Do you ever wish someone explained why a move is bad while you’re playing?
Sort:
I’m learning too and I want to say how much I appreciate this question, I was going to ask something very similar..so when the game analysis points out for example, “you lost an opportunity to gain material” etc, then when I hit “Show” it rapidly shows 5-6 moves to win a piece..I’m nowhere near seeing that and I’m not sure my opponent is either? So I “kind of” ignore it tbh..you know what I mean?
Hey everyone,
While learning chess, I’ve noticed something that still feels missing for me.
Post-game analysis tells me what the best move was, but not always in a way that matches how I think. Engine lines are deep and accurate, but as a learner, I often want to ask simpler questions like:
“What if my opponent played this instead?”
“Why is this move considered bad here?”
“What idea am I missing in this position?”
Sometimes I just want to experiment on the board — try random moves for both sides, see what breaks, and get a human-style explanation of the consequences, instead of just evaluation numbers.
Another thing I struggle with is analysis that doesn’t match my level. A tactic or positional idea might be correct, but it’s explained at a depth that feels too advanced for my rating.
So I’m curious:
Do you like exploring positions freely after a game, or do you mostly follow engine suggestions?
Would explanations tailored to your rating and common mistakes help more than “best engine line” analysis?
How do you usually figure out why a move works, not just that it works?
Not promoting anything — just trying to understand how others actually learn from their games.
Looking forward to hearing different perspectives 🙂