Which one do people prefer? I’ve personally found the chess.com UI to be a lot warmer and more inviting than lichess, but I’m interested to hear people’s opinions
Open source all the way!
I prefer lichess, i like its analysis tools and the dev seems awesome.
definitely lichess
Regarding the UI, I guess it is a matter of personal preference, although in lichess you have all the time controls in the front page, one click away, while chess-dot-com only has 10 min games in the front page, and for any other time control you need several more clicks.
Lichess has unlimited puzzles, which is a huge plus (although it also a huge temptation for procrastination).
chess-dot-com has better educational material, although nowadays there is lots and lots of high quality material elsewhere.
I really like lichess’ open source model. But to be fair, chess-dot-com re-invest a lot in supporting tournaments and content creators, so they are also a force for good in the community.
At the end of the day, they aren’t mutually exclusive. You can use both of them for different things.
Note that Lichess has an amazing openings explorer, a funny and interactive learning section and a cool studies section.
They also organized a lot of videos for learning by topic.
Surely it feels less premium than chess.com, but that could’ve been said about Wikipedia vs Britannica.
Lichess for me is awesome and truly promotes chess for everybody.
Lichess, definitely.
From a technology point of view it’s superb and they have their users and chess as top priority.
people are also much nicer on lichess
I prefer lichess, but most of my friends are on chess.com
Same here, I find lichess to be a smoother experience. Although I prefer the rating system on chess.com as it seems to be more accurate to elo ratings. Overall I prefer lichess for no ads, no subscription pestering, and being entirely free.
The reason people think the Chess.com rating system is more accurate, is because it had used a more standardized default rating, and now the average on the site is closer to that of FIDE, USCF, etc. In reality, ratings are arbitrary numbers, and the only way ratings can be compared is with other ratings in the same system (site, federation). Chess.com actually uses the archaic Glicko-1, as opposed to the newer Glicko-2, which has important modifications in the realm of volatility, meaning the chance a player does something unexpected, and it leads to more accurate ratings, not less. Lichess, on the other hand, has updated to Glicko-2.
While I love the fact that Lichess is free, Chess.com has better UI so mostly I play there.
lichess for sure. I even donate ❤️
Lichess runs much, much lighter than Chesscom. I definitely prefer the UI for things like analysis on Chesscom, but like Lichess more overall. If nothing else the amount of free tools (and 0 ads!) makes me appreciate the ethos of Lichess more. Power to the people.
I mean we already use an open source social media platform, why not go all the way? Lichess is completely free and ad-free. The only thing Chess.com do better is the themes, but that’s about it.
I use lichess but never used chess.com so it’s not a comparison more that I defaulted to lichess since it’s open source.
I am fairly amazed at what it provides though
I use lichess because it’s Foss (and I think the ui is better)
The main advantages I see with chesscom is that it has better theme and piece set options, and I usually don’t have to wait as long for an opponent.
Just a word of thanks for posting this. Hadn’t used lichess.org before but definitely prefer it - the design is no-nonsense but it has equivalent functionality to chess.com, or so it appears. The fact that it’s committed to providing free service and runs on donations seals the deal and I’ll be happy to chip in because I’m switching.
Right? It’s baffling how some people still insist on using Chess.com
Lichess for the studies alone is worth its weight in gold
On Lichess, everything is free, and it has the majority of the features present on Chess.com, even shining brighter in some facets. For example, on Lichess, you can export all of your game with the click of a button (see your profile) into a pgn file, so you’re never stuck to the site. There’s also the analytics page on your profile, that shows you incredibly detailed, filter-able statistics on your play and playstyle. There’s also all the free studies that can teach you countless openings, and concepts too, like the Lucena/Philidor positions. I’ve played, and spoken to hundreds of people (I used to run a chess club) about the differences between the sites. People seem to believe that cheaters are less prominent on Lichess than on Chess.com. Also, you don’t have to pay for analysis, BUT you don’t get access to briliant moves. Honestly, if Lichess added brilliant moves, I think tens of thousands would finally flock over. But brilliant moves aren’t a very rigid concept, as “better than engine” moves are basically impossible, and it’s just an algorithm set to determine whether a move was interesting in the eyes of the developers or not. And it’s probably patented. Who knows.
People also complain about Lichess’s ui for some reason. They say it’s too archaic. Anyway there’s a plugin for Firefox and Chrome, of course, to fix that. I used it for a while and it’s nice.
There’s also the whole world of rating. I’ve heard so many people complaining that Lichess ratings are “inflated”, and they use that very word. They cite Chess.com ratings as being more accurate, but accurate to what? Accurate to FIDE/USCF is what they mean, and the basis of that argument is upon system-to-system comparisons of rating, or in other words, comparing ratings between one website/federation and another website/federation, which does not work. Rating systems are finicky things, and the rating curve of a system is dependent completely on its players. Just setting an average rating is not enough. Every player counts. People also think of Chess.com’s rating system as better objectively than Lichess’s, but the opposite is actually true. They both use a variation of Mark Glickman’s Glicko rating system, but Chess.com uses the archaic Glicko-1, whereas Lichess uses the newer Glicko-2. Glicko-1 is archaic because it doesn’t include the volatility field in a player’s rating, which represents the chance that the player creates an upset (losing to a much lower rated player, or winning against a much higher rated player), and it’s important in calculations. For those who still are insistent on system-to-system rating comparisons, there is a Firefox and Chrome extension that puts Chess.com rating equivalents side-by-side with the Lichess ratings on the Lichess website live. (For more information on Glicko-2, see Mark Glickman’s Paper).
The main reason, other than brilliant moves, for people using Chess.com, in the hundreds I’ve spoken to, is the fact that they had heard of Chess.com first, started paying for it, and now don’t want to move because they’ve already committed themselves. That’s basically it.
