Відео

Thank you, I've received them! I'll look forward to analysing them.

BTW I can't accept friend requests on Chess.com currently because I haven't activated my account. Why must everything be such a trial?! I'll try to sort this out soon!

@@RTAC_1234 Success!!

@@RTAC_1234 No problem re the friend request - I wasn't sure whether that would impact on sending a message with links.

Thanks for taking the time to watch. BTW would you be interested in me analysing some of your games? I thought it would be good to do a series analysing the games of viewers. If this would be of interest to you, please send me some links, you can post them in the comments section. If you're concerned about privacy, please let me know, and I'll delete the comment after it's been posted. UA-cam really should develop a DM system! Thanks in advance!

I always like Smyslov's philosophy: "I will make 40 good moves and if you are able to do the same, the game will be a draw." Don't know if you saw my other message, but please do send some games for analysis, you can post the links in the comments here.

@@RTAC_1234 Hi. I did post some links and then they disappeared - I assumed that you'd copied them and then deleted the links. I'll sort them out again and post here.

I've just done it again and the post has disappeared again. Is there some sort of ban on posting links?

I haven't received anything. A workaround that used to work is putting spaces between the web address, or writing dotcom instead of .com, or both. You could try that! If not, I'll set up an email address.

@@RTAC_1234 OK, that doesn't work either 🙄

There are always forks in that position. It's a fair comment. I did sort of realise that, and was wondering if I was being a bit harsh! I would just encourage people to resign when lost. Sometimes you will grind someone down and get the rating points and endorphins from winning, but in the long run, in my view, it's a waste of time. By all means try to salvage worse positions, but don't waste your own time. I've played people in blitz who are over 2400, they know my rating, and they've made me play to mate when I've got two queens against a bare king and time on the clock. I cannot recommend this! I should say that many people disagree with this, but I have to give my own view! Thanks for the comments and support!

BTW I had the idea at some point that it would be interesting to do some videos analysing some viewers' games. Would you be interested in this? If so, please send me a few, and I'll make some videos analysing them at some point soon. Send as many as you want, and I'll analyse them over several videos, while requesting more in the comments.

@@RTAC_1234 I'd be a fool not to take you up on that offer! I'm in. Where should I send them? (I can't see an email address in your profile)

You could just post them in the comments section, if you don't mind linking to them. If it's a problem then let me know, and I'll delete your comment after I've collected the links.

Thanks, my pronunciation of non-English words is not going to win any awards!

I don't think there is any strict rule for this, but it's harder to see longer lines. I'm going to make a video about this in the next few weeks. What I can say is that if you never, ever blunder a 2-3 move combination, you will be good! Actually, if you look at the Nepo-Caruana game from the Sinquefield Cup: www.chess.com/events/2024-gct-sinquefield-cup/06/Nepomniachtchi_Ian-Caruana_Fabiano Nepo makes a blunder which involves a 4-move combination. Once you're getting above that it's getting tough for someone at our level to see through the variations. But you can try! When I'm playing the rapid games, you will sometimes see me calculate a bit deeper than this for key decisions, but you can't do this all of the time in rapid. The key thing is always recognising when you need to go deep, which I'll try to explain as we go along.

Thanks for the comment. The Colle is quite similar to the London in that it's a system opening that you play with white, with a fairly similar pawn structure. It looks like it can transcribe into the Stonewall Attack. I would say that you should always play something that you feel comfortable with. It wouldn't be my approach, because I think you should try to get a bit more with white than the Colle promises, but it can't be that bad if it's been played in a World Championship game recently. As long as you have an okay position out of the opening, and know the ideas in the system you're playing, then it's fine up to a pretty good rating. At some point, it can hold you back and limit you. As an example, I think Andrea Botez has been told by Hammer that she needs to branch out from the London. She's a good player at peak 1900 FIDE, but that's about the level where system openings might start to hamper your chess. Until then, I think the Colle will be fine, but you'd have to be quite strong to reach 2000+ OTB playing it IMHO.

Good examples, I think you can learn so much from master games.

Thank you, glad you found it useful. I will do more commentaries in the future.

No problem, thanks for the kind comments. All praise is gratefully received!

