Is it wrong to ask questions?

Twice now the tactics moderator RetGuvvie98 has seemed angry at people asking a question, the last time, here http://www.chess.com/tactics/server.html?id=46746

For someone who is beginning, just telling them "look at the analysis" doesn't explain why the move is correct.

How can we learn if we are treated rudely when we don't understand? A tactics moderator should have patience with people who are learning.

I don't see what he did wrong. He explained it to you and then asked if you understood. I don't see how he came across as angry.

Although the analysis and source doesn't explicitly tell you why its right (material gain, correct defense, mating net, etc.), by using the analysis board to play through the recommended moves usually helps you find the idea. In this one, you can play it through and see that after gxf6, the king is opened up and Qg4+ followed by the fork Nd7+ wins white an exchange.

I don't think the moderator was being rude, just trying to do his job. In the future when you don't understand the problem, maybe look it over a little so you can ask a more specific question that will be easier to answer.

I think the double & triple question mark thing is uncalled for !!?!!

Also, just because 70% of people get the problem right doesn't mean 70% understand it.  The long line of analysis for the perfect moves leading up to a 3 point equivilant positional advantage for white.  Getting the problem right doesn't imply "getting it" and I'd imagine a large number of those who got it right would be subsiquently mated in a actual game.  BxN just "looks right".

That is a good example of a problem where the full variation should need to be played in order for it to be solved correctly (or at least two or three more moves).  That will jump the problem's rating 1000 points or more.

As a 1-mover the problem has virtually zero instructional value.

One has to be careful, especially as a mod to come across in a particular way.  Excessive punctuation !?!! is not ideal.  Also, it might be easier to actually explain the mechanics of the particular problem for a beginning player rather than a large textblock about going over non-annoatated analysis & trying to understand it.

I think RedState has a valid point & the problem in question should be changed as I mentioned above.  The mod may have had the best of intentions but he didn't come across well, IMO.  I didn't start seriously playing this game as an adult so I can still remember & relate to the frustration of trying to understand long analysis lines ending with "and white is better".

Actually, if chess.com really wants to jump leaps and bounds above the competition it might do well to recruit (or even pay perhaps, at 5cents a problem) volunteers to break down the mechanics of the solution in human language).

Obvious problems such as a knight forking a king & queen would not need such explination but other problems may.

Even at the paid rate this service would cost chess.com $100 for 2,000 anonated problems & honestly I think many players would turn down the money & provide this service to the community for free (or maybe an extra month of premeium membership).

Just an idea, I will mention this to Erik.

ah, the joys of the internet. it's impossible to know if somebody is being funny or rude or neither. different people will read it differently. i'm sure that Retguvvie didn't mean to be rude. perhaps there are things in his writing he could do to make sure he doesn't come across that way (like the "???").

anyway, do ask questions :)

I see nothing about his responses that could be taken as rude or angry, he specifically told you to ask anything specific.

He does use multiple punctuation marks, but that implies he is insane, not rude.  My brother does that in text messages and no amount of patient explanation that it shows a diseased mind will induce him to stop.  Some people just write like that.

Regardless, i'd certainly find it more convenient to use if the tactics trainer info contained a plain english explanation as well as the move lists.

So Erik, rudeness aside (you jerk ), what do you think of my ideas for tactics trainer?   I, for one, still think they're totally awesome (after sleeping on it) & would bring chess.com up above all the rest!

interesting idea Narz. very interesting indeed... let me think on that!

ret,

I applaud your detailed response to the incomplete statement "I don't get this one". I think your response showed patience and diligence. Keep up the good work.

Darn..........I think every one here is being a little to sensitive! Which is typical for the time we are living in.

Like that great Amercian Rodney King once said........."Can't we all just get along".

Relax chess is only a game after ALL!

If this were Vote Chess I think a very large majority would vote for "thank Retguvvie for his good and not in any way insulting work."  Anyway, I would!

I think RetGuvvie98 answered like most of the guys would when they are confronted with an incomplete question.

RedStateGreen, I would suggest next time to ask specific things. The second suggestion is that to try first to settle any disagreement with a guy directly messaging to him and not starting a new topic. Try first to understand first what he wants to tell you.

What do you expect from someone who lives in Oklahoma?!?!

RetGuvvie98 cares very much about teaching chess--and it helps to write a good explanation if you know what the other guy/gal is thinking. Of course, it's easy to misinterpret tones on the Internet. Just look at the threads about how various people interpret comments like "good game", "good luck", etc.

Retguvvie is rude period.

Ok, that's just rude period (though probably intended as a joke).

BTW everyone, RedStateGreen is female, so stop calling her "he".

Only if...

This post seems to hit it on the head. I am still not sure everyone gets exactly what is going on here. Check out the link posted in the OP. 2.Bxf6 is a 'free knight' because either recapture loses for black. 2...gxf6 3.Qg4+ wins the exchange or is checkmate. 2...Qxf6 3.Qxf6 gxf6 4.Nd7 loses the exchange. There is a page with the computer analysis for the position which the moderator pointed to for answers, but this page explains nothing. As the best line, it gives 1...Qd6 2.Bxf6 Bc3. This is clearly not a tactical move, the computer just thinks it is better than 2...gxf6 and 2...Qxf6. So a chess player that has not seen 4.Nd7 will not have their questions answered by checking out the analysis page.

The moderator really doesn't have an excuse in this case. " I don't get it" should obviously be met with "free knight because either recapture loses" followed by giving the two or three short lines. On the other hand, it would have been much more helpful to ask a specific question like "What is wrong with 2...Qxf6?"

If the moderator did not even see the point of the problem, then there is a fundamental flaw in the system. Narz' suggestions seem to be the only possible solutions in my mind. Either the problem needs to include the extension where black fights to stay even with 2...Qxf6 or 2...gxf6 (as opposed to the clearly losing best move), or the 'analysis' page needs to be vastly improved.

Only if it is not concise and clear.