Why do so many "fish" comment on serious chess posts?

You read the title - why are there so many weak players who reply to serious chess posts? 

They give a lot of information, so it seems like they know a lot, but then when you look at their games, they hang material and miss mate in 2, etc. 

So why do they think they can respond to *serious* chess posts that require accurate information?

I know what you're thinking - I've hung material and missed basic tactics too, but at least I've beaten an FM before:

https://www.chess.com/daily/game/158567245

and this was in a daily game, not a fluke speed game. 

I thought 2Q1C had a point when he made a thread with a similar title. So much inaccurate information here, especially regarding learning openings and subtleties that are useless until you break 1800, etc. 

Chess is easier to understand than play, also looking at an entire game and making an alsysis makes it easier to spot stronger moves than when your in the game and don't see the entire thing played out in your head. Or I guess I could just say *glub glub* if I'm gonna be labeled a fish

I think a famous GM said the same thing, don't be offended crerub....we are all fish to him. The point is, who decides where to draw the line and where is it drawn? By your own logic, only GMs should be allowed to post...That one post a month would sure keep discussion going here, huh? Of course, like everyone else, you most likely think the line should be drawn somewhere under your rating.. ...comments don't hurt, they can always be refuted.

Thanks for the responses.

I'm in no way offended, since I know it doesn't take a GM to beat me. 

it only takes the pet goldfish of a GM to beat me.

When you become stronger, also your criteria in evaluating other players become tougher. 

What seems reasonable to someone rated 1300, does not seem reasonable to you. 

Also - sometimes one posts out of a total expectation to be made wrong and corrected - and to learn something. 

I can tell that any game or analysis that I ever post, I do it also out of a wish to be "made wrong" and get an explanation of what's really the deal - from a point of higher understanding, not engine output mind you :-)

Are you taking over for 2IQ while he is gone Cherub?

This kind of reminds me of how I like to think I know everything there is to know about baseball at the major league level. My wife would be rolling her eyes about now if she had to listen one more time to me saying that I could manage a losing team to the world series. However I can't play baseball worth shit. I think there are probably a lot of chess players on here that could talk the talk with the big boys but perform nothing like them. Anyway just a thought

Fish don't post often over at chesspub. There are usually about 5 people online there at the same time. Plenty of guests though... The moderation there is excellent but that's off-topic...

Then theres knowledge and it's application. Knowing a pawn on d6 is weak one thing. Doing something about it is another. Most fish can point out obvious things. But we won't all be experienced enough to offer some kind of analysis. That's just he way it is.

I only play 3/0 games here occasionally for my own reasons. By the time I figure out how to deal with a pawn on d6 I'm so far behind on the clock that the objective evaluation of the position isn't relevant anymore. And when you play without a plan you blunder. Seeing as I won't play anything more than 3/0 on the internet, except in rare cases, my rating isn't going anywhere.

In my experience if a thread is specific enough you will get good answers. That's true here or anywhere else. For example, If you ask, "What's the best defense to 1.d4?" then you're going to get all kinds of answers. But if you ask a specific question about a specific position or opening then you're more likely to get the kind of answers you want.

At any rate I haven't really had a problem with getting good answers in my threads. The only real exceptions are opinion pieces but that's to be expected.

C-E, I don't understand your win against the FM. He timed out for some reason, but white is winning in the final position. After 25.Qf4, you have no satisfactory defense against the threat of 26.Qf6# without losing material. If this were an OTB game and he lost on time, I'd agree it still counts as a win. But in an online correspondence game with no stakes, who knows why he abandoned the game? Maybe he went on vacation or just forgot about it.

Who has a 2 IQ? 

What is going on here Cherub? 

I'm simply engaging in serious chess discussion - topic: fish. 

It's sad that "ChePlassYer" closed his account. He would have liked this. 

You have a completely lost position though, and your opponent timed out on a 3 day per move game. 

why such a killjoy? op won. that's it. i would think a titled player might think of his/her reputation when agreeing to the game.

to cherub, yeah, i think we've all seen lower rated players that think they know a position, opening, etc. if i were at your level, i would most likely reply a la pfren. 

i'm not, so i don't. i occasionally peruse the topics where higher rated players are discussing things and much of it is beyond me. however, in my 10 years here, i have played against some that were ~1500 at the time and, in a few years, they were 2000. perhaps some of the "fish" you speak of could be players on their way up, but their insight is not reflected in their current rating?

I understand that you're jealous I beat an FM, but please allow me to enjoy my victory. 

Most of the chess posts in these forums now are ys by stupid humorless callous kids and thus illegible.

Thank you Goram. I don't understand it either.

To all who aspire to one day beat an FM, I offer you a simple, one-step plan, far easier than any that have been proposed in these forums:

(1) play me in 1 0 bullet.

That's it.