[HN Gopher] Chess.com regional pricing: A case study
___________________________________________________________________
Chess.com regional pricing: A case study
Author : mobeigi
Score : 101 points
Date : 2025-10-06 12:29 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (mobeigi.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (mobeigi.com)
| schnitzelstoat wrote:
| It seems like the US has really cheap pricing compared to Western
| Europe, especially when you consider the poorer countries such as
| Portugal, Italy, Spain etc.
|
| I wonder if they can get away charging higher prices in these
| countries because chess is more popular there.
| mobeigi wrote:
| Great observation! This is definitely something they do. India
| is a good example where the price should be lower based on
| purchasing power, but it's been increased since chess is really
| popular there and they can make more overall profit by
| increasing the membership price.
| beejiu wrote:
| Isn't it the case that US prices are without sales tax, whereas
| all EU/UK prices are inclusive of tax by law?
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| Makes me wonder if the author tried different
| states/providences to see if they have multiple prices per
| country.
| mobeigi wrote:
| I checked several states from the US and some from other
| countries. I did not find any discrepancies within a
| country but I didn't check every combination of course!
| paxys wrote:
| In the US at least sales tax is only going to show up on
| the final checkout page, so this dataset won't have it.
| paxys wrote:
| It looks worse than it is, because:
|
| 1. US prices don't include sales tax.
|
| 2. All prices are shown in USD, which has fallen ~12% in the
| last few months.
|
| Adjust for both of these and Western Europe gets the plans for
| 20% cheaper.
| alberto-m wrote:
| The sales tax is a fair point, but not the currency one.
| American companies are extremely quick to increase the Euro-
| denominated prices when this currency becomes weaker; six
| months would have been more than enough to perform the
| opposite adjustment. Anyway I can see how selling in the
| Europe has more friction (legal risks, costs of translations
| etc.), which must somehow be compensated.
| eps wrote:
| ... _low_ pricing
| Y_Y wrote:
| Chess.com is a scam anyway. Rather than comparing the price of
| Norwegian Chess.cok to Nigerian Chess.con you should be comparing
| to lichess.org. They have a better app and plenty of people to
| play with, without any paywalling or marketing or rent-seeking.
| mobeigi wrote:
| I'm a big fan of lichess! Their developers are also super
| friendly and helped answer my questions when I was using their
| open source projects to build a hobby chess app. I donate
| regularly too.
|
| This post was more about exploring regional pricing using a
| case study and lichess being free in every country wasn't a
| good fit :)
| teiferer wrote:
| > Chess.com is a scam anyway
|
| Is it? How so?
|
| Just because you like an alternative better doesn't make it a
| scam.
|
| Sure they are turning a profit. But when you pay, you get more
| features. You don't need to pay if you don't want those
| features or want them somewhere else.
|
| And they use some money to sponsor events. Titled Tuesday is a
| staple in the worldwide chess community and most top players
| play there. Not really yo make money, but to stay relevant
| (it's great PR to play against Magnus Carlsen and last for more
| than 20 moves or even make a draw) or to have a constant supply
| of really good players which keeps you sharp. They provide
| streaming and top-class commentary for top events. They are
| also involved in tournament sponsorship.
|
| So, please keep the hate to yourself and don't use "scam"
| lightly. You don't need to like them or ever use them. But once
| you come across an actual scam, it would be a pity if you
| burned that term.
| heap_perms wrote:
| Chess.com is fundamentally a scam operation masquerading as a
| premium service. They've built an empire by paywalking
| features that should be free - and ARE free elsewhere.
| Lichess proves every single day that unlimited puzzles, deep
| analysis, opening exploration, and even advanced features
| like studies and cloud analysis don't need to cost a dime.
| They're open-source, ad-free, and completely transparent
| about their finances.
| teiferer wrote:
| So like Windows then? Cause a free alternative exists?
|
| Or farmers markets? Cause you can just grow all those crops
| for free yourself.
|
| Or carpenters? Just get some tools, do your home
| renovations for free.
|
| Or sex workers? Cause you can just go to a bar and get it
| for free.
|
| Oh, they are differences between the free and the pay
| options? The occupy different niches in the marketplace?
| You don't say. Maybe they are not scams after all, just
| cater to different tastes.
|
| (I also prefer lichess over chess.com but that doesn't mean
| I think this is a reasonable argument.)
