In an attempt to provide greater objectivity, I copied and pasted the contents of the thread before my first post into chatgpt and asked it to summarize community sentiment about the “chesscom for go” proposal. It estimated that the community was 65% negative, 20% supportive, and 15% neutral / explanatory. It gave the following breakdown of arguments for and against:
Arguments For the Proposal
- Could boost Go’s popularity: Like chess.com did for chess, a centralized, polished platform might bring Go into the mainstream, especially in the West.
- Gamification may drive engagement: Features like objectives or cheering (as seen on Fox) could motivate players and increase viewer involvement.
Arguments Against the Proposal
- Risk of community fragmentation: If GoMagic gains traction and then moves to proprietary servers, it could siphon off players from OGS and fracture the existing Go community.
- Commercialization concerns: Users fear monetization tactics like loot boxes or gambling features would harm the culture, especially by excluding younger players or encouraging toxicity.
- Cultural mismatch with chess: Go and chess have different player bases and traditions; copying chess.com may overlook what Go players actually value.
- Loss of open-source ethos: Replacing or overshadowing OGS — a semi-open, community-driven platform — with a company-controlled one could be seen as a betrayal of core values.
- User experience skepticism: Some dislike the “attention economy” design of chess.com and worry GoMagic could follow that model, undermining focus and play quality.
So fair enough, my “all about” remark was hyperbolic. But my point survives: the response in this thread was mostly about the threat that gomagic’s proposal poses to OGS and go culture more generally. If that is how we respond to attempts to attract investment to the go community, it’s probably not going to happen.