I really like the tips you give on this channel, and the reasoning you give seems very fair and objective. So I really feel like I'm not being given any false promises as to what to expect. I particularly like the advice about the use of stem games when preparing openings; it's an idea that I've started having lately myself as I thought about it a bit more. In the past I have of course looked up stem games, but I think that it's important to actually go over them in a lot more detail than I have done in the past. I think this also applies to stem games that are already commented on by someone else. It's very easy to fall for the trap of just reading those notes and feel like you've gained a lot of understanding of the position, but the fact is often that there are details left out in the analysis and there will always be points that seem obvious to the annotator that are far from obvious to you. Another point on analyzing games, there is so much knowledge and understanding one can gain from analyzing one's own games. I have neglected this a lot in the past, but it is so obvious that the games we play contain almost all the information we need about what can be improved in our own chess. This has become particularly clear to me after a recent tournament, where I realized mid-tournament that I have a fundamental weakness when it comes to the decision to trade down pieces after looking through one of the games trying to figure out what went wrong. It feels like a major breakthrough in my general chess understanding, and I'm a bit bothered by the fact that I have so many other things in my life to deal with at the moment that chess gets a bit pushed to the side. I feel like people often underestimate how big a role an understanding of oneself can have on one's improvement, and they often go for more broad-strokes methods of improving which work until they hit a plateau uncertain of what to do next. Finally, a few questions that I've had some issues with in the past. What are your criteria for picking what games to use as stem games? I've often avoided blitz games in the past as I've been afraid that there is a lot of mistakes that affect the overall 'quality' of the games. Is this fear unfounded (after all, if I put in the hard work analyzing the game I will find out where mistakes were made), or do you think it's generally better to use (say) standard time control games in favour of rapid/blitz games when looking for good stem games? Also, I've noticed that I tend to have a bias toward picking games that have the result I want them to have (for instance, I play the King's Indian Defence a lot, and notice that I often look for black wins when picking stem games to consider). How harmful can this be?
Yes the quality and depth of your analysis matters alot. Looking through your own games especially afterwards in enough depth is one of the best ways to improve your overall understanding of a position whether you win loss or draw. In terms of picking a good stem game I look for one which demonstrates the ideas/plans of either side well. I tend to be more critical of blitz/rapid games and will computer check this carefully but not dismiss it as there can be some very well played games. The result of the game shouldn't matter too much. Say if one player was better the whole game in your chosen position and simply made a silly blunder at the end. This doesn't change our evaluation of the initial position. So just understand if they lost due to the opening/middlegame plan or just another tactical mistake etc.
This is really specific and helpful. Chessbase seems really useful. Should I get it at my level? or is it too early? In regards to the video content, I would like to see your calculation training as well. I hope you put it in your list. Thank you always for good contents.
I don't think you need Chessbase yet unless you are planning to play serious OTB chess tournaments. The other freely available resources should be enough until then.
@@MoltonChess Thanks! I'm actually planing to play two tournaments, one in November and the other in December this year before I leave Japan. However they are more like to gain OTB experience for me. Maybe I'll focus on building up my fundamental skills and basic opening repertoire for now.
Hi Molton! I bought Chessbase/megabase package about 2 months ago, it is great! but I am still learning how to practically use it so you video help me a lot thank you!
Great video. There is so much knowledge for beginner or intermediate player to learn. Could you recomment priorities for various elo levels, for example 1200 to 1500, 1500 to 1800, 1800 to 2100, 2100 +? Tactics, repertoire, middle game, endgame, pawn structures etc.
Hi Molton, thank you for your video. I have used different software and sites before all of which are good for compiling openings and analysing specific aspects of a game. However, I was wondering how, on your path to GM, did you identify the key areas that needed to be improved in your games including gaps in your knowledge that you targeted, and is there any such approaches to these gaps (apart from general practice of topics of calculation and analysis) that helped you improve? Thank you
The general calculation/analysis/practise will help over time. In terms of your question I think this comes down to analysing your games afterwards and reflecting on why you made certain moves and decisions. Over time you will start to see patterns in your games whereby you do well in certain structures/aspects whereas you might do poorly in others due to lack of understanding/experience in those etc. Then you can identify the problem and work on improving it. I still mainly focus on playing towards my strengths but over time have slowly lifted my weaknesses to a point where they are not as noticeable.
@@MoltonChess I've recently looked into different structures and how to approach them (E.g attacking pawn structures and associated endgames, prophylaxis and central control concepts) alongside different positional motifs. I think your further advice confirms I'm on the right path. Thank you for your reply and help.
I think LiChess is fine for most. I would only use Chessbase if you are seriously playing otb tournaments or trying to earn a title then if it might be worth it.
Yes 2200 otb you are definitely strong enough to find value in it. I would recommend for your level. There are also other alternatives to Chessbase as well. As long as you are able to analyse your games and prepare that should do fine.
Yes, please make a video about your favorite chess books.
