So this is to discuss about the ingeneral role of Lichess in today's internet world. I've seen People working for lichess describe it as a charity and a oasis for chess community in an increasingly commodified digital world, which is true I believe. But I want to point out lichess serves a more bigger purpose than that, and more people should get to know it. "Technofeudalism" is no science fiction, but the ongoing reality, where people's personal informations are being treated as commodity, and attention capitalism (via algorithmic process which has a surprising psychological background) makes people give in to technofeudalistic set-up by themselves! It's increasingly harmful for Us both individually and in a collective sense. Our cognitive reasoning ability, empathy, basic human rights are at stake. So lichess's commitment to be absolutely free from commodification and profit driven corporate tie ups serves as a great instance of human resistance; Lichess and the lichess community is inseparable unlike other profit driven websites, as we're contributing according to our ability and we're being benefitted from that. Lichess is the second most popular chess website without being unethical and profit driven. Regardless of economic condition, everyone of us has the RIGHT to access top quality chess content, and lichess gives us the opportunity to serve it, so I hope we'll keep growing.
I don't feel as if I have a "right" to access anything online. Indeed, that is another slight irritation I have with recent culture -- a perceived tendency to manufacture and declare new "rights" to suit ourselves.
But I don't otherwise disagree with the original post. Lichess DOES seem like an undeserved blessing in a world filled with disappointing debuts.
And, indeed, Lichess feels much less like a waste of time than almost everything else on television, cable, or streaming. (I do recognize some exceptions: watching the wonderful Tour de France, for example). But by "feels" I mean, of course, feels "to me," not necessarily "to others."
Others are of course free to disagree and might choose to watch any of the television or cable programs that make my skin crawl, in preference to this wonderful chess server.
But, frankly, I can't understand why anyone would.
Not only is Lichess entertaining -- it doesn't require mere passive absorption. It is interactive. With it, I feel as if I can practice cognitive skills that are helpful to cultivate or refresh in the long run and explore viewpoints from the world around that I might not otherwise encounter.
"I don't feel as if I have a "right" to access anything online. Indeed, that is another slight irritation I have with recent culture -- a perceived tendency to manufacture and declare new "rights" to suit ourselves."
I get your point, which has definitely some substance. But what I meant was, any form of knowledge should be accessible to everyone regardless of their socio political or socio economic identity. For example, one of the major goal of scientific research is to serve humanity, but we can see researchers with poor economic background can't subscribe to those expensive journals and archives. But if the archives are open to every researcher regardless of their economic status or university background, research work would be flourish more, in that sense knowledge shouldn't only be limited to a few number of people with privileges but everyone. By "Rights", I meant right to privacy, right to self expression and right to access knowledge. From this point of view lichess is doing a wonderful job in chess sector.
And to be honest, I myself watch Netflix a lot and consume meta apps, but I want to stop doing that and spend more time on productive entertainments like books, chess and astronomy. That's why lichess is a blessing to me. I very much like your perspective of replacing tv& streaming with lichess. Have a good day.
@Subhranell24 illustrates how to have a polite, adult discussion on a forum, setting an excellent example for emulation. And, indeed, such discussions are among the many blessings resulting from attendance in the Lichess forum. There are many reasonable and learned people here.
Indeed, there is an enormous variety of folks here, permitting us to fruitfully discuss anything from barbecue to premature castling to quantum entanglement to mangoes to the magnificence of or worry about the mane of golden-orange.
Lichess is Spaniel Approved. I declared that to the spaniel, and he did not disagree.
Well done @Subhraneil24 and @Noflaps! Indeed, it is possible for two mature individuals to converse freely without undue angst and gyration. Well done!
One item that I cannot overlook or agree with however: BBQ is far above and beyond the scale of importance, extraneous studies, and fruit. It may just hold the meaning of life itself beyond 42. Ask @Mr-Mudd if you happen to chat with him.
That being said, Lichess is very much a blessing to the many of us who are truly grateful for its presence.
@Subhraneil24 said in #3:
<snip>
> I get your point, which has definitely some substance. But what I meant was, any form of knowledge should be accessible to everyone regardless of their socio political or socio economic identity. For example, one of the major goal of scientific research is to serve humanity, but we can see researchers with poor economic background can't subscribe to those expensive journals and archives. But if the archives are open to every researcher regardless of their economic status or university background, research work would be flourish more, in that sense knowledge shouldn't only be limited to a few number of people with privileges but everyone. By "Rights", I meant right to privacy, right to self expression and right to access knowledge. From this point of view lichess is doing a wonderful job in chess sector.
<snip>
The only way that all forms of knowledge could be made accessible to everyone would be to get governments to pay for that knowledge. For example, take a company that decides to conduct a research study and publish the results. Conducting research is an expensive proposition, and it has to be paid somehow, otherwise the company goes out of business. Either a government funds it, donations fund it, or the company charges for the information. I don't think we can depend on the Wizard of Oz or magic fairies to fund the research...
@NeuralGnat, you are NO neural gnat. You are a mental mammoth, if we must alliterate.
"The only way that all forms of knowledge could be made accessible to everyone would be to get governments to pay for that knowledge. For example, take a company that decides to conduct a research study and publish the results. Conducting research is an expensive proposition, and it has to be paid somehow, otherwise the company goes out of business. Either a government funds it, donations fund it, or the company charges for the information. I don't think we can depend on the Wizard of Oz or magic fairies to fund the research..."
@NeuralGnat yes it is a very valid point I think. This shows us Government intervention is sometimes really necessary in these sectors. In Laissez-faire capitalism, I don't think this measures are taken with consistency.
I cannot think, offhand, of any nation in which pristine "Laissez-faire" capitalism is currently practiced. And that's fine with me -- a somewhat regulated capitalism seems to be the very best system for providing both upward mobility and a protection against horrid bad fortune.
For many decades, the amount of such regulation was the primary bone of contention between the Left and the Right.
Lately, however, an insidious tendency is growing that seems to view government both like an indulgent parent (apparently so as to muster -- essentially try to purchase -- popular support) and like a royal court, which provides a new breed of courtiers with power and privilege and a good living.
The Golden Mean abides, in my variably humble opinion, well to the right of socialism and somewhat to the left of laissez-faire. We need a safety net and often need honest disclosure, and some institutions -- like air traffic control and a military -- are better done nationally -- but we don't need to cultivate dependency and patronage. And we certainly don't need to destroy currencies and increase interest rates and inflation with decades on end of deficit spending.
Indeed, there comes a time when we have to not just kick the can down the road, and instead monitor government spending so that it provides mostly "must does" and not a lot of "nice to does" and "ooooh, could you do it for this particular constituency or donor?"
But trying to provide an increased self-consciousness to those who spend the public funds is not always easy to accomplish. You saw how some raged about the establishment of DOGE in the United States. But, despite some angry voices, increasing financial prudence seems to have become a more popular -- even a somewhat urgent -- idea, lately -- although that's not always clear from the internet "news" and summarized "poll results" that are steadily fed to the old laptop.
It's nice, though, that some are still able to discuss the matter in the forum without insult and anger. That, in itself, provides room for optimism. I think societal satisfaction is maximized by listening to a variety of opinions and not letting any single viewpoint utterly dominate -- including the one I favor.
subhraneil24 if you like the interactivity of lichess and astronomy you may like zooniverse. Citizen science. :) I helped highlight guysers in the photos that came back from mars years ago. Usually a few interesting projects on there.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.