While I think ratings (which are only partly about gamification) are often harmful for various reasons, and I'm not particularly interested in other gamified elements, they aren't zero-sum propositions. Most platforms want to both make the game more enjoyably, support becoming better at the game so that it is/remains enjoyable, *and* derive income (and other support) through engagement. None of those are necessarily bad, especially if we want the platforms to stick around.
I liken it to sugar (and corn syrup in our diets): ratings and gamification are fine choices, in moderation, for some who are conscientious and controlled in their eating. For others, they are dangerous. Another very similar dynamic comes with social media and online publishing, where some folks have a measured approach to view counts, number of likes and reposts, etc., while for others the little dopamine hits are irresistible and they end up doing more things for the wrong reason than they would like.
I'd rather ratings were steeply minimized, personally, but I'm not a strident advocate for getting rid of them for everyone. Same with sugar, other gamification elements, and those social media/publishing markers and metrics, though I personally am healthier without them.
I think added sugars is a good analogy for it. And I agree that all gamification is not necessary bad and can make chess more enjoyable and enhance learning. I however think that many players don’t think about the effect of gamification or notice the gradual change, which in turn can create unhealthy habits/addictions.
I switched from mostly using chess.com to mostly using lichess a couple years ago - I hadn't realized until reading this post exactly why I find lichess more pleasant, but avoiding all the games and trophies and things allows for more of a focus on just playing chess.
I’ve recently started stepping further and further away from chesscom and spending a lot more time on Lichess. I take my chess seriously along with my improvement. You put into words what I had been thinking for a long time. Chess improvers do not need all that “fluff” or unnecessary gamification as you so eloquently put it. They need a board, clock and prices. It’s a vast different look and feel when you’re not driven by profit. Great article. I believe the gamification of chess, which is already a game, is hurting chess not helping.
I enjoy studying chess so much that chess.com doesn't really provoke me into this. Though when I do play rapid, I tend to spam games. But this habit occurs on Lichess, and Lichess obviously doesn't give any "Feels good" awards. I tend to think this works on younger people better, I'm well past my teen and twenties. I see younger people obsess over rating and how much rating they can gain for a game in a manner I wouldn't consider healthy.
Thanks for the post Martin. I’m keenly aware of how gamification can be a net negative. See: people asking all the time about accuracy scores, or even trying measure by average centipawn loss, or always looking for !! And not looking for moments where they could improve.
I think it’s possible to harness some of these impulses and make them work for us if we redirect our gaze away from short term goals. But that takes an intense amount of discipline.
While I think ratings (which are only partly about gamification) are often harmful for various reasons, and I'm not particularly interested in other gamified elements, they aren't zero-sum propositions. Most platforms want to both make the game more enjoyably, support becoming better at the game so that it is/remains enjoyable, *and* derive income (and other support) through engagement. None of those are necessarily bad, especially if we want the platforms to stick around.
I liken it to sugar (and corn syrup in our diets): ratings and gamification are fine choices, in moderation, for some who are conscientious and controlled in their eating. For others, they are dangerous. Another very similar dynamic comes with social media and online publishing, where some folks have a measured approach to view counts, number of likes and reposts, etc., while for others the little dopamine hits are irresistible and they end up doing more things for the wrong reason than they would like.
I'd rather ratings were steeply minimized, personally, but I'm not a strident advocate for getting rid of them for everyone. Same with sugar, other gamification elements, and those social media/publishing markers and metrics, though I personally am healthier without them.
I think added sugars is a good analogy for it. And I agree that all gamification is not necessary bad and can make chess more enjoyable and enhance learning. I however think that many players don’t think about the effect of gamification or notice the gradual change, which in turn can create unhealthy habits/addictions.
As we can see in Chess Twitter, accuracy scores are probably the most misunderstood and overrated measure of progress. Great article, Martin!
Thank you, Oscar! Considered writing more about the accuracy score, but that will probably be a whole separate newsletter
The attention economy comes for chess
I switched from mostly using chess.com to mostly using lichess a couple years ago - I hadn't realized until reading this post exactly why I find lichess more pleasant, but avoiding all the games and trophies and things allows for more of a focus on just playing chess.
Yes, I wonder how the Lichess devs looks at gamification moving forward. I hope they will stay on the minimal side
Great Article! I know I tend to look first at the accuracy score after a game! Thanks for bringing this issue of gamification up. 😎
Yes, it is easy to get fixated on this number, but we don’t really know how it’s calculated even
A nice read Martin, thank you! 🤩
Glad you liked it!
Good article Martin. Look forward to you checking out Checkmate.live if your a fan of loot.
Oh that looks horrible!
I’ve recently started stepping further and further away from chesscom and spending a lot more time on Lichess. I take my chess seriously along with my improvement. You put into words what I had been thinking for a long time. Chess improvers do not need all that “fluff” or unnecessary gamification as you so eloquently put it. They need a board, clock and prices. It’s a vast different look and feel when you’re not driven by profit. Great article. I believe the gamification of chess, which is already a game, is hurting chess not helping.
I enjoy studying chess so much that chess.com doesn't really provoke me into this. Though when I do play rapid, I tend to spam games. But this habit occurs on Lichess, and Lichess obviously doesn't give any "Feels good" awards. I tend to think this works on younger people better, I'm well past my teen and twenties. I see younger people obsess over rating and how much rating they can gain for a game in a manner I wouldn't consider healthy.
Thanks for the post Martin. I’m keenly aware of how gamification can be a net negative. See: people asking all the time about accuracy scores, or even trying measure by average centipawn loss, or always looking for !! And not looking for moments where they could improve.
I think it’s possible to harness some of these impulses and make them work for us if we redirect our gaze away from short term goals. But that takes an intense amount of discipline.