I think as well there is so much emphasis on tactics and puzzles, and most of these puzzles tend to be attacking moves and combinations. I sometimes think this gives the false impression that chess is all about attacking, and people focus on that too much. If you simply stop your opponents' threats that will take you a long way.

For me, if you can find something that is okay theoretically, that is rarely played, and there are possible traps, then that's a good combination. David Levy has been a prominent chess writer in the UK for many years, so I'm quite familiar with him.

@@RTAC_1234 Thanks. Concerning Chess Books, Many Time Canadian Champ K. Spraggett GM recommended : "Lasker's Manual of Chess" and I met Israeli Champ V Mikhalevski recommended : 5334 Problems (Polgar), a chap I know only studied "My System" (Nimzowitsch) made it to 2100 Rating ?! Years ago I got Burned $$$ by Shredder Chess : Chess Tutor by Stefan Meyer Kahlen. 8 online Level courses to 2200 Rating, $30 Each. 1st 3 Levels (Elementary) then after that Nothing ??? (Out $ 90 !) Big Scam ! Jim Canada

I have it on my list of ideas to analyse some games on the channel at all rating ranges, so I will do that at some point.

Thanks, I do agree that trying to keep things simple as possible is usually beneficial.

Thanks, much appreciated.

Thank you for the comment.

Thanks, good luck!

That is a good instinct. Magnus said actually that he thinks his best quality is that he rarely blunders short lines. If you calculate short lines well, don't blunder, and play sensible positional moves, you will be a good player.

Sure, it's Kasparov: My Story: ua-cam.com/play/PL8sB8RWpq4ByOwc5AtgQaT25AXK1n_CPb.html Unfortunately, the full versions aren't on UA-cam any more, here is a site that is selling them: chess4less.com/products/garry-kasparov-my-story-complete-parts-1-5

Difficult to answer this in single comment, but let me try! If the king is in the centre and you can keep it in the centre then that's usually a positive in itself. What you can do in these positions is count attackers vs defenders. This can also apply to the cutting the board in two strategy, you could simply count attackers vs defenders, but I have always found the idea of cutting the board to be really illustrative and a simple way to quickly determine whether an attack is likely to be successful. As you rightly point out, this only works when the king is castled, or has been moved to one side of the board 'manually'. If you have the king in the centre and you have pieces all around it, particularly minor pieces, then there is no immediate attack in all probability. You can still calculate if you have time, but your intuition should say that there is no attack. What you want to do here is try to remove some of the defenders. By the same token, if you look at some of the games that I won in this video, if my opponents had pieces, particularly minor pieces, around the king then they would have been much more defendable. Even just a knight on f6 or f8 covers the often critical h7 square, and can make all the difference. If you look at this game I played that I have shown extracts from in at least one of the prior videos: lichess.org/kWEQIti9TIBA If you go to move 26, I definitely did not want to exchange queens here because it's already impossible for my opponent to castle queenside, it's hard for them to castle kingside, and there is a good chance that the king can get stuck in the centre, without even any pawn protection. Within just a few moves, I've got that situation, and after 29. Qf6, effectively all of my pieces are about to come into the attack, while my opponent has a vulnerable pawn two spaces in front of his king, and a queen, which doesn't tend to be a great defensive piece, because you don't want to exchange it for anything other than your opponent's queen. So you can intuitively sense that there is an attack here, particularly as the rooks can never connect, which tends to make them very bad pieces, but you can also count attackers vs defenders. There isn't such as easy rule for when the king is in the centre, but I will be covering this, and counting attackers vs defenders, in future videos. I wanted to include this concept now because I find it so useful. Hope that's helpful, thanks for watching!

@@RTAC_1234 What a brilliantly detailed response. Thank you so much for taking the time to do that - it is much appreciated.

@@richiesills9282 No problem, thanks for interest.

Thank you for the comment. I am using rudimentary equipment, so that would probably explain why. I have looked into getting a microphone, I'll try to get hold of one soon and see if that makes a difference. Thanks for the feedback.

@@RTAC_1234 It's not a huge problem (we all have various volume controls after all!), just thought I'd mention it in case you weren't aware. Keep producing the great content!