| heap_perms wrote:
| A better analogy: imagine if someone built a public water
| fountain, then chess.com set up next to it selling the
| exact same water for $100/year while limiting the public
| fountain to 1 cup per day through lobbying. Then they
| sponsored all the popular hydration influencers to only
| drink their bottled water on camera.
|
| > Cause you can just go to a bar and get it for free.
|
| Not at the same convenience, can you ;) So they are
| selling convenience. Chess.com isn't selling convenience
| - both platforms are websites you access identically.
| They're not offering portability or solving a
| distribution problem. They're artificially limiting a
| digital service that costs them essentially nothing to
| provide unlimited access to.
| monkey_monkey wrote:
| How, specifically, are chess.com limiting anyone using
| lichess?
| teiferer wrote:
| > that costs them essentially nothing
|
| If you know how to run such a platform for free, then I'm
| sure you could sell your knowledge for a lot of money.
| And the company running chess.com would be your highest
| paying customer.
|
| In other words, I think you are underestimating the
| effort. Just ask the lichess guys.
| BobAliceInATree wrote:
| That's still not a scam. They tell you what you're paying
| for. If you don't like it, then go somewhere else. There's
| no deception going on.
| hyperhopper wrote:
| So the hecklers selling overpriced trinkets at every
| major tourist attraction in Europe or the US aren't
| scams? I disagree.
| scott_w wrote:
| Unless they're trying to force them on you, no, they're
| not. Them being annoying as fuck doesn't mean they're
| dishonest.
| watwut wrote:
| None of that makes it a scam. It makes it "more expensive".
| ziofill wrote:
| I used to subscribe to chess.com and now I only play on
| lichess, but in all fairness when you subscribe to chess.com
| you don't just get to play games (that you can do for free),
| you get all the videos which I used to enjoy but now I got no
| time.
| zippyman55 wrote:
| I subscribe to chess.com and they do support a large chess
| universe of videos and contests. Still, lichess.org has my
| heart. It's free and the user interface rocks.
| grzaks wrote:
| I was a Platinum subscriber for a few years. It's definitely
| not a scam, but in my opinion, they completely fail at
| detecting cheaters.
|
| It's very frustrating when you lose a lot of games to cheaters.
| I cancelled my subscription and moved to Lichess -- and
| although I still lose games, I don't feel like I'm being
| cheated nearly as often as on Chess.com.
| hartator wrote:
| > The fnf6_diamond_yearly_022025 SKU is particularly interesting.
|
| It irks me when we use "SKU" for SaaS.
|
| Does SaaS has a limited amount of stock of products?
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| it's just a primary key :)
| derekcheng08 wrote:
| Fascinatingly deep study. It shows the hyperoptimization needed
| to build these businesses: from all the work needed to calibrate
| pricing for each country, to technical safeguards like the
| fingerprinting. A lot of work had to be done here.
| remedan wrote:
| > It is the goal of every business to maximise profits. As a
| business, it is your responsibility to price your products in a
| way that will yield the most profit.
|
| This is how the article starts, and it might be somewhat off-
| topic, but I disagree. Plenty of businesses (at least privately
| held ones) have the goal of simply making enough for the owners
| to get by. Not to optimize for the absolute maximum. And why
| should they be responsible to do so?
| emptybits wrote:
| Agreed. Related: the widely held belief that a corporation's
| singular goal is to maximize shareholder value.
| andoando wrote:
| It might not be the case legally, but it is the sole metric
| that stockholders value.
| eCa wrote:
| It's not. Plenty of investors might skip investing in arms,
| petro, cigarettes or betting for moral reasons, even though
| it might yield more money.
| briandoll wrote:
| In short, the leadership team has a fiduciary responsibility to
| their investors. Privately held lifestyle businesses don't, at
| least not as much.
| lesuorac wrote:
| But there's no concrete definition of fiduciary!
|
| One can easily argue that by having flat pricing they're
| doing their fiduciary responsibility because it's setting the
| company up to succeed in the long run through strong consumer
| trust.
|
| One can argue that by having regional pricing they're doing
| their fiduciary responsibility because it's setting the
| company up to succeed by having success in more markets.
|
| The takeaway from Dodge vs Ford [1] is that not fiduciary
| duty means dollars at any cost. It's that you need to have a
| reason that is good for the shareholders. If you don't bother
| to claim it's good for the shareholders then you're not doing
| your fiduciary duty.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
| fluoridation wrote:
| "Shareholder primacy" implies that at any time a decision
| needs to be made that puts the interests of shareholders
| against those of anyone else, the shareholders' should take
| priority. Since pricing affects revenue and revenue affects
| shareholders in some way, pricing should be structured such
| that revenue is maximized. So it doesn't need to be the
| maximum price possible, but it does need to be whatever
| price yields the greatest revenue.
