There's just so much more you can do with a client based chess program than a web based one. So much more. That said, the accessibility of a web based network will assuredly help Lichess's population out over time.

I think the first part of this just isn't true any more. You can build a complete clone of Babas in JavaScript. And more importantly, the Lichess devs seem to have the motivation to build the missing features - if they don't have what you want now, check back next month.

I mean, you are talking to someone who has used FICS more than regularly for 16 years, and BabasChess since it was released. You aren't going to be telling me anything about those two things that I don't know.

And no, you can't customize BabasChess's board more deeply than lichess's board. BabasChess is limited to ttf, bmp, or png. Ttf means that there can only be two layers, a solid and a textured. The bmps don't scale worth a crap, and the pngs in BabasChess are extremely limited (forced identical black and white pieces just colorized grayscales).

With lichess, you can inject your own custom css using a plugin to use nearly any format you want, including the far superior svg format.

Also, lichess routinely has triple the number of people online that fics has, and more strong players play there regularly (titled players are playing there quite regularly. titled players are rare on fics, though they do exist, obviously)

Well, you've certainly convinced me to give Lichess another peek. Where can I learn about how to customize it? I see the features that are right there on the page with all of the 2D and 3D pieces with the board color combos right there, too. How can I customize it and use plugins? Or, even simpler, where can I go to learn such a thing?

Still, it would take a lot to get me to ditch FICS for a lot of the reasons I mentioned outside of what is collectively all visual. Outside of visual customizations, with things such as server variables and then features like adjudication in games, it just feels more like an actual chess club than a chess website over on FICS. ICC as well. On top of this, as mentioned before: Lichess considers anything with a time control greater than 8/0 to be "classical" time controls. That just feels wrong and when I look through the list of games played and recently played, very...very few are anything other than blitz or correspondence. When I turn on FICS, I see more games of 45/5 up to 90/30 than I do anywhere else on the internet.

So what's the argument we're having? Some people prefer flavor A, some B, and some C?

Must have wandered into the LC thread, .

I have no opinion. I have only played ICC in the past and chess.com now seems fine and I haven't found a reason to care to switch yet. I mean, I should try out others just b/c I can but ehhh.

Basically you install a browser plugin called "Stylish" and then install the skins from here:
https://userstyles.org/styles/browse/lichess

Mine are the ones named like "lichess-Board:" and "lichess-Pieces:"

I've been sharing them on the lichess forums here:
http://en.lichess.org/forum/lichess-...ustom-graphics

The pieces are almost all svg pieces hosted on some free webspace (I'm trying to find the best way to encode them in the actual skin file--right now they exceed the file size limit of userstyles.org, so I have to keep them on that webspace). The boards are mostly pngs hosted on imgur and they replace the ugly purple board in the theme dialog box on lichess.

The guy in charge of lichess liked one of the sets so much he recently added it to the default piece selection on the site (The chess7 set).

Awesome...thanks for the links. I'll dig into it.

Matches my current OTB setup:






I have a few different piece/board combos I use OTB but right now, by far, the blue board and those Reykjavik's are the ones I prefer the look of the most. Set is actually a recommended USCF tournament set for this year.

My preferred OTB setup here. I really like how these wooden pieces look on the silicone board. Never thought it would work as well as it does:

[IMG]http://gorgonian.******.com/uploads/1/7/2/2/17221082/5891215_orig.jpg[/IMG]

I like how those look, a lot. I actually have wondered the same thing about wood/vinyl myself and almost gave it a shot. Now that I see how they look, maybe my next set of pieces will be wood, too.

What size is the king in that set? 4.0"?

3.75"

It's this set:
http://shop.chesscafe.com/Internatio...ed-EQP0903.htm

Nice. Those Reykjavik's are 3.75", too. I have the Fischer's and Staunton Collector's in 4.0", as well.

Btw, I recently played my seasonal rapid game against a human.

http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game....php?id=101288

Feels kind of weird to miss that 6. Ndb5 d6? sucks due to 7. a3 just a few minutes before spotting the sequence starting with 11. c4 very quickly, but I hadn't shaken off the rust until move eight or so.

A lot of the lines after 14.-Nb4 15. Qxd6+ Kxd6 16. Bxb4+ are pretty cute. It's a cool position.

Anyone who plays the Grunfeld: How did you come to play it, and why does it appeal to you?

Nice game Rei. Perhaps your undertitle should be "Unbeaten vs. humans 2015."

That streak is over, thankfully. I lost a game of Horde Chess this year.

Fischer's MSMG, I was trying out all of Fischer's openings after reading that. The closest thing to Sicilian like counterattacking play for black vs. 1.d4, I guess.

chess jokes on Wierd Loners lol

I'm playing in an online championship for my rating group and I think my opponent just dissed me, shortly into our first game of two.

He posted this: "how many blunders can you make and still have a chance at winning?"

Not exactly sure if he's talking the royal "you" (as in him), or me. I've never spoken to this guy and this is an in-group tourney so I'd be a bit surprised if this was the first thing out of his mouth but it very well could be. He probably reviewed all my tourney games and saw I got lucky a few times. I'm pretty sure I'm about to go up material (Rook for pawn, at worst. Queen for pawn at best) very early, <10 moves in. Haven't responded yet. Don't want verbal negativity to throw me off my game. When the game ends I will ask him if he meant me and if he says yes then I'll be like "7". Or something.

If he just blundered he's probably referring to himself. Nothing else even makes sense.

For posterity, scratch what I said about being up a rook for a pawn. I miscalculated the order of moves lol. I still sometimes do this thing where I pretend a recapture comes with check when it doesn't. Massive lolz. Still may be OK but we'll see. I asked him what he meant but no response yet.

Has anyone seen this article by Nigel Short, which apparently has caused quite a hullabaloo?

It's a pretty standard "Men are just better than women" article. These appear from time to time (always, somehow, written by men). It leads with a truly insane quote:
Short goes on to discuss this quote and basically agree with it, though he admits that Donner "might have overstated his case."

It also devotes its two longest paragraphs (of eleven total) to totally irrelevant and gratuitous personal character attacks on Susan Polgar. Is there bad blood between Short and the Polgars? That's the only way I can understand these paragraphs' inclusion here.

I like how he calls his son lazy.

He's just mad he looks like a horse.