Should I tell players what they do wrong?

Ok. This becomes a question when you get statistics like play 31, win 25, draw 3, lose 3. I mean, you would win the English Premier League if you did that in football

Should I tell the opponent afterwards what they have done wrong?

Sometimes I do it succinctly without being asked: "after Nf6 I had targets to attack" or "after c4 I had too many back rank threats" etc.

I'm done with false modesty in correspondence chess. Frankly, all that stands between me and getting to a master level in it are some aspects of endgame technique and tactical imagination; I can throw away half a point in what I know are better positions because I don't "put the ball in the net". That and not playing the Sicillian defence which I think I will spend the rest of my chess life avoiding. 

Anyway, I think that if someone plays correspondence chess thay have put a lot of time into it. So is telling them where they erred a help, insult or what?

You should give that kind of advice when asked. Offering it unasked usually ends badly.

Yeah. That's what I  pretty much thought. Thta's why I don't tell people most of the time.

If they want to know, tell them. If not, don't bother.

I'm with sapient.......if asked, I may go into a diatribe, but some people are touchy as hell, and there's no way I would just start telling them without being asked. 

I have a slightly different take on this.  I would love your advice after a game, but I probably wouldn't ask for it. I always try to say something nice at the end of a game (nice game, thanks for the game, something like that) and I rarely get a response, so asking for advice after a loss seems like it would be unlikely.

If you have some advice to offer a player, ask them "hey, would you like a few tips?" or "I saw something you could have done better, want me to show you."  That type of thing.  It's certainly not your obligation, but I'm sure a lot of us "improving players" could use your advice.

Hey, if I played someone rated so high, I would want all the advice I could get!

I often do some type of analysis after a game and I just link them to it. It is then up to them if they want to read it. Analysing your games is apparently one of the best ways to improve and it is easier to analyse if your know what your opponent meant by certain moves.

It's the unsolicited aspect that is what you have to watch out for.

I almost always ask top players "what could I have done better?" after I loose ... unless I'm just not "all there" in the game (then I'm probably not trying to hear it lol). Most top players just know when to give advice. If someone doesn't ask me I won't go out of my way.

********

 Technically you are correct. There is no master title for correspondence chess on this site. I also agree that the standard of correspondence chess on this site is low on this site compared to other sites. If this sounds arrogant from me it isn't just my conclusion. Chess masters on this site who do have a FIDE master title agree with me; they have told me that.

However a subjective assessment of the quality of play based on having learnt the moves in 1983 was what I was getting at. I'd like to see what kind of games I can play when I DO get some tactical imagination :)

I add that I always give people a trophy after a game. And yes, believe it or not, that includes after losing a game. I gave trillo a trophy after he blasted me off the board. At that point I had to conclude that the Sicllian defence just isn't my sort of thing

If both players want to analyse a game is one thing, but patronize is very different.

Yes. That is true enough. Patronising or triumphalism are to be avoided.

self appointed judges are treated badly

If you've played 31 games and after winning so many they haven't said a word about advice, then clearly they're not looking for anything from you.

Conversely, if you've been offering advice for the past 31 games and they haven't told you to shut up by then, then they probably appreciate it and there's no reason to stop.

My OTB rating is much closer to my CC rating (and my tactics rating) than to my blitz rating. 

I am 38. I have never been taught how to hold a mouse properly. I didn't grow up with computers. So I will never have a blitz rating beyond a pathetic  level.

Please don't say that a good marathon runner isn't worth anything because they aren't producing great times at a 100 metre sprint or a 20 metre dash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When I did play OTB chess in the 1980's for a short period of time there blitz and long time controil ratings then. I saw every possible combination of ability; some people were about 800 ELO points higher or lower than either their blitz or classical rating.

Everyone is different. Some people are not blitz players. I have always had the theory that people who use varied hierarchies of moves - in plain English you do your blunder checks last - do worse in blitz. In my case if I am winning I like to take 5 minutes for the next move.

I think it is all in the approach. Sending them a note saying something like "Hey, I'm analysing the game, would you like to see it?" and then leave it up to your opponent to decide it they want too.  Also, I'd make sure to point out any of your flaws too so it doesn't see one sided.

I know that personally I like to hear others point of view on the games and to see what they were thinking or what they saw.