| jszymborski wrote:
| Right, but destroying customer trust will also destroy
| shareholder interests
| hnthrowaway121 wrote:
| But surely it's debatable whether increased short term
| revenue benefiting shareholders this year is better or
| worse than longer term plays with the chance of higher
| returns later, or that avoiding some sources of revenue
| for ethical reasons protects the brand's reputation and
| image in the market.
| fluoridation wrote:
| If a decision puts at odds the interests of two different
| sets of shareholders at two different points in time, why
| should the interests of the more distant one be given
| priority over those of the current one?
| lesuorac wrote:
| Why are they different shareholders?
|
| Trivially, the company can expect that it's current
| shareholders will hold the stock for a long time and so
| there's no reason to "juice" the current price at the
| cost of future price.
|
| But also simply, making long term plans is easily
| arguable to be in fiduciary duty as a future shareholder
| would be willing to pay more to the current shareholder
| for a company in good health.
| fluoridation wrote:
| >Why are they different shareholders?
|
| My question is about those cases when they're different.
|
| >But also simply, making long term plans is easily
| arguable to be in fiduciary duty as a future shareholder
| would be willing to pay more to the current shareholder
| for a company in good health.
|
| The future is uncertain. The future company may be in
| worse health even with this forward-thinking decision,
| for any number of reasons. One in the bag is worth two in
| the bush and all that. So as long as we consider
| fiduciary duty a valid priority, how can we argue against
| immediate extraction of value over all other concerns?
| mattkrause wrote:
| The timeline (short vs. long ) doesn't matter at all.
|
| The current shareholders have _chosen_ the management
| (e.g., by voting for the Board) and are consequently
| agreeing to follow their plan. If you don 't like that
| plan, you have other remedies: sell your stock, run for a
| seat on the board, etc.
|
| As you note, the future is uncertain, so courts don't
| want to be in the business of second-guessing facts and
| competencies.
| fluoridation wrote:
| >If you don't like that plan, you have other remedies:
| sell your stock, run for a seat on the board, etc.
|
| That exact same argument could be used to dismiss the
| concept of fiduciary duty altogether. "If the company
| doesn't operate in a matter you like just divest your
| stock."
| mattkrause wrote:
| The company doesn't exactly have a fiduciary duty _to
| you_. It (or more specifically, its agents) have one to
| the company itself. This can be broken in cases of fraud,
| illegality, or conflict of interest. For example, in
| _Caremark_ and _Trans Union_ , the directors were so
| checked out that they should have known better--you can't
| sell a company for a random value picked out of a hat.
|
| Beyond that though, the business judgement rule is
| supposed to protect against second-guessing plausible
| decisions.
| bee_rider wrote:
| The current stakeholders probably have an interest in the
| company not going out of business long term as well.
|
| Anyway, what's the level of evidence required to sue
| somebody for working against the interest of their
| shareholder? I'd expect it to be something along the
| lines of: the CEO knowingly and maliciously worked
| against their interest... I mean, we can't have made
| being bad at your job illegal, right?
|
| The market is pretty clever, so there is at least room to
| believe that any move that plausibly would help long-term
| company health should also help short-term stock prices,
| right?
| fluoridation wrote:
| >The market is pretty clever, so there is at least room
| to believe that any move that plausibly would help long-
| term company health should also help short-term stock
| prices, right?
|
| I don't know about that. Are the most valuable companies
| those planning for sustainable returns over many decades?
| It seems to me the stock market is just a hype machine
| where anything past 5 years just doesn't exist, and CEOs
| operate accordingly.
| cedilla wrote:
| There's no reason to speculate about who the future
| shareholder will be, nor is there any good reason to just
| assume that favouring short-term gains will favour the
| current shareholders more. It's also unknown if a
| shareholder would prefer long-, mid- or short term gains.
|
| Favouring short term gains over anything else is
| obviously wrong - Amazon could sell AWS for 5 billion
| dollars tomorrow, but I don't think you'd argue that this
| would be in their interest at all, even though it's just
| giving priority to current shareholders over more distant
| ones.
| fluoridation wrote:
| >nor is there any good reason to just assume that
| favouring short-term gains will favour the current
| shareholders more
|
| The reason is that it's a situation that's bound to
| happen. If I plan to be invested in a company for a
| specific length of time (for whatever reason) any
| decisions that benefit the company beyond that term do
| not benefit me. If those decisions actually harm the
| company in the short term then they work against my
| interests.
