Game review changes are horrible

He wonders.

It was discussed briefly on the last State of Chess.com broadcast by Danny. Upper level staff are certainly aware that not everyone like the changes but they are also aware a lot of other site level usage and feedback channels that are not publicly available.

Individual staff aren't making major changes that aren't also being approved by top level staff. @erik is also a user of the site and is very involved in site decisions and updates.

Well, it's only good if I was actually wrong. Not sure it changes anything tho. Somehow, somewhere, something is wrong in the inbuilt of it all, since bricks keep falling on our head like rain in September and fixes are very slow or never happen.

I don't have to do anything. When I dislike a change or design, I provide that feedback and have posted about such situations in the post. Not everyone is going to like all changes and the site has to decide how to handle feedback and how to move forward and they can't always satisfy everyone

Them guys need to understand that perpetual changes are not a goal by itself.

The whole goal is growing chess. That includes adding and/or modifying features that will aid that.

But who said chess needs to grow? Do you think something good will have been achieved the day every person on the planet "finally" plays chess? I feel lucky you guys are not trying to grow ski or ice skating, I can't imagine the increase of snow and frost in Winter...

They are dangerous, these tenants of perpetual growth within a finite system...

just checked again, yup, still sucks

how does turning game review into a giant turd grow chess? asking for a friend

Everybody knows about Google and how brilliant they are, how smart, skilled, efficient, bla bla bla.

Many years ago, I've been at the vanguard of exploration for new ways and methods to hack. It was the firsts steps of "social engineering", and the general public never heard of it. That type of hack has the perk, it does require absolutely no coding skills. It only takes patience, imagination, some luck, and some motivation.

One of the first major breaches in the security of email accounts that got identified and tested, is the famous "security question" created so one could recover their email account in case they'd forgot or lost the related recovery email account.

For some reason, when filling up the security question, many felt compeled to type the true answer to the question they picked, and to the question "Who's your favourite uncle?", they'd use the actual name of one of their uncles. They acted as if typing some fantasy answer (for right answer to give later) would be a crime, and that, because people tend to identify owners of websites to some lawfull authority of some sort, that would have the power to sue them in court, would they dare lie to it. Even software engineers fall for it...

And finding out the names of your relatives on the Internet, if the hacker knows your real name for any reason, is often very easy. The US phone book, for an example, is a goldmine for that task.

So, genius Google, in order to reduce the severity of that security breach, introduced a novelty: now you would have access to the security question, only if the account was not used in the past 24 hours.

Alas, the effort was noble, but actually generated a new security breach: now it became possible for anyone, any stranger, to check if you used your email account in the past 24 hours. And by doing so every day for a week or so, to know if you used that email account all the time, sometimes only, or never. Hence, one would know if it was worth the effort to try to crack it open. Valuable information indeed, for the hacker.

And this is how, when it comes to computers and informatics, very easily, smart turns out dumb.

You'd think they've learn the lesson after decades of trial and errors. But no, they never did, and they never will. They actually don't need to: we keep paying.

You may not agree with that desire but that's one of the site's goals.

And that's a goal that leads to nothing good. Just like the harmfull and unrealistic goal of perpetual economical growth that is right now killing us all through pollution, global warming, and ressources exhaustion.

Fr

I would ask the developers to remember that the dark UI is essential for players who are low vision, that is, are vision-impaired. For low vision players, a light patch on the screen is absolutely blinding.

There was literally nothing wrong with game review

It's fun and learning

if you compare it to the old game review you would've understood what we were talking about.

if the new game review was the only game review that chess.com had, we wouldn't've blamed them.

I forgot about the game review

Haven't played on this website for a long time

its the toxic kid 🗣️