However, it seems Hansen cannot stream on lichess. Another interesting case is the mysterious Ultimate_SHSL_Gamer, who I suppose is Hikaru Nakamura, basing on his bullet skills and love to play 1. b3. They can play but cannot stream here. I don't see anything absurd in restrictive contracts for playing though, it's just that chess.com seemingly doesn't use such (yet, lol).
@mdinnerspace It's not BS. It has been officially claimed by many of the streamers that they get money by chess.com and in that contract it says that all their videos and streams have to be from chess.com and no other chess site such as lichess.
You don't get it. Claims are being made in the forums, Specifically saying:
"Players sign exclusive contracts to play on only one site."
This claim is false, as players play chess on any site they want.
We are not talking about which platform is used in lessons and streams, but the false claim that players are restricted from where they can play.
This whole mess started with the claim of The Chess Brah's having signed a contract. As yet, no evidence has been presented or statements made confirming such. A few other players have made an announcement, but it remains speculation regarding the Chess Brah's. Eric Hansen was here playing two days ago. Claims were made he closed his account. It is the spreading of rumors that is objectionable. Timid made claims to have spoken to Eric Hansen personally. All fabrications on his part.
Also, these players have a living to make. There is absolutely no need for all the bad-mouthing going on of these professional chess players and their business decisions. The name calling , insults being thrown are uncalled for. Example of an insult and the claim Eric Hansen does not play chess anymore at lichess.
NeverBeenTimid
edited
1 week ago
#16
I had to unsubscribe from chess brahs once I found out they don't play on here anymore. They sold their souls to chess.com. Stupid quislings!
These statements are completely unnecessary. These are professional chess players who deserve respect.
"Players sign exclusive contracts to play on only one site."
This claim is false, as players play chess on any site they want.
We are not talking about which platform is used in lessons and streams, but the false claim that players are restricted from where they can play.
This whole mess started with the claim of The Chess Brah's having signed a contract. As yet, no evidence has been presented or statements made confirming such. A few other players have made an announcement, but it remains speculation regarding the Chess Brah's. Eric Hansen was here playing two days ago. Claims were made he closed his account. It is the spreading of rumors that is objectionable. Timid made claims to have spoken to Eric Hansen personally. All fabrications on his part.
Also, these players have a living to make. There is absolutely no need for all the bad-mouthing going on of these professional chess players and their business decisions. The name calling , insults being thrown are uncalled for. Example of an insult and the claim Eric Hansen does not play chess anymore at lichess.
NeverBeenTimid
edited
1 week ago
#16
I had to unsubscribe from chess brahs once I found out they don't play on here anymore. They sold their souls to chess.com. Stupid quislings!
These statements are completely unnecessary. These are professional chess players who deserve respect.
lichess provides a community service.
chess.com is a business and must show a profit to remain in existence.
cc assuredly feels it is in competition with the other chess sites who all rely on membership fees and advertising dollars.
The model at lichess is completely different. There is no competition for paying $ to top players. They are playing here because of the service. Faster and more reliable. In fact, we hear of very few, if any of late, glitches in service. I read just yesterday, chesscom had to cancel their monthly Titled Tuesday event due to in house "technical problems." Not the 1st time. How embarrassing is that?
In the end, everything will sort out. People find their niche. As chess enthusiasts, we can't fault the professionals for making a living by streaming their product at a site that is willing to pay them. lichess is not "losing out" simply because such activity is not sought after.
chess24 has it's own "exclusive" streamers as Jan and Peter. It is nothing new that professionals earn a living by working for one chess site. Timid simply has a vendetta against the Chess Brah's and has attempted to create a negative atmosphere. He created dozens of accounts on chess.com, months back, calling for staff there to ban the Brahs on the grounds of mult-accounting. Started petitions, dozens of threads bad mouthing and insulting them.
There is no issue with chess professionals making a living by being payed to stream their lessons on a single site.
chess.com is a business and must show a profit to remain in existence.
cc assuredly feels it is in competition with the other chess sites who all rely on membership fees and advertising dollars.