|
| >Amazon could sell AWS for 5 billion dollars tomorrow
|
| AWS isn't a product, it's capital. It'd be like a factory
| selling its machines. You only liquidate capital if you
| need cash right away, precisely because capital is worth
| more than its flat monetary value.
| wongarsu wrote:
| And the VC world is full of examples where shareholder want
| the company to prioritize marketshare or riding certain
| hypes or other activities that increase company valuation
| within the shareholder's investment horizon. In most VC
| funded startups maximizing revenue would be a violation of
| your fiduciary duty
| mattkrause wrote:
| Yes! Dodge v. Ford is a tough one because Ford explicitly
| announced that he was using _the company 's_ money to
| advance _his own_ philanthropic aim. That 's essentially
| theft: it's the company's money, not his.
|
| However, as long as management is running the company _as a
| company_ (and not, say, the director 's personal slush
| fund), the courts give them incredibly wide latitude.
| They're won't second-guess whether it was "correct" to
| prioritize long-term growth or short-term profit-taking, as
| long as either is vaguely in the company's interests.
|
| A parallel case, Shlensky v. Wrigley, has absolutely
| bonkers facts. Wrigley wouldn't install electric lights at
| his ball field, clearly due to
| some...idiosyncratic...beliefs about how baseball "ought to
| be played." However, unlike Ford, Wrigley left open the
| possibility that this was also a business decision too:
| perhaps changing the neighborhood would drive people away,
| or the lights would cost too much to operate. Consequently,
| the court found in his favor even though one gets the sense
| they were not totally convinced it was a sensible business
| decision.
|
| Longer thread with references and quotes here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23393674
| gruez wrote:
| >Privately held lifestyle businesses don't, at least not as
| much.
|
| Only because if they're the sole owner, there's nobody with
| standing to sue. There's no special legal classification for
| "Privately held lifestyle business". If such businesses have
| minority shareholders, you still have fiduciary duty to them,
| and can't use it as a personal slush fund, or manage it
| incompetently.
| deaux wrote:
| The leadership team absolutely does not have any
| responsibility to maximize short-term profit, whichis the
| claim this thread is about.
|
| It has a responsibility to not actively and intentionally
| destroy the company, and to not use the company's resources
| for purely personal gain in a way unrelated to the company.
|
| That's it.
|
| This is also why you never hear about any company getting
| sued for anything related to this (let alone succesfully).
| Because it doesn't happen, as it's not a thing and any lawyer
| would immediately tell you you don't have a case.
| tirant wrote:
| I agree. The objective of every business is to be decided by
| their owners. That claim is indeed not always valid. That might
| be the case for basically every publicly traded company but for
| sure not for many small businesses.
| TZubiri wrote:
| Funnily enough, when incorporating, "to make profit" is usually
| not part of the stated mission, usually it's something along
| the lines of "to make chess software"
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Those missions are generally for employee alignment,
| recruiting, customer facing marketing. "Making money" doesn't
| work for employees that don't share ownership of the business
| and are paid at market rate (IOW as low as the market will
| bear)
| chrisfosterelli wrote:
| Obviously money is important. We live in a capitalist
| world. It lets an org invest in future, greater service to
| its mission. But it's not WHY a business exists. It's just
| a measure. It's sort of like saying that you exist to
| breathe oxygen or pump blood. It's necessary and important,
| but suggesting that's your mission would be a little
| reductive.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| There's a reason boards study financials and hide them
| from employees
| chrisfosterelli wrote:
| The reasons are because it's their job to ensure the
| organization's future, and financials are the specifics
| of how the company plans to do that, and because
| providing financial information to more people than
| necessary increases the risk that it leaks to competitors
| and inside traders.
| TZubiri wrote:
| Not really, they are part of the charter granted by
| government and they bind the company in its legal
| capacities.
|
| Companies are de jure entities, they exist not de facto,
| but by registration with the state. For many reasons, you
| or others cannot go to courts and claim different things
| about a company as a separate entity from its owners
| without previously having declared to the state and courts
| that such a company exists and what the rules of the
| company were.
|
| The mission of a company are thus part of the rules defined
| for a company at creation, such that if an owner made its
| riches in oil prospecting, but also had a company whose
| mission was software development, then other partners of
| the second company, or creditors in case of bankruptcy,
| would have no claim to riches that came from oil
| prospecting. For example.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| It's not a perfect model of the world, but empirically it's a
| very useful one, so economists often use it to understand the
| world.
