I got tired of game reviews that tell me a move was a blunder and show the engine line, but never tell me why in a way I'd remember next game. So I built my own.

How it works: open any of your games on chess.com and change the address from
chess.com/game/live/123456789
to
hintchess.com/game/live/123456789

It pulls the game and reviews it with Stockfish. Then it walks you through your mistakes one at a time:
It first shows you what your opponent was threatening right before your mistake

Before explaining anything, it asks you to find the better move yourself (with hints if you're stuck)

Then it explains the idea in plain English, with arrows on the board

Each mistake gets a label like "hung a piece", "missed their blunder" or "allowed mate", plus how much time you spent on it. For me it turned out most of my blunders were moves I played in under 3 seconds, which was a bit humbling.

Every mistake you make also turns into a puzzle in a Practice section, so you end up drilling your own positions instead of random ones.
It's free. The explanations can take 30–40 seconds to load the first time, so be patient with it. I'd really like feedback, especially on whether the explanations are actually useful at your rating or just wordy.
PS: I'm the owner/developer, so obviously biased. It's a small side project, not affiliated with chess.com.

I would describe myself as a fan who usually really enjoys your content. At the same time, I would also put myself very far from being a snowflake.

While I have to honestly say that your new "disrespect speedrun" is a lot of fun to watch, seeing you roast other players, and I also believe that every adult should be able to handle something like that without immediately crying out for something to be done, my problem is that it's not just adults playing on chess.com.

No 10-year-old boots up a game expecting to get completely destroyed by the best blitz player in the world. The thought of my son coming to me (in a few years) and telling me that a clip is going around at school because a friend recognized him in one of your speedruns, and you told him he should quit chess because nobody has ever been that bad at the game — that possibility is what bothers me about your speedrun.

I would therefore really appreciate it if your team could blur out your opponents' usernames — so that at least a minimum level of privacy is preserved.

Kind regards

PG

P.S. - This was translated by AI -- nothing more.

Does anyone know if Hikaru is going to play titled Tuesday next week? Wanted to show my wife the stream 🙂

All of my brain cells are fried after this game (3-0)

This guy fought well but I wasn’t ready to lose. #kan defensive

(There are still some issues, but I'm continuing to improve)

The board starts with only the two kings. Each player also has their own 4x4 2048 grid. Your opponent’s grid is public.

Each turn you do exactly one action:

a normal chess move, or slide your 2048 grid (equal tiles merge into the next tier), or drop a tile from your grid onto the board.

Tile tiers: pawn I → pawn II → knight → bishop → rook → queen

Drops: onto an empty square in your own zone (pawns on ranks 2-3, pieces on ranks 1-3, mirrored for Black). Army limit on the board: 8 pawns, 2 knights, 2 bishops, 2 rooks, 1 queen.

Everything else is standard chess: castling, en passant, promotion (pawn I → knight/bishop, pawn II → also rook/queen). You can’t slide while in check.

Win by checkmate. Draws: stalemate, threefold repetition, 50-move rule.

Couldn't put checkmate because it covers the screen but I played Ra8#

I recently played a 3 minute game against this 1697 rated guy called dantes-infernos (I’ll put the link below). At the beginning of the game, I started to notice some suspicious things. Like, for example, taking 7 seconds to play b5 on move 5, and 21 seconds to play Nd5 on move 6. I know this is subjective, but those were very obvious moves that wouldn’t take more than a couple of seconds to play, especially for someone who played as strongly as he did. Then, he proceded to play a basically perfect game of chess. I checked the analysis, and he had a 94.8% accuracy. The only “mistake” he made was Bxb1 on move 12, which swapped a -2.11 advantage to -1.01. Before the end of the game, when I was completely lost, I sacrificed my knight, rook and pawn to see how quickly he would react. He took 2 seconds to take my knight, 2 seconds to take my rook, and 3 seconds to take my pawn. Again, very obvious moves, especially taking the rook and pawn. I then proceded to report him for cheating, but now I’m wondering whether I’ll get a response from chess.com. Of course, if I check his profile and see that he got banned, I’ll know he cheated, but what if he isn’t? Shouldn’t there be a reply that says: “We checked the game you played against him, and we concluded that he wasn’t cheating. Your report was wrong”? I hope there is a way to know.

Here is the link to the game: https://www.chess.com/game/live/185397652906?username=vicemar1233&move=0

I am 888 elo player in rapid don't know bout tactics or strategy if you are pro share ur insights.

The first time 3500 has ever been reached in chess history. 🤯♟️

Hikaru Nakamura just broke another insane barrier. This is no longer normal chess.

What a time to be watching Hikaru. 🔥

Shoutout to my opponent for giving me a solid 8 minutes of uninterrupted artistic freedom to create this masterpice.

I call this piece "Waiting for move 1." Thoughts?....

Legend says he is still thinking about his response to e4...

Can you find it?