Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Chess?
TaoPhoenix:
There's some good chess streams coming up for November ...
tomos:
There's some good chess streams coming up for November ...
-TaoPhoenix (November 05, 2017, 09:12 PM)
--- End quote ---
please let us know more (how/where/when to access)
Sounds fun what you were describing in the previous post.
Below a couple videos from another channel I started following (agadmator's Chess Channel). I like him a lot -- he's got a very relaxed style, but is much faster moving than the other channel above.
-tomos (October 05, 2017, 10:51 AM)
--- End quote ---
added link in the above quote --
I'm still watching a good few of his videos. For me, it's interesting to be shown "what would happen if" etc. and he has a good style I find. He's rated around the 2000 mark himself. The first presenter I linked to (post#1 'Chessnetwork') is rated a lot higher (IM even, but not 100% sure), but his presentation was too slow for my taste.
I have no problem with where they get the ideas they present -- I just want something accessible (and entertaining).
I do find myself slowly copping on to what the next logical move might be in not very complex situations. But then the most interesting moves can seem pretty illogical until you see what follows.
Sultan Khan is a little more obscure - several decades older, and also dating from a time in chess culture where we now cover more ground in 5 weeks than they did in a year "back in the day".
-TaoPhoenix (October 08, 2017, 03:10 AM)
--- End quote ---
I have heard that 'modern' classical chess is often about grinding down and can be pretty boring. At my level, *any* chess game is of interest. But, again, the more dramatic ones are more entertaining. And I find the post-analysis of much more interest than the couple of 'live' videos I've seen. A good example is this great game live:
https://youtu.be/L9nKxauDbVs?t=8m23s
(cueued to random middle of game) -- those commentators do my head in lol
TaoPhoenix:
A quick rundown of "chess strength":
"About 2000" - the bare minimum a chess presenter needs, to even make sense with "legit advice". But watch out the whole "online ratings" thing for another day! For the moment, assume ratings in long games over live boards In Real Life.
These guys borrow HARD on existing notes made by full masters and computers - left to themselves, I am learning more and more "chess advice in 2018" is not "what 3rd rate teachers presented in 1992". So if they just describe advice "blind" without AT LEAST checking it on a computer, in this day and age, it's a prescription for disaster. So I haven't checked agadmator's channel much, accents ARE a thing! But maybe he's good enough.
But you also have to look at "what they are presenting" - Sultan Khan really is nothing more than a "Fred Reinfeld story from 1955".
Next up, "Jerry from Chess Network" is still "only" a "national master" aka rating about 2300. That's a whole order higher than a 200 player - the ratings are *exponential*, not "linear*! So that IS right at the lowest levels to teach beginners. But he too has to rely on a lot of homework and computer checking and preferably other grandmaster notes. It IS a legit market niche to take the "compact" grandmaster notes and package them for students. But if he just said "stuff cold", he too would get laughed off the net.
TaoPhoenix:
So right about here, we get into "audience". And yes, "pace of delivery" is huge too, Some students need the slower pace. A modern famous grandmaster still "working in the modern internet times" with that delivery is Yasser Sierawan. I agree with you, I need a faster cadence to really "get into the zone to learn."
So Jerry still is a key notch below "the minimum standard" you really need to "go cold". Basically that mark is right near full International Master. For another post, there are technical details between that title and full Grandmaster. It has to do with getting a series of tournaments "the best of your life then you retire" and if you got stuck, there a whole swath of world class IM's who just lost too many games one at a time to get the full GM title, their brain just couldn't deliver the last 10%. more on them in a big post later.
THEN we get "presentation tone". So broadly, we start getting a few 2-dimensional graphs of things. So if both NM Jerry from Chess Network and Yasser Sierawan have a "slow delivery",they are also both still "classically professional" in tone.
Chess.com is interesting. If you check their Youtube channel, they ARE putting some legit money this year into various events. BUT you have to deal with Danny Resnch. He has a very slip-slide tone where it's a tough call he tries a bit too hard to be a full comedian and misses a lot. IF you like chess comedy, try it.
So for my next recommendation of a playing IM without a lot of excessive comedy but who is legit good enough to "be valid on the fly", but with a faster delivery, try John Bartholomew. And you said you liked attacking chess. That comes down to style. Current Championship and his recent contender are both "grinders" and I can't study them either. But there are tons of other "exciting" grandmasters out there. Lemme try one good link.
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.com/watch?v=5wvJH_I7yo8
(IM John Bartholomew on the black side of a Panov Bitvinnik Caro Kann)
tomos:
"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 (November 19, 2017, 02:20 AM)
--- End quote ---
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.com/watch?v=5wvJH_I7yo8
(IM John Bartholomew on the black side of a Panov Bitvinnik Caro Kann)
-TaoPhoenix (November 19, 2017, 02:34 AM)
--- End quote ---
that was really good -- very enjoyable :up:
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 :D). 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!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version