why is quality of world champ chat so poor?

In years past I have been on some sites where commentary on big games and tournaments was insightful, thoughtful, sharp. [For example, back in the days of ICC]
Chat on such games on lichess is pitiful, consisting mostly of:
1) cheer-leading for one player or the other 'Magnus will win' 'go Ian'
2) predictions about results not based on analysis or thinking, and without explanation "draw" "Magnus will win" "black is better"
3) opinions without basis "blunder" "easy win for white"
4) reports of someone's computer's analysis "-.21" ['blunder' is often a way of saying your computer did not choose that move or the evaluation dropped by .15]
5) outright meaningless spamming "yada yada yada 19 times" or nasty negative comments directed at a particular person "shut up" "you don't know what you're talking about" "speak english" [lichess tries to control these, but it is a constant struggle]

maybe it is a natural result of free access and popularity which brings in chatteratti who just want to sound their horn
but I sure would enjoy commentary from knowledgeable people who can help me understand the game
anywhere I can find that?

If you're looking for helpful commentary, don't look in the chat, or in general, places where anybody can say whatever they want without reprisal. Instead, a lot of streamers can have interesting analysis, and you can pick and choose among them depending on your taste (and don't look in the chat there either).

You're entirely right about the free access and popularity part. Once there is a critical mass of ignorant or unhelpful people, there is essentially no hope for it.

> maybe it is a natural result of free access and popularity which brings in chatteratti who just want to sound their horn
Yes.

> but I sure would enjoy commentary from knowledgeable people who can help me understand the game
anywhere I can find that?
Not in the chat, that's for sure.

Quoting Sarg0n:

Some years ago there was an article in the NiC magazine which can be summarized roughly by the following drastic quote:

"Just as the gun enables the inconsequential loner to 'equalize' himself with, say, John Lennon or John F. Kennedy, so the computer enables the talentless to prove themselves 'better" than celebrated grandmasters. And via online comments they can broadcast their superiority to the world."

(Dominic Lawson, President of the English Chess Federation)

Well, everyone can do what he likes to do but I know that the engines won't help you much in your next game. The book which I am reading currently describe this as the biggest problem of all those who want to become master: the ability to think for themselves is lacking.

The quality of those matches is really poor. They should let a few 2000 lichess rated players enter and show them how to play chess.

#4 is the answer to #5.

Anticipated?

@pointlesswindows said in #5:
> The quality of those matches is really poor. They should let a few 2000 lichess rated players enter and show them how to play chess.

I take a BM once a Day that's good enough for the average Li chess 2000

Hey man what about my jokes?

- The Danny Rensch joke book.
- the puberty problems of 40 percent of a pawn
- thanked by another chat member when I brought up Johannes Zuckertort's sword fighting prowess.

I brought class to the house.
Crass low rent chat? To paraphrase Shaggy, it wasn't me.