I wonder what you guys usually do ?
When playing rank in quick match, we're usually with people around the same skill level.
While that's the case, sometimes we still play with people who seem to have a hard time, making huge mistakes.
I just got out of a game where someone tried the scholar's mate. While this works on any beginners, I obviously knew about it, and it didn't work, and he got pushed back so hard, lost a lot of material and kept trading.
Thing is, I wonder what you guys think about giving advice during a game ? I don't want to seem rude, but I also just honestly would like to share the small knowledge I have ~
Do you guys give any advice ? Or do you hate getting some, when you're losing ? What's your opinion
never do this
@Senpai-Noticed !!!! It is very rude :-(
i very rarely get advices from other people.
if im in the mood i give people advices if they made an essential mistake especially in the opening(for example blocking a central pawn with their bishops in the opening).
if people try to scholars mate me i feel like they wont be willing to learn the game anyways.
i tried to play correspondence games with some beginners annotating the game while i was playing it in the chat move by move, but all of them quit chess :-(.
It is not rude to go over a game with your opponent if your opponent is willing to do so. I would ask to go over the game before immediately dishing out advice. That said, I would be cautious about "giving advice" so much as offering your thoughts during the game. Given we all assess elements of chess incorrectly (all the way up to AlphaZero), thinking our analysis to be infallible is often foolhardy unless there was a very concrete tactical line you are sure that you calculated correctly. Even then, the positional play that allowed the tactic is what really matters, and again your analysis is likely to be flawed when considering these positional elements.
Long story short, going over the game is fine if you both agree, but choose your words carefully.
It's not rude if it's after the game. If you want to give advice about what your opponent should do next, you might as well just go play against yourself.
@5 i meant that if i annotate the game while playing i would give an explanation what my general intentions are when playing my own move and what i think was wrong with their last move.
A 1000 rated player's advice is not advice, it's noise. Get a master title if you feel like lecturing strangers on how to play chess.
Chatting during a game?
Against the rules and bad style. Is that enough feedback?
(Before and after, ok. But „during“ is a taboo.)
After the game, it seems ok...
... I did this also when my opponent wins the game but take too long or use too much material to checkmate: turning around with the queen or promoting pawn(s) when you have queen (or rook) and king against king. Lots of U1500 didn't know haow to do that, even if it should be U1000 level skills.
If we're talking about tournament games then it's a big N-O. Tournaments these days are lame because people care more about rankings than quality. Would I love to smack-talk a game with an opponent in real time? Hell yes! Would it be awesome if it were rated? Even Better! Those days however are clearly gone. It is a sad thing. The rating system is good, it is great, but it is overused. If tournaments today were to focus on simply beating the best of the best things would be a lot better.
Are we talking "internet" ranked games? Well in that case go ahead. Everyone on this site has a chat disable feature. If they're too interface illiterate to understand the concept that is one thing. Yet if they are to chessically prudish, or inherently unable to understand genuine human communication then the real question that needs to be asked is.. Do they really belong on the Internet? Do they really belong in chess?? The answer is Of Course They Do! But that doesn't mean you should question your right to Verbal Volleyball.