| johndhi wrote:
| surely it's the goal of most pricing strategies, though, right?
| realityfactchex wrote:
| Yeah, it's a myth, and a pervasive one. Decent description at
| [0].
|
| Not only that, but people actually think they know that.
|
| Since people believe it, it's "real to them".
|
| IMO, this helps make it easier to go from "we're going to make
| the best widgets and be good, responsible, ethical corps" to
| "we will extract as much value as possible from customers,
| anything within the law is fair game, external consequences not
| being our concern".
|
| [0] https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-
| co...
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Why is the idea of quality oriented "getting by" businesses
| popular here, but worker cooperatives generally scorned? A
| worker owned coop is more resilient to deciding to focus on
| quality and affordability than a business with investors and
| hierarchical ownership that can change (after a death or a
| sale etc)
| JanNash wrote:
| Valid inquiry!
| bee_rider wrote:
| Worker co-ops are scorned here? I think they just don't
| come up much due to the nature of the industry.
|
| Like all [citation needed] nerds I consumed a ridiculous
| amount of fantasy fiction growing up, and think programming
| is as close to magic as we'll ever get in the real world.
| If somebody made a "Programmers Guild" in the style of a
| wizard's guild, who among us wouldn't join such a thing?
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| > If somebody made a "Programmers Guild" in the style of
| a wizard's guild, who among us wouldn't join such a
| thing?
|
| HN is the wizard's guild.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Yes they get criticized as communist idealism and without
| upside for people to start
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| What are some examples of worker cooperatives that are
| successful due to their focus on quality and affordability?
|
| What might I buy from them?
|
| (The only worker cooperative I knowingly buy from now is a
| local bakery/pizza place.)
| jjj123 wrote:
| As you mention, plenty of bakeries, grocery stores are
| worker owned. For example rainbow grocery is not _cheap_
| but the quality is high and the bulk prices are not bad.
|
| For some reason two of the biggest and best flour brands
| are worker owned: King Arthur and Bob's Red Mill.
|
| But if we're talking bottom of the barrel prices, I don't
| know many worker owned orgs that focus on that.
|
| Turns out when operations are more democratic and left
| leaning (and all worker owned coops I know of in 2025 are
| left-leaning), workers are unlikely to support things
| that are cheaper but have negative externalities. So
| produce is more likely to organic (and expensive),
| farming practices are more likely to be ethical (and
| expensive), etc.
|
| I've been on the lookout for worker owned clothing brands
| but they're few and far between.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| The post to which I replied was specifically about:
|
| - worker cooperatives, and
|
| - quality and affordability
|
| I don't know whether worker cooperatives are more or less
| likely than a median business to generate negative
| externalities, so I won't comment on that part.
|
| I wouldn't call Rainbow Grocery 'affordable'. It's been a
| long time since I bought anything there, but I recall it
| being _much_ more expensive than every single chain
| supermarket (not just the lower end ones).
|
| King Arthur and Bob's Red Mill are not 'worker
| cooperatives' as far as I can tell. They both have ESOPs
| (Employee Stock Ownership Plans), but I don't see
| anything suggesting they're run in a democratic (one
| employee = one vote) fashion.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| https://www.bobsredmill.com/employee-owned Certainly many
| non-coop businesses have ESOPs but this says the goal is
| to transition to 100% employee-owned via the ESOP (rather
| than the typical single or low double digit employee
| grant pool). I recall reading that when Bob was dying he
| decided or had it in his will to transition his ownership
| fully to the employees.
|
| edit: "100% employee owned / That happy day came in April
| 30th of 2020: as of our 10th anniversary, Bob's Red Mill
| is now 100% employee owned, one of only about 6,000
| businesses in the country to achieve this incredible
| feat."
|
| Equal Exchange is a worker-owned co-op:
| https://equalexchange.coop their management leadership
| positions are rotating (across workers) and have
| compensation multiplier caps. The coffee at least is
| quite affordable compared with other specialty brands.
|
| Thanks to zoning laws in Japan, whereby practically
| anyone is able to start a retail business with minimal
| capital and permitting requirements, there are many shops
| and food-related businesses that are worker-owned. Many
| are also highly affordable can be cheaper than chains or
| convenience options (apart from the very cheapest of
| chains).
