Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Chess?
TaoPhoenix:
"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!
-tomos (November 19, 2017, 10:14 AM)
--- End quote ---
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.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?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.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?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!
TaoPhoenix:
So looping back, about Agadmator, because he is a "lower level" presenter, *presenting three months ago in August 2017*, we have a dead even split.
He "didn't do his homework" on the "Secret Fischer games" video, so you have to turn your implicit learning *off* for that video (maybe mute?) because of my initial remarks about it very nearly proved that it was something to do with someone using a computer.
I glanced again at the Sultan Khan game, that video is much more balanced, but also because he is a weaker presenter, he burns through one of the most important parts of the game without any advice what is "going on".
Now back to accents! I am a New England American (with a few odd adjustments to my own accent from certain movies!), so I liked John Bartholomew's accent. However, if you found that "foreign", let's turn the tables!
Kingscrusher is also a "low master" (roughly same 'strength' as Jerry from Chess Network), pacing is a shade slower than agadmator's but you might need it for this game!
Same game, but compare how Kingscrusher *signals* he has done a few important things right. (Also, let me know about the accent! Kingscrusher is from somewhere in the UK, I think agadmator is eastern european.)
(Tip - 'copy video link at current time' is AMAZING for videos!)
https://youtu.be/pP_0nNnHCsg?t=249
1. At about 5:25 mark, Kingscrusher is good *because he knows he is only a low master* so he *doesn't guess* and "according to Rybka' means he DID take the trouble to computer check vs a common student question!!
2. The correct phrasing on that crucial part with the queen and rooks - Sultan K got a small advantage because Capa had doubled rooks and had to *give them up for the Queen*. Beginners do indeed do WAY better with the Queen side of that trade, but Kingscrusher knows this is *Capablanca* on the Black side and that fella was a BEAST! This is certainly a bad day for Capa, and he MUST have been unhappy to do that! So the phrase is "Black had to give up the doubled rooks" not "Won the Queen". Then this is just an "imbalance". Queen vs Two Rooks is one of the famous ones, and you can spend a week poking around when one side or the other has *other things* that swing it back and forth.
3. About the 6:45 mark, "We had a recent game with Michael Adams..." - Kingscrusher has *done his homework* and shown how "one of the famous classics" has themes that apply today! It's "entertaining" to look at these old games, but then to have the presenter actively point out exactly where you can do further study is HUGE.
4. 7:50 Again he computer checks it, this time remarking how using technology from some 80 years later, computers would take a different approach but "sometimes there are several ways to win and which one you pick" is also a grand topic.
5. Tip! Always click "more" in a Youtube video! It's the first thing you do because that's where people who do their homework stand out! Kingscrusher posted the moves to the game, so you can do whatever you want with them! Looks like it's a bit harder to nail down that exact Michael Adams game, but now you know where to look, it has to be "fairly easy to find" if you really wanted to hunt for it.
So come to think of it, merely because I had my own picks, I had some slight trouble with his accent, but I might glance more at K-C's channel now!
:Thmbsup:
TaoPhoenix:
ps after a few days thought tomos, sorry that I need to do better to just "suggest" stuff more lightly!
Over to you!
tomos:
hi Tao
been meaning to reply 'properly' ...but time... is [not] on my side
I watched a couple of Kingcrusher's videos a while back:
enjoyed a lot, but they were maybe too advanced for me (I will try them again now I'm a more seasoned viewer!). They had the minor problem (for a beginner bigger though) of not highlighting the squares the piece just moved from, and to. So I kept having to rewind to follow the moves properly. (I should just ask him to do that.)
Will be interesting to see his Sultan Kahn one and compare. (Note that it's the norm to post the moves, but for me it's just better to watch the video twice.)
A story about his accent:
he was talking about the 'King's Indian' in a video I watched. Some commenters took offence, claiming he was saying the King's 'Injun', saying that was racist etc. Of course it was simply his accent -- he sort of says it like 'In-ji-an'.
London accent, innit ?! :D
TaoPhoenix:
I saw a Tom Scott video recently about the British R, and I think both Kingscrusher and Simon Williams do it, and I do have to say it does bother me 5%.
It's actually kinda rare that chess vid makers post the moves - I spotted it and was impressed!
And also interesting "too advanced" (last time), so these are important things to think about because I think I have a tendency to be slightly disparaging of earlier stages of learning even though my skillset is sharp in some areas and falls off a cliff after that!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version