Quick post game info totally confusing

I called it a con because ... it's a con. I called it devious because it's devious. Etc. I have nothing against ads, in fact I've worked in advertising. So I don't need a lecture about how advertising is a source of revenue, or indeed about how businesses operate. I have no problem whatsoever with chess.com running ads. None. If anything, my regret about the internet is that there isn't more advertising, and that as a result (for example) many newspapers are disappearing behind a paywall.

The reason I object to this particular ad is because it's dishonestly passed off as something other than an ad. That is the dictionary definition of deviousness. Even the sleaziest tabloid newspapers label advertising features as such. Even the dodgiest news sites clearly designate their paid ads as "promoted stories". Chess.com does not do this. Virtually all of its users - certainly me and (I'm guessing) you too - were deluded into thinking this was real analysis. It isn't. So it's dishonest.

If you don't like those words then I'm sorry that they've offended you. But if you think they're inaccurate, please explain.

As to your suggestion that I "get a grip and contemplate my status as a free member", first of all, thanks for the friendly tone, secondly I have contemplated my status and find that I'm perfectly OK with it. What were you expecting, my gratitude to chess.com to cow me into not objecting to something that's patently dishonest? Most people who access advertising-funded media (eg television, most websites) don't consider themselves to be getting anything for "free". They know that by sitting through the ads they're funding the company, and therefore they don't feel the need to "contemplate their status" before objecting to something they don't like. Is that what you do? If, say, NBC does something that you think is unacceptable do you feel unable to object because of the "free" stuff that they so generously give you? That seems to be the logic of your position.

Oh dear. But the good news is that you'll be fine. At least for the foreseeable.

I'm often dominating throughout and win the game yet the analysis summary says "one player was winning but gave it away". Weird.

Yes, the "analysis" that they offer straight after a game is a joke. It's not quite as ludicrous as it used to be (until recently you could simply refresh the page and get totally different analysis of the same game!) but it's still a waste of time. The platitudinous summaries ("one player was winning but gave it away") are particularly unhelpful and annoying.

I get "Giveaway — One player was winning, but then gave it away" after every win, even if I dominated the whole game. Very strange.

I don’t think you’d have to have analysis to tell you who was winning……that’s just……common sense…….

You're right - it's very strange. In fact strange is putting it mildly. It looks to me like a lazy con trick. Generally it bears no relation to the game that has actually been played. It's just clickbait, attempting to lure you into shelling out for paid features. Like I say, it used to be such a complete joke that if you did it three times on the same game, you'd get three completely different results! (Which fulfills Einstein's definition of insanity.) I think it has improved a bit since then, ie you get the same platitudinous cliche each time, but it's still worthless. The analysis itself is fine (if you want analysis, which many of us don't) but the quick preview is just an irritating con.

Every game where I'm dominating for most of the game and win, I get "Giveaway - one player was winning but then gave it away" Their reviews are always biased against me for some reason.