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| 'worker-owned' and 'worker cooperative' are not the same
| thing.
|
| Re: small busineses... Many family businesses are
| 'worker-owned' but they are not 'worker cooperatives'
| because either:
|
| - there's only a single worker, or
|
| - the decisions are generally made by a single person
| (e.g. 'head of family')
|
| Re: Bob's Red Mill... it has a board and a CEO etc. It
| doesn't seem to be a 'worker cooperative'.
| oooyay wrote:
| I've never actually seen them criticized here but I'll bite
| since I've worked for one.
|
| Worker owned companies are just a different shade of
| typical corporate politics. I worked for North America's
| largest sewer inspection and cleaning company. The company
| did about equal volumes of each type of work but since
| inspection is more technology based there were far more
| cleaners than there were inspectors and analysts. I'd been
| there about a year and I'd noticed that we were so far
| outpacing cleaning that we'd started to lapse on some of
| our contractual inspection storage commitments which
| required about ten years storage of raw inspection files.
| The inspection files were raw video with annotations. I
| drew up a proposal to build out centralized storage arrays
| and upgrade video processing site internet connections.
| Pretty baseline stuff to meet the needs of our contractual
| obligations. It went up for a vote because it'd effect the
| yearly budget which impacted dividends checks. It was
| unanimously voted down by the cleaners. I realized then and
| there that any business that's worker owned will be
| primarily be influenced by the largest in quantity labor
| group and haven't worked for one since.
|
| Long way of saying that I wouldn't say it's any better or
| worse than other management structures.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| There are different ways to structure worker cooperatives
| and decision making. Have you seen the consent-based
| framework sociocracy uses (rather than majority voting or
| consensus)?
| dpoloncsak wrote:
| Many of those businesses eventually get acquired or crushed by
| the guys who do put profit over everything else.
|
| Sure, Amazon made drivers piss in bottles. They also put killed
| (or atleast, put the final nail in the coffin) your local brick
| and mortar xyz store.
| deaux wrote:
| This isn't a "disagree or agree" topic. It's a "wrong or right"
| topic, and even at 13 years old I could've told you that you're
| right and they're wrong. _Of course_ this isn 't the goal of
| every business, and it's trivially verifiable.
|
| They effectively put out a statement saying "the earth is flat,
| water is dry and sunlight is wet".
| Brosper wrote:
| Thank you for this. Have you heard about PPP (Purchasing Power
| Parity)? Some pages sell products -50% in Poland because we don't
| earn as much as in other countries.
| haunter wrote:
| Steam used to have (until 2016) a two tier regonal pricing in the
| EU (EU1 and EU2) but they had to stop it because it was
| discrimination that people in Sweden paid more for a game than
| people in Bulgaria. Now everyone in the EU pays the same as
| people in Sweden. And of course games haven't become cheaper
| either
| paxys wrote:
| There would be similar pushback if Steam started selling games
| for cheaper in Greenville, Alabama vs New York City. Plenty of
| regions in the USA have way worse economic disparity than the
| two you have highlighted. The point of being a single
| economic/political bloc is to be able to negotiate collectively
| and work towards a balance.
| rockostrich wrote:
| I don't think it'd be illegal in the case of the US though.
| tasuki wrote:
| Eh, the pricing should be tailored to the individual. Give each
| individual exactly the highest price point they can handle.
| Regional pricing is so yesteryear...
|
| (I think I'm kidding. Am I?)
| InsomniacL wrote:
| They priced me out of a subscription.
|
| PS15 a month in the UK for an online chess game is crazy.
|
| I've paid for 3 months but this is my last.
|
| I'm only interested in Game review, but there are about 50 other
| sub-categories on their site that i don't use.
|
| Only their top tier of membership provides game review and to be
| honest it's not even that good.
|
| The game review is about the top 'computer' move, not what a
| human should do, and not one at my elo or to advance my elo.
| yardenshoham wrote:
| Try https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/chesscom-
| analysis-a.... It allows free game overviews.
| whatamidoingyo wrote:
| Lichess is incredible. I canceled my membership and deleted my
| chess.com account due to frustrations from disconnects and
| laggy movement. Lichess doesn't have these issues. It just
| feels way better to play vs chess.com.
| _ache_ wrote:
| Assuming you can self-host, you may be interested in OpenChess-
| Insights, abandonned but still working (on Linux, small error
| L420 in template/analysis.html).
|
| It's a interesting PoC.
|
| https://github.com/LinkAnJarad/OpenChess-Insights
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-07 23:01 UTC)