👍
I really like the tips you give on this channel, and the reasoning you give seems very fair and objective. So I really feel like I'm not being given any false promises as to what to expect. I particularly like the advice about the use of stem games when preparing openings; it's an idea that I've started having lately myself as I thought about it a bit more. In the past I have of course looked up stem games, but I think that it's important to actually go over them in a lot more detail than I have done in the past. I think this also applies to stem games that are already commented on by someone else. It's very easy to fall for the trap of just reading those notes and feel like you've gained a lot of understanding of the position, but the fact is often that there are details left out in the analysis and there will always be points that seem obvious to the annotator that are far from obvious to you.
Another point on analyzing games, there is so much knowledge and understanding one can gain from analyzing one's own games. I have neglected this a lot in the past, but it is so obvious that the games we play contain almost all the information we need about what can be improved in our own chess. This has become particularly clear to me after a recent tournament, where I realized mid-tournament that I have a fundamental weakness when it comes to the decision to trade down pieces after looking through one of the games trying to figure out what went wrong. It feels like a major breakthrough in my general chess understanding, and I'm a bit bothered by the fact that I have so many other things in my life to deal with at the moment that chess gets a bit pushed to the side. I feel like people often underestimate how big a role an understanding of oneself can have on one's improvement, and they often go for more broad-strokes methods of improving which work until they hit a plateau uncertain of what to do next.
Finally, a few questions that I've had some issues with in the past. What are your criteria for picking what games to use as stem games? I've often avoided blitz games in the past as I've been afraid that there is a lot of mistakes that affect the overall 'quality' of the games. Is this fear unfounded (after all, if I put in the hard work analyzing the game I will find out where mistakes were made), or do you think it's generally better to use (say) standard time control games in favour of rapid/blitz games when looking for good stem games? Also, I've noticed that I tend to have a bias toward picking games that have the result I want them to have (for instance, I play the King's Indian Defence a lot, and notice that I often look for black wins when picking stem games to consider). How harmful can this be?
Yes the quality and depth of your analysis matters alot. Looking through your own games especially afterwards in enough depth is one of the best ways to improve your overall understanding of a position whether you win loss or draw.
In terms of picking a good stem game I look for one which demonstrates the ideas/plans of either side well. I tend to be more critical of blitz/rapid games and will computer check this carefully but not dismiss it as there can be some very well played games. The result of the game shouldn't matter too much. Say if one player was better the whole game in your chosen position and simply made a silly blunder at the end. This doesn't change our evaluation of the initial position. So just understand if they lost due to the opening/middlegame plan or just another tactical mistake etc.
my favorite series on UA-cam!
🙏
Needed a video like this! Thanks man.
Glad it was helpful!
Thanks, the video had some great tips in it.
Glad it was helpful!
This is really specific and helpful. Chessbase seems really useful. Should I get it at my level? or is it too early? In regards to the video content, I would like to see your calculation training as well. I hope you put it in your list. Thank you always for good contents.
I don't think you need Chessbase yet unless you are planning to play serious OTB chess tournaments. The other freely available resources should be enough until then.
@@MoltonChess Thanks! I'm actually planing to play two tournaments, one in November and the other in December this year before I leave Japan. However they are more like to gain OTB experience for me. Maybe I'll focus on building up my fundamental skills and basic opening repertoire for now.
Hi Molton! I bought Chessbase/megabase package about 2 months ago, it is great! but I am still learning how to practically use it so you video help me a lot thank you!
Glad it helped!
interested in seeing the book recomendations, great video!
Sure will do one in future
very interesting
👍
Great video. There is so much knowledge for beginner or intermediate player to learn. Could you recomment priorities for various elo levels, for example 1200 to 1500, 1500 to 1800, 1800 to 2100, 2100 +? Tactics, repertoire, middle game, endgame, pawn structures etc.
Sure I could do something for various rating groups in the future
Hi Molton, thank you for your video. I have used different software and sites before all of which are good for compiling openings and analysing specific aspects of a game. However, I was wondering how, on your path to GM, did you identify the key areas that needed to be improved in your games including gaps in your knowledge that you targeted, and is there any such approaches to these gaps (apart from general practice of topics of calculation and analysis) that helped you improve? Thank you
The general calculation/analysis/practise will help over time. In terms of your question I think this comes down to analysing your games afterwards and reflecting on why you made certain moves and decisions. Over time you will start to see patterns in your games whereby you do well in certain structures/aspects whereas you might do poorly in others due to lack of understanding/experience in those etc. Then you can identify the problem and work on improving it. I still mainly focus on playing towards my strengths but over time have slowly lifted my weaknesses to a point where they are not as noticeable.
@@MoltonChess I've recently looked into different structures and how to approach them (E.g attacking pawn structures and associated endgames, prophylaxis and central control concepts) alongside different positional motifs. I think your further advice confirms I'm on the right path. Thank you for your reply and help.
Will chessbase be really helpful at my level? (2200ish) Right now, I am only using lichess.
I think LiChess is fine for most. I would only use Chessbase if you are seriously playing otb tournaments or trying to earn a title then if it might be worth it.
@@MoltonChess K. I meant around 2200 otb, thanks for the answer!
Yes 2200 otb you are definitely strong enough to find value in it. I would recommend for your level. There are also other alternatives to Chessbase as well. As long as you are able to analyse your games and prepare that should do fine.
How to get mega data base
Need to buy it from Chessbase or can download them from the website TWIC (The Week in Chess) which has weekly updates