|
|
|
|
|
|
by simondedalus
3141 days ago
|
|
|
in what fantasy world is chess.com more "serious" than the ICC? the one where attracting a couple super GMs to play promotional tournaments is more "serious" than having thousands of titled players online? not to mention the superior autopairing system. serious: ICC, for the competition.
casual: lichess, for the dramatically superior UI and value than any other site
edit: the personal analytics alone make lichess superior to chess.com and other long time inferior sites like chesscube. playchess and chess.com are relics, though chess.com survives on promos and articles and such. |
|
|
You might be right that ICC is more serious but chess.com has been making great strides in providing nifty web and online apps.
chess.com sponsors online and regular OTB tourneys like the recent Isle of Man super Swiss, not sure what ICC does.
I feel that ICC is the one that is a relic from 1990s.
In all fairness I had not played on ICC in 10 years ever since they tried to blackmail me in ordering a membership lest my 10 years of tens of thousands of stored games on them would vanish. (I started on ICC when Sleator split/took the code from original ICS in mid 1990s).
I just checked ICC online presence and played a few games as a guest, there was 1 GM and one IM online.
Even lichess has more titled players than that.
My bias is that chess.com offered me a full membership as a lowly FM while ICC didn't offer anything but blackmail.
Again, I could be wrong, but the impression to me is that ICC is still sleeping on its laurels from late 1990s.
Another note is that all the other chess sites (lichess, chess.com, playchess) have a notably more international feel.