Hello I am not talking to Grand Masters here, but Class A or B chess players. When someone post analysis or opening ideas or a tactical line.
1. Lets see the analyst that I have seen. There is the analyst who uses his engine to show him numbers and blurts them out like a fax machine. 'white is winning, by 0.24', I enjoy giving responces by saying black is winning, and showing a illegal line as proof. Really if a engine says +2/-2, it would point out something relevent to me, or else, I won't be listening.
2. Your ideas... I'm sure your ideas in chess are very strong and good, but at least be 100% sure and not use words like. I did this move cause I like it, I wanted to follow this idea. To me I don't use such stupid words, cause my line fails or is right until the analysis is in full. Don't say a piece is good until, on terms you heard, nothing proofs someone wrong in chess, like pure analysis, mixed with your own thought and you would play out the position. Let me throw a position and say the most pointless things about it, and say it's good. I'm sure 99% would agree how bad my analysis is, to me the 1% who knows laughing at my own analysis is a sad part of my life.
Here you go, who likes to play the black side of the below. what you don't want to. But he's got a lovely placed, a bishop with a open diagonal, a fianchettoed rook, and he future growth, didn't I read that a strong center is easy to attack, so white is in trouble.
Now put the really random position you see below into Mr.Houdini and let the result be what you think it is.
Blah, blah, blah...