Why Do Most People Don't Want to Have Post-game Discuss

I played daily games with dozen of people and often asked them to have post-game discussion, especially, when I or he/she made blunders. I also tried to talk to them mid-game when they made an inaccuracy that would help my plan. Maybe they rely on engine, but what I want to know is not the move itself but the psychological factors behind each move. You know, even GM made obviously bad moves because of the psychological factors.

P.S. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE TYPO IN THE TITLE

Haha... well, sometimes, a person is just making moves. Others are just playing to play and that's that. But keep trying. You'll find someone who also wants to analyse after the game. ☺

"I only like to post-game analyze my most beautifully won games.  I totally ignore my losses."  I think that is the mentality most casual players have.  so, unless both players won the game beautifully, there's always a lack of analysis partner.

Discussing a game with the opponent during the game is a violation of site rules, unless the game is unrated.  Discussion of possible engine use in the main forums is also against site rules

I'm the opposite. In games I lose, I want my opponent to know where I miscalculated and that it was not just a random blunder or a stupid player, but an actual miscalculation

I dont take the online rating serious. I myself is an amateur but it says my rating is 1600+. That is illogical to me.

oh jeez, what ISN'T? It's for fun. Online rating means NOTHING. There's no money prizes or anything.

LOL LMAO nice one!

This means the site also has a chat filtering AI program in addition to their supercomputer...interesting.

The site can have whatever terms and conditions they want and that behavior violates them.  Maybe OP's opponents aren't responding because they know such behavior isn't permitted.  Some people, perhaps those who can't play OTB for practical reasons, take chess.com quite seriously.

Why Do Most People Don't Want to Have a Post-game Discuss?

Because for me after playing almost 4,500 games it be like talking about what I had for breakfast for the last month.

That rule makes no sense. Can you explain the reasoning behind it. and how do they enforce that?

It's against the rules for the same reason that talking during an OTB game is against the rules.  Usually it's applied to people who ask a third party for help with a game or who post a game in the forums that is still ongoing, but it's easier to simply have a rule saying "no discussing games in progress". than to try and parse out exceptions for talking to an opponent who is okay with it.  I think it's a common sense rule.  You can, however, talk to an opponent during an unrated game if both players agree.

One rationale for the rule is that a player might try and game the opponent or offer not so helpful hints under the guise of friendship.  There's also the possibility of people just being mean and nasty in chat.  Another possibility is protecting the integrity thematic tournaments.  Some tournaments require all games to start from a certain starting position, sometimes opening, sometimes middlegame, sometimes endgame.  If players talk through the game/position, it will give each of them an advantage over the other players in their group because they will have strategized about the best way to play the position.

Got it!

but that's the players choice. how is that cheating? they are agreeing to it?

1) It causes rating manipulation.  If the players are of unequal strength and playing rated games, then presumably the weaker player benefits more and if he wins/draws when he should have lost, his rating will be artificially inflated, and vice versa for the stronger player.  This negatively impacts everyone else on the site the same way that sandbagging or sockpuppeting does.

2) For the thematic tournaments, both players get an advantage over their peers.  Typically, these tournaments will have a group of players in an all-play-all format starting from the same position.  If two players discuss the strategy of the position, they can use that knowledge against the other group mates and win more games.  The group mates who are playing on their own and without help are the ones being cheated.  Collusion in chess is well known and was practiced by Soviet players against Western players like Fischer.  They went easy on each other, including strategic draws and losses, and went all out against him to wear him down.  It's not exactly the same, but the concept is similar.

If you want to talk during the game just play unrated.  I have a game like that right now

That doesn't make any sense to me. The only reason I play chess is for the interaction. There would be no point in playing the game if you couldn't talk with the person you are playing against. Imagine playing monopoly or sorry and not talking to the people you are playing against. It would be so boring you wouldn't want to play. It seems like any competition or game you are allowed to talk to teammates or opponents.

Read some of my previous posts for the explanation.

You can talk to your opponent, you just can't get in to the game specifics, like "I think you should play X" or "I'm thinking about playing Y", at least not in a rated game.  You can talk about anything not directly related to the ongoing game or you can play unrated.

again, HOW IS THAT ENFORCED? People chat about all different things all the time during games? Do you have an AI program?