look at all gaming websites and all lawsuits about cheating policies, all the lawsuits about chess...? There is nothing run of the mill here and it's not undue when it's some of the biggest news published about the site (not to mention something that separates it from other similar sites). --— Rhododendrites talk |  03:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I have opened a dispute resolution process. I'll wait to hear something from a volunteer before I comment further. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I do not believe that it is appropriate to mention a pending lawsuit based on a brief mention in a tabloid newspaper. Businesses get sued all the time, and a large percentage are either not successful or settled quietly out of court. If the suit is successful, and reliable sources report that it has an impact on the business, then I would support mentioning it then. Otherwise, no. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Cullen is correct. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. (As long as one can find & afford an attorney willing to risk her/his license on a frivolous case.) Because a lawsuit has been filed is indeed a fact, but not a fact warranting inclusion in the article. (It is no more than "hearsay" and to include it is ascribing significance by the editors involved that is implicative, thus outside bounds of what is justifiable.) The objections re UNDUE and UNENCYCLOPEDIC were good-faith and also correct. (I thought this is basic re WP inclusion guidelines, I see no valid basis for dispute here, and likewise opening an item at DRN seems absurd by the same basis. What gives?) Ihardlythinkso (talk)
Off topic
Seriously, butt out. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I have every right to comment on the issue, as does any other editor in good standing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
No problem with you or your opinion. Ihardlythinkso used this dispute as an excuse to take a swipe at me, something he does frequently. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

User talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. If you have concerns regarding various editors' editing, please take those concerns to the appropriate forum. Please limit discussion on this page to discussing improvements to the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Chess.com runs chesskids.com?

A website doesn't run another website, the people behind it might. But who actually runs it? Citation require or remove the claim from that article. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 22:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The citation is right there in the article if you care to read it. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
"Chess online is not a new trend with Chesskid.com's parent company, Chess.com, which has 7.3 million members worldwide. " - from Contra Costa Times. Now could you please stop your disruptive editing? MaxBrowne (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this is controversial. In addition to Chess.com branding all over Chesskid, Chesskid is peppered all around chess.com (although it's not on their landing page, just google 'chesskid site:chess.com" and you'll come across all sorts of official statements/pages. Would you ask for a citation saying that Google Maps is operated by the same parent company as Google Search? If someone actually contesting that Chess.com (being the brand and company in addition to the URL, of course) operates Chesskid.com? --— Rhododendrites talk |  23:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Further to that, it is self-evident that in any written description of a website, the source of this information is the website itself. I see this as analogous to describing the plot of a book or film; in this case it is not necessary to explicitly source the information to the book or film, since that is already implied by the text. It would be rather ridiculous to only allow a description of a website into its wikipedia article if it were written in the NY Times. See Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed. For this reason, I'm going to remove the citation of chess.com from the description section. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Citing sources is not optional. Content must be Wikipedia:Verifiability when WP:CHALLENGED. This is community policy, no opt out via a personal essay(Wikipedia:When_to_cite) that holds no weight. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 17:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

"dozens" is not an exaggeration

There are 20 cases listed per page. Go page 100 and you can see that they banned 2000 people in the last 7 weeks. That's over 40 per day on average. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

its primary sourced trivia-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
MB, your numbers are right (I stand corrected). The article didn't say "average", and if presented, it'd either need a corresponding timeframe, or someone to continually monitor to ensure the average estimate continued to be accurate. (I can see why RedPen likes to remove the text altogether.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
It is primary sourced trivia. No, I do not see that 2000 people were banned in the last 7 weeks. I see that 2000 accounts were blocked in the last 7 weeks. As we've seen here, you cannot assume each account is one individual. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Good point also. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Alexa

"According to the Alexa ratings, as of December 2013, it was the most visited chess-related website on the Internet." Is there a better way we can write this to reflect the seemingly important point that most other chess servers do not operate as websites and thus their traffic would not be visible to Alexa? --— Rhododendrites talk |  05:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's true since ICC and playchess have downloadable programs, but that still wouldn't come close to matching chess.com's overall traffic since usually ICC will have around 1500-2500 players online at any given time and playchess usually has 3000-5000. Chess.com's average just for live is 8000-15000. They're paysites so they get less traffic. --ChessFiends (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Regular Contributors

"Regular contributors include Gregory Serper, Bruce Pandolfini, Rafael Leitão, Dan Heisman, Jeremy Silman, Petar Genov and Natalia Pogonina."

Out of those people, the only ones I have seen on chess.com are Heisman, Silman and Pogonina. Were the other ones active in the past but have since left chess.com? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.127.204 (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No, they are writing articles every week. --ChessFiends (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


Off topic chat

Extended content

Unknown Registree

You go to http://www.whois.net/ and type chess.com, their identity is confidential. Why would a chess site not share the identity of the entity that registered it? My account got locked suddenly and I write to them, no response. I even asked them about the owner of the site with no response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.235.50 (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chess.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Number of members

The website claims it is 18+ million. Whether that's accurate or not, it's definitely not 17million. Wikitor007 (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wikitor007: Sorry -- didn't intend to revert the numeric update. I restored the 18, but then, thinking about it, removed the line altogether. Ultimately, what encyclopedic value does that number provide to our readers? They could just decide to create another 20 million accounts tomorrow if they wanted to, after all (i.e. it's not 18 million individual chess players). Thoughts? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Did you know?