The model at lichess is completely different. There is no competition for paying $ to top players. They are playing here because of the service. Faster and more reliable. In fact, we hear of very few, if any of late, glitches in service. I read just yesterday, chesscom had to cancel their monthly Titled Tuesday event due to in house "technical problems." Not the 1st time. How embarrassing is that?
In the end, everything will sort out. People find their niche. As chess enthusiasts, we can't fault the professionals for making a living by streaming their product at a site that is willing to pay them. lichess is not "losing out" simply because such activity is not sought after.
chess24 has it's own "exclusive" streamers as Jan and Peter. It is nothing new that professionals earn a living by working for one chess site. Timid simply has a vendetta against the Chess Brah's and has attempted to create a negative atmosphere. He created dozens of accounts on chess.com, months back, calling for staff there to ban the Brahs on the grounds of mult-accounting. Started petitions, dozens of threads bad mouthing and insulting them.
There is no issue with chess professionals making a living by being payed to stream their lessons on a single site.
I think you're confused. When people say chess.com has contracts with certain players on where they can play chess, it clearly means where they can play chess when they relay their play to other players through either streaming or uploading videos. On their own time they can of course play wherever they want, but as long as they stream or upload videos, it has to be chess.com.
It clearly means no such thing. The indented impression is clear. The wording was meant to mislead, deception.
All that needs being said is "streaming" , instead the term used is playing.
One can only interpret such statements by the words used. Assumptions can not be made "that clearly the author meant such and such". The author made a statement. It can only be interpreted as written. Timid has a long standing history of deception and making false claims. @FireWorks ...Why don't you join the wannabes? Join in on all the fun?
All that needs being said is "streaming" , instead the term used is playing.
One can only interpret such statements by the words used. Assumptions can not be made "that clearly the author meant such and such". The author made a statement. It can only be interpreted as written. Timid has a long standing history of deception and making false claims. @FireWorks ...Why don't you join the wannabes? Join in on all the fun?
Why are you so rude @mdinnerspace? Several people here have reported your behaviour. Please don't use personal attacks on other such as you have done here, calling people "clowns" and "wannabes". I have reported you as well, please watch your manners.
*blocked*
*blocked*
You can even read on chess.com about the partner stuff. There it exlicitly tells you that "whenever you're streaming chess, we expect it to be on Chess.com, using Chess.com's server, and showing a Chess.com logo in the stream." So yeah, being a partner is giving you benefits but also restricts you from streaming elsewhere.
Obviously we as consumers would like to see them stream here on lichess but they're professionals. Living from chess means they need to make money and as its not so easy to get money unless you're in the absolute elite, you take what you get. I can totally understand that. Still I hope they would at least upload some videos to Youtube. It states on another article that "at least 75% of the videos/content found at your channel(s) use Chess.com". So it should be possible to put some videos (like the Calsen match) on Youtube.
Obviously we as consumers would like to see them stream here on lichess but they're professionals. Living from chess means they need to make money and as its not so easy to get money unless you're in the absolute elite, you take what you get. I can totally understand that. Still I hope they would at least upload some videos to Youtube. It states on another article that "at least 75% of the videos/content found at your channel(s) use Chess.com". So it should be possible to put some videos (like the Calsen match) on Youtube.
I want to share my experience. On Lichess I'm rated between 1750-1950 on bullet. I wanted to try chess.com. I opened an account (with around 1300 rating) and started with players between 1200-1500 that felt very strong, like 1800-2100 players from Lichess. I was still winning but I had a hard time getting to 1600. Goal is to get to 1900 on chess.com and then go back to Lichess and see with what experience I'm left with. I was watching 2000-2200 bullet games on chess.com and in my experience I was noticing blunders that "a lot" of the 1200-1500 players I played against would definitely not make. I don't know, it felt weird. Hopefully this is not just my ego fu***ng with me. Oh! and very rude uneducated players on chess.com.
They sell all the information they can get from you they track you even if your "paid". Just use ad Bock pro , ublock origion and just count
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.