@@RTAC_1234 I like your content but agree that sound is not the best compared to others. I was going to do some videos and checked into good mics. Many will disagree I am sure but Rodeo and Shure mics in the 300 to 400 US range was what i decided on after looking at reviews for hours.

Thanks, I will definitely look into getting a mic.

Thanks for the feedback. I will definitely look at getting a mic. I hadn't realised that this could be an issue, and also didn't know that I would get viewers and subs! I will rectify the situation ASAP. Good luck with your content!

No problem, thank you for the feedback, much appreciated.

Hi Jim, I was in Nova Scotia last year, stayed in a beautiful house on a lake! Thanks for the comment, stay tuned for many more videos!

@@RTAC_1234 Yes , I'm in Alberta but was in Nova Scotia/Newfoundland years ago but hoping to Retire there some day. If your in the UK I Hope and Pray the Societal Mess can someday be Peacefully be resolved. (Canada also has similar Problems).All the Best . Jim

There are deep-rooted issues that will probably never be resolved in my lifetime. But I live in the Peak District, where nothing is ever going to happen! Wish you well, have a good week!

Thanks, we all benefit from them IMHO!

Thank you for your comment, it was very insightful. I am generally in agreement that it's not 'easy' to get good at chess, but I think you can improve over a period of time with relatively minimal natural ability. Perhaps the mistake that some people make is setting a timescale for improvement that is too short. I have been playing regularly for 27 years. With this course, I just wanted to share some of the knowledge that I've gleaned, and show people that you don't need to be a genius to become a good chess player.

@@RTAC_1234 Thank you for responding!

No problem, thanks for the support. I didn't expect to get subs, which I really appreciate, so I will be making many, many videos going forward.

Very impressive! I thought I did okay, but one mistake and he crushed me!

I guess his background is a bit dubious, but I try to separate the chess from the person, otherwise there are world champions who would cause equal, or more, concern!

Yes, that's a good observation. The difference for me is that I would want to play for a bit more with white than the London. No doubt that the London is a fine opening, but it's very well-trodden, and black can equalise quite easily. With black, I'm happy to play something positional that allows me to develop without getting hassled too much, but I want to at least try to play for an edge with white. But both the Slav and London are good openings, I would put the Slav in the top tier and the London in the second tier.

No problem!

Thanks, I try to be creative, obviously there are going to be a lot of chess pieces and chessboards in later videos!

Generally, I would agree, which is why I haven't made openings a focus. But I think now you do need to be prepped above a certain level. If you watched the Botez Chess Camp thing recently, they were all very well prepped, even 1800 players.

@@RTAC_1234 The way to deal with players who focus heavily on opening study is simple: do not play main line openings! Which is easy to do if you do not study them! There are tens of thousands of slightly inferior moves that lead to lines totally different from anything book players have studied. If this were not true, then chess should be abandoned, it has been solved. Below the master level, anything can happen, so just do not play book moves and you will win against players whose rating is based on doing well in positions they have studied. These players are over-rated when not playing their pet lines.

I agree, I have advocated this approach in this course. Actually, I saw a video with Magnus the other day where he said at the highest level you basically can't play the mainlines any more, because they've been worked out to drawish positions. It was this one: ua-cam.com/users/shortsUmz7NMYkbXQ

Hi Mushfiqur, some of the early videos will be a bit basic for someone of your level, but there is some good stuff there for you as well, particularly in the openings videos. I have to find a balance between content for beginners and intermediate players, of all ratings. But I've got well over 100 videos planned in this course, I'm not quite sure how many I will make in the end! There will be plenty of advanced stuff, so I'm sure you will find it useful. I'm going to post two per week. If you have any queries or comments at any stage, please drop a message.

@@RTAC_1234 Alright... Thank you very much for teaching noobs like us on this platform, much appreciated

No problem, and I think you're not quite a noob at 1600 OTB! You're already a good player.

@@RTAC_1234 Thanks for the compliment, Sir...

Yes, by the time I've finished this course, we will have covered and discussed everything needed to reach 2000 OTB. I will be covering tactics. The next videos are going to be on thought process principles, then pawn play, and then I'm going to move on to tactics and middlegame play.