Garry Kasparov just joined chess.com! Fennekin&Eevee (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


Chess.com Logo has been deleted

The logo was correctly uploaded and had the proper licensing, so why was it deleted from the article and the two templates noted above? IQ125 (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The logo is a fair use image. Commons cannot host fair use images. They need to go on Wikipedia. Once uploaded, they can only be used sparingly (a logo only on the page about the entity represented by the logo). Userboxes don't qualify, unfortunately.
I went ahead and uploaded a copy of the logo to Wikipedia with a fair use rationale and restored it in the article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Chess.com 2018 Overhaul!

Okay everyone, I tend to pull Wiki sites alongside my activities, and I was stunned that after a flurry around 2-13-2014, this page was nearly ignored! So I am attempting a major "content" update for 2018! My apologies that it's only a Pre-Alpha state! There just was so much to work with, I felt it simply had to at least get started! TaoPhoenix (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I am a little sad my efforts were just wholesale reverted and not tried to even be reworked! I agree I blew out the stlye manual but I was hoping someone would fix. But I had "reliable source" because it was a direct relay of this year's events! And I don't know which words were "weasel". If the reverter only saw the words "most" etc and only spent 45 seconds reverting my hour edit, that's because each case was full of things like "except for the ___ match" and so on.
So I am a little sad. I am typing this while watching Magnus Carlsen - Wesley So Speed Chess championship live. TaoPhoenix (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

User boxes

Hi, I created these two Chess.com userboxes for you if you want them :) IQ125 (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

This user plays on Chess.com as {{{1}}} .

Template:User Chess.com1

This user is a member of Chess.com.

Template:User Chess.com




Sorry How do you insert your username into the Chess.com user template1?

Michael Campbell (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Covid-19 growth

WSJ said chess.com has had a great deal of growth due to the virus lockdown. Can someone add this here?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Speed Chess Championships

Would it be worth adding to the Speed Chess Championship bit under tournaments & events to include the Women's Speed Chess Championship (in partnership with FIDE) as well? I can try to do the work at some point, but I thought I'd mention it. Bradley Northcote (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a social media

it is not s social media Hook0601 (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hook0601, and thanks for this edit. As long as you give an edit summary, you don't need to write on the talk page for every edit you make, but if you do make sure it's clear what change you have made or are proposing. I agree that your edit is an improvement. I've made this talk page section title lowercase, because uppercase comes across as shouting, which is a bit rude. — Bilorv (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Hook0601 (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Revenue, profit...

Hi, I see no figures regarding profit, revenue, of chess dot com. I found $19M. It seems not that much...? Or is it OK? Which source should we use about that? I found some but... I don't know Joachim~frwiki (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Joachim~frwiki: absence of information is usually due to lack of volunteers taking their time to add it rather than deliberate omission. However, I would like to see what sources you have found. It seems to me that revenue information would be useful for showing the scale and scope of the website's reach, but only if this is trustworthy information. — Bilorv (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
@Bilorv: Yes, that is what I meant, who could do that? Because I don't know where to look for verified information. Companies are supposed to publish their figures, at least in France this is how it works, but I don't know the US system. I find this question especially interesting as they celebrate 100.000.000 members! There is a talk here but this is just assumptions: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/z06f71/how_much_is_chesscom_actually_worth/ I found something on a website I cant link here, probably a bad source? I find it amazing that it is so hard to find --Joachim~frwiki (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
@Joachim~frwiki: right, I see. Someone else may have a lead—you could always ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies—but I'm not sure myself. As you say the Reddit thread is not a reliable source and the blacklisted source is almost certainly isn't either. — Bilorv (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Mittens

Hello all. After advice from the teahouse, I have decided to propose an addition to the text here. As I am an outsider to WikiProject Chess, I decided that this was the best way to do this.

So, being caught up in the hype, I started a draft article for Mittens, thinking that whether or not it gets accepted, I would enjoy writing it. Now, it looks like the article would most likely by AfDed very quickly, but I believe would still be a worthwhile addition to this article. So, if anyone could help me with how to implement some of the draft into this article, I would be very happy. Draft is Draft:Mittens (chess engine). Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

April fool's day

I don't want to be banned, so I want to ask, shouldn't we add the following text?

"On 1st of April,2023, chess.com, in an attempt to fool its followers, has announced that Anish Giri would take over as its CEO, posting a funny video about the same on YouTube." TheThunderStruck (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I question whether coverage of an April Fools Day joke is of sufficient importance to be included in the article. If the joke is still being discussed by independent reliable sources for more than a few days, then we can discuss adding something to the article. Donald Albury 18:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
@Endwise sorry for the edit .. lol I cannot believe it was a joke and the reason for the semi-protection, and I did not see it FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
All good, don't worry about it. Endwise (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chess.com/Archive_1&oldid=1218108240"