"Jerry from Chess Network" is still "only" a "national master" aka rating about 2300. That's a whole order higher than a 2000 player - the ratings are *exponential*, not "linear*!
-TaoPhoenix
I didnt know that, makes a big difference.
Here's a short video with a game I could stand to look art twice, featuring that Bishop to e6 move. I forgot my exact opinion when I spent a week studying this opening in medium depth but I think I chose not to use it.
https://www.youtube..../watch?v=5wvJH_I7yo8
(IM John Bartholomew on the black side of a Panov Bitvinnik Caro Kann)
-TaoPhoenix
that was really good -- very enjoyable 
I reckon we have different interests here, in this thread, in our approach to videos -- that one from Bartholemew overlapped for me:
you (I think) are looking for instructional videos, I'm looking for entertainment. That, to me, was both. Advanced, pleasing, a good 'explainer', so a good teacher.
Going back to the YT channels you criticise -- I'll only mention agadmator here, because I hardly look at the other any more. He loves chess, he steeps himself in chess, new and old. He tells a good story, he explains well (I think) what's happening. Also looks at historic games, which as you say, (summarizing from memory), would be weak today. But so what! I could compare it to snooker: I love watching a good game of snooker. You go back to the 80's, the pockets were bigger, the standard of play a lot lower than today -- there's still classic games and matches from that time that are well worth watching imo.
You repeat the thing about them getting their info elsewhere: I've already said before it makes no difference to me where they get their info from, (and note btw that agadmator very often does check the moves via engine). If I'm starting to sound a bit defensive here, I think that partly goes back to the above (different interests / approaches). I watch to be entertained. Not to learn. (But I have learned a lot along the way -- which wouldnt be difficult given my standard 
). But also goes to you admitting you haven't watched much (or any?) of his channel, and still being critical. Note that I *completely* get the point that someone at that level would not be good enough to comment off the cuff about a game. So not as live commentators. But as someone who tells a story, and explains a game -- certainly, for my level (zero or so :p) at any rate. For your level, it's natural you would have different interests, and standards.
Not sure what you meant by the accent thing (are they 'cool' or something?)
Oddly, for me, Bartholomew's accent is a lot more foreign, because I have so little exposure to American accents (in media or IRL). But the accent, and moreso the voice, are important -- to me anyways -- if I'm going to be listening to someone, I'll want it to be pleasant (for want of a better word), or at least not grating.
Hope you understand my slant a bit better now!
-tomos
Hi Tom,
After a few days delay, we have some more discussion!
I was working my way exploring your interests here! Some of it is our unique processing styles, but like they say in a lot of science fields, "we're going to converge soon" on things that make us happy!
I'll leave your note up above for reference, then start including some of your lines in text quotes for simplicity.
Here's some more comments!
"you (I think) are looking for instructional videos, I'm looking for entertainment. That, to me, was both. Advanced, pleasing, a good 'explainer', so a good teacher."
At the heart of all this is there is no limit to what you can like on the net! But with the theme I am exploring, "if you use a semi scientific method, you can pick the NEXT thing you might like much faster!" So American accent aside, (I might leave that off this post), I made a good guess with John B. Pacing, 'good explainer', entertaining (but in a "professional way"), etc.
Next fragment is that you didn't know as much about the strength of presenters, *or the 'intended audience' * combined with how old the material is. Some of this is because my themes begin to cover if you ever poke at chess literature. Of course videos are new, so "by artifact" the mood-of-the-time doesn't kick in. The first famous wave of books at "chess entertainment for the tomos 's of the day" were Fred Reinfeld and Irving Chernev. A word that floated around was "celebrated" (also comment on the times, when a game "got passed around" for 100 years! Now people laugh at you for things as little as 10 years 'behind the times'!)
But the MAJOR new theme is what I'll call "implicit learning". It has to do with of course there are new moves every year, but how ROUGHLY applicable is something to your chess? For a case study, let's kick it Old Skool With Adolf Anderssen and Party like it's 1851!
http://www.chessgame...hessgame?gid=1018910
It's called the "Immortal Game". "I know, it's 1851, see the graphic, they didn't know how to play chess then, but it's very entertaining". So you have to turn your "implicit learning" OFF for that game! BUT if you have only a "weak presenter" who ONLY says "whee, look he sacrifices everything, YAY!" (2018 version of some of those 1957 books!), then you get hopelessly lost!
BUT ...
SAME guy - Adolf Anderssen - who was "World Champion" before they put the name to it ... ONE YEAR LATER ... unloaded THIS one: Aka "The Evergreen Game".
http://www.chessgame...hessgame?gid=1018961
This is a PERFECT game to "know your classics" because it STILL looks EXACTLY like a cutting edge online game from today! And the moves make "sense" - It's a great demo of what gambits "do", and Black tried hard to deal with it. Black is a "low master of the day". The pawn push on d3 is what you might try to at least leave White with a few wrinkles to deal with, vs a famous type of "patzer game" of the era, where Black "just takes everything because yay pawns!!"
And because this game has ALSO been kicking around, I'm pretty sure I remember when I read up on this game a decade or more ago, there are reasons on a lot of the moves around Black's 13th onward, because as a low master, Black would have been itching to castle, so this is what "implicit learning" is for - when a "good" (ish?) player *doesn't* make a move, "70%" of the time there is a legit reason for it. I think I recall at least one of the problems is Black's queen gets trapped in a bunch of "variations" or "lines" ((good vocab to know!!)), so by the time he got things sorta out of the fire, there were frying pans.
YES a brand NEW perspective ONLY available in the last 15 years is that computers can now check all the older literature and newer players who don't know enough of the computer science keep asking "but my computer says he was fine etc etc".
PHOENIX CHESS SECRET!
That's because there is a SEVERE problem with today's presentation of computer chess! But a few computers have the option "FORCE the computer to show 8 lines no matter HOW bad", and then my phrase is "falls off a cliff". So YES there was some random point when a 21st century computer figured out how not to get checkmated, but when you do that new setting, what gambits do is create games where there MIGHT be a way out and the attacker even could know this, BUT to varying degrees vs the skills of the defender, it falls off a cliff then add one more mistake and you are toast.
So this is a great game "at all levels of presenter" because you can leave your implicit learning on and take your chess notebook (if you don't have one, start one! Little snips, whole pages, it's part of the fun! "Note to self - look up later why Black couldn't castle in the Evergreen Anderssen Dufresne 1852 game for most of the moves past a certain point." )
Whew!
So even if you have an "entertaining" presentation, you still get a lot of legit things out of the game. The first one simply has an endless string of moves that will take you an HOUR fighting your "osmosis" aka implicit learning!
Yay Chess!
