A few months ago Levy and Hikaru both had a little over 1 million subs on Youtube.
Right now Hikaru has 1.6 million and Levy has 2.6 million... an enormous increase.
A few months ago Levy and Hikaru both had a little over 1 million subs on Youtube.
Right now Hikaru has 1.6 million and Levy has 2.6 million... an enormous increase.
I'm not whining or complaining, and I plan to be patient and stick around, playing daily games until I'm confident enough to play rapid......
But I don't understand this:
Most of the changes are behind the scenes and will take time to show clearly. Even then, the difference should basically be no more database overload message, or at least much rarer, if at all.
Of course the changes are "behind the scenes". What else would they be? But why is no one specifying anything about the nature of those changes? What are they? Why should we trust that they'll get this handled? Chess.com is not the first business to experience an explosive surge in demand. And I repeat..... I don't see what they're doing to remedy the problem.
I don't see what they're doing to remedy the problem.
There are so many of these topics that it's hard to remember which have been given this link
https://www.chess.com/blog/CHESScom/chess-is-booming-and-our-servers-are-struggling
I don't see what they're doing to remedy the problem.
There are so many of these topics that it's hard to remember which have been given this link
https://www.chess.com/blog/CHESScom/chess-is-booming-and-our-servers-are-struggling
Thanks.....I'll continue to be patient....and hopeful. Not going anywhere.
Chess.com is pay to win.
there is one iconic player on lichess with that username, chesscomispaytowin ha
anyways yeah the crashes are annoying which make lichess somewhat preferable if you want to be playing chess and not feeling upset but besides that i like both. the site is getting better than ever and the speed from games are very smooth on chess.com and lichess which is pretty cool. overall i really feel like both are having merits and while lichess may rarely crash it still isn't like incredibly better as there will always be a lot of coolness between the two as brothers lol
Chess.com is pay to win.
Try it and see whether that helps your rating. Let the community know.
...
So far, I don't see chess.com doing anything substantial to remedy the problem. So in the meantime, I guess it's just daily games, which is what I'm currently doing.
Most of the changes are behind the scenes and will take time to show clearly. Even then, the difference should basically be no more database overload message, or at least much rarer, if at all.
Strangely was reminded of this.
For no particular reason of course
Yesterday, Lichess had 150,000 users.
Yesterday, Chess.com had 10 million users.
To say that Lichess has "better servers" is to misunderstand the traffic volume between the two.
Agadmator hosted a Christmas bullet tournament on Lichess, 2021, and Lichess' users spiked to 250,000.
Result? Lichess crashed ...
Zactly!
I'm not whining or complaining, and I plan to be patient and stick around, playing daily games until I'm confident enough to play rapid......
But I don't understand this:
Most of the changes are behind the scenes and will take time to show clearly. Even then, the difference should basically be no more database overload message, or at least much rarer, if at all.
Of course the changes are "behind the scenes". What else would they be? But why is no one specifying anything about the nature of those changes? What are they? Why should we trust that they'll get this handled? Chess.com is not the first business to experience an explosive surge in demand. And I repeat..... I don't see what they're doing to remedy the problem.
Basically the site is working on optimizations that will improve database performance (decrease load) and adding systems to spread load to additional systems to ease loads on existing systems.
From a member perspective, a decrease, if not elimination of, 502/ database load messages should occur. That should, in theory, also improve overall performance of the site, even with the higher traffic.
I'm not whining or complaining, and I plan to be patient and stick around, playing daily games until I'm confident enough to play rapid......
But I don't understand this:
Most of the changes are behind the scenes and will take time to show clearly. Even then, the difference should basically be no more database overload message, or at least much rarer, if at all.
Of course the changes are "behind the scenes". What else would they be? But why is no one specifying anything about the nature of those changes? What are they? Why should we trust that they'll get this handled? Chess.com is not the first business to experience an explosive surge in demand. And I repeat..... I don't see what they're doing to remedy the problem.
Basically the site is working on optimizations that will improve database performance (decrease load) and adding systems to spread load to additional systems to was loads on existing system.
From a member perspective, a decrease, if not elimination of, 502/ database load messages should occur. That should, in theory, also improve overall performance of the site, even with the higher traffic.
From optimizing load performance to loading database optimizations, no one gives load optimizing database performances like you do.
In theory, the additional system performance optimizations will improve higher traffic elimination by decreasing, if not eliminating databasation.
Consult your doctor before attempting to increase load performance.
Database optimizations are not intended for use by anyone under the age of 18.
If your performance enhancement lasts for more than 4 hours, look at a picture of Danny.
There are pros and cons for both of them, along with other platforms as well, such as shredderchess.net , freechess.org , etc.
You can use one platform, then try another. After all, the target is to be better at chess, so choose which platform(s) you'll be (personally) suitable in.
Yep, pay attention to details... it's not any fun explaining things to a troll since they get things wrong on purpose, but I agree with paying attention to details.
Are you the troll then? I was showing that bragging about the increase in traffic from January 2022 does not explain the past 26 days. In fact, it has been only about a 1 week I have experienced this 502 disaster.
If you've only experienced it a week, you've either been on during off-peak times or only been here a week. This was posted on January 11th and the load started before then.
I am a user of both chess.com and lichess. I like them both; in some features I prefer the former, in others the latter, but for me they are roughly equivalent.
I am grateful to both of them for the possibility they offer to cultivate my passion. Someone may prefer the first or the second, and any reason is good, but in any case I don't think anyone can prove that one of the two is better than the other, despite all the efforts he can make. Which is the "best" depends on the needs and preferences of each of us.
Thank you Martin for documenting January 11, 2023 instead of the January 2022 link being sent to viewers.
What January 2022 link?
This could just be a marketing ploy. How can we know for certain where these numbers come from? And how do we know they are active users? We need to dig deeper to get the truth than just feed off numbers mentioned in an article.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=chess
In any case, crashing your own servers as a "marketing ploy" is as bad an idea as your trolling attempts.
That link? That's just a year trend from Google on Chess and shows that in general that it was growing slowly in popularity, with a bump in the Summer, and a much bigger jump at the end of the year.
...
So far, I don't see chess.com doing anything substantial to remedy the problem. So in the meantime, I guess it's just daily games, which is what I'm currently doing.
Most of the changes are behind the scenes and will take time to show clearly. Even then, the difference should basically be no more database overload message, or at least much rarer, if at all.