@@RTAC_1234 okay thank you

Thanks! It's good if you know the names of things, but not essential. I certainly don't know the names of all opening lines or variations.I just know how to play what I learnt to play.

Thank you for the feedback. I do think being a super-strong chess player does not necessarily make you the best coach of intermediate players. I would liken it to football where great players don't automatically become great coaches, and the best coaches weren't necessarily great players. I have observed so many decent players who do not improve and do not know why they're not improving. All they're ever told, it seems, is: "do more tactics, don't hang pieces". Having coached someone to a good level pretty quickly, I thought I could do something online that could help point people in the right direction, or at least give them some new ideas on how to improve.

Thanks for the feedback! Honestly, I didn't think I would get any subs or view, so I'm more than grateful for what I've received already. If I keep getting a trickle of new subs and each video gets into three-figures, I'm more than happy with that for now. I've set myself the modest goal of getting to 1,000 subs, which I didn't think would be possible initially, but now I think it's a realistic goal. Thanks for the support, it's unexpected and appreciated!

Thanks for the comment! If you like the French then this seems a very sensible approach.

That's interesting, thanks for that!

This is just the overall theme of the course. If you watch the introduction, there is more explanation. There is a general belief that you need to be mega-talented to reach a good rating at chess, whereas I think you do need to put some work in, but you don't need to be hugely naturally gifted. It can be done systematically, and analysing your games is one of the most important steps.

Thanks for the comment! It is BTW interesting to look at the games that Kasparov played in the Scotch; even recently he had some good wins against contemporary players - he beat Nakamura, for example: www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1820137

@@RTAC_1234 Oh, that is a great game. Thank you for sharing that. I do have some studying to do for sure.

We all do!

Thanks for the comments on the videos. Keep up the good work!

Sure, I don't want to discourage people from doing this! I just wanted to make it clear that I've never learnt the technique, and I've never had a game where it's come up. That may be because of the openings that I play, I'm not sure. It's definitely worthwhile to learn if you want to put the work in, it's just not something that I've taken time to do personally.

Good question! For myself, I know that I can't play chess as well as I can write, which is my profession. And I also know how much easier writing comes to me, in comparison to chess. It's hard to ascertain whether or not you have talent, but if you assume that you don't have talent, while implementing the practices that I will include in this course, you will improve regardless of whether or not you're talented. I would suggest that if you are talented, your improvement will be quicker than mine. Since the chess boom occurred, there is a lot of emphasis on improving and reaching goals quickly. I can only say for myself that it took me a long time to even reach 2000 online. I was stuck at 1700-1800 for quite some time. Eventually, I worked out how to improve, so I thought this course would be a good way to share that with others.

Best measuring tool would probably be an IQ test. An average or below IQ and forget about being a strong Chess player for sure.

Yes, I actually remember reports in The Observer about the Kasparov-Karpov matches. It's a regret that the Kasparov-Short match, which was covered live on TV in the UK, came before I really got into chess. I did watch coverage at the time, but couldn't properly appreciate it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to learn ten different openings either! Thanks for the feedback, I will definitely be including game examples. I've never been a big advocate of puzzles, having not done many myself. I simply don't enjoy them. Also, I largely agree with your views. In a game, you need to understand the context in which tactics may exist, whereas in a puzzle you know there's a tactic, and, as you say, it's almost always an immediately decisive tactic. I do therefore, to some extent, question the value of doing endless puzzles. I will discuss puzzles during the course, I do think they can be useful, but would certainly prefer to show game examples wherever possible. It's also much easier for me, as I have no experience or expertise in devising puzzles!

Thank you for your comments. In response to the specifics, I'm glad the videos are recorded at an appropriate volume, I don't have sophisticated equipment, so that's good to know. I hadn't really considered the accent issue! I do have a fairly mild northern English accent; in my world, that's just normal! But I try to speak as clearly as possible, hopefully it is comprehensible and the subtitles are easy to follow. I didn't deliberately enable subtitles, but if they have been helpful, that's great. My sole reason for making this course is to help others, so I try to play and explain at a pace that is appropriate. I think you're correct about online play, but still when you get to a certain rating there are quite a few endgames, and I think most chess players don't want to work on endgames, and, consequently, don't play them very well.