Keeping in mind there is dues paying to learning chess. It is an extremely deep and complex game and you have to play openings to learn openings. We need to be aware of what attacking possibilities there are out of each opening we play, and we can't just blindly go on autopilot. The Stonewall is similar to the London, the main idea here is for players up to about 1300-1400 to keep the opening principles. The main advantage to these system openings is that you short-circuit a lot of the "trick" openings: fool's mate, scholar's mate, fried liver and you decline basically all gambits. Castle as soon as possible, connect your rooks and start attacking. I still see the elite players do these things, they are just slighly more oblique with it, maybe a different move order, and they attack a little earlier.
@Marax Aram and to add a bit, a lot of the opponents play in the game is to create weakness, and force black to respond and white can keep control of the game. but since stonewall just has weakened everything, it leaves the white opponent without as much rapid opportunity to force black more than black really forces themself. and secondly, if black knows how to defend those weaknesses, the game for him wont really get out of control.
@@guywhoneversleeps yes, precisely. You know that when you put pawns on c6-d5-e6-f5 that white will play on dark squares. so everything that you do will be based around subduing that while simultaneously using your advantage of light square control. the static structure early on clearly defines the necessity of the pieces.
@@lukepuque8410 which is actually quite uncommon for black to get to do. however, i still dont recommend playing it, but there is something there to play for
It is as Alastair says. If you ever watch him speak on any topic, you'll notice he speaks with a greater degree of hesitancy across his speech, I think probably both because of his having to speak outside of his native tongue and because of his mind turning over a bunch of different ideas at once. He is certainly not the most efficient communicator, but I doubt very much that he is unsure of what he ultimately says, except as far as intelligent people are unsure of what they know.
To anyone that understands the stonewall at a basic level understands his answer clearly. Putting all of your pawns on 1 color creates a great stronghold on e5 but e4 is weak. So there’s no hiding that weakness from the start, but you have a good plan and good attacking chances with your F pawn. So his answer is good if people understand the minimum.
That's a good start, the level of a decent club player. On lichess or OTB, because that is a big difference. Only 500 Elo to go for Expert, 1000 Elo to go till GM norms. That will be a good exercise in humility. I don't think you see much Stonewall above 1400 truly, but there are some historical games to be aware of. If you aren't, some surprises may be in store for you.
Magnus really doesnt explain chess very well. Im not sure what the explanation is for that. Albert Einstein once said "If you can't explain it simply, then you don't understand it well enough". However, I don't believe that is the case here, that Magnus doesn't understand different aspects of chess well enough to explain them. I don't know Magnus well enough to be able to diagnose the situation. Anyway, basically what he is trying to say, I believe, about the stonewall opening is that you make certain square weaknesses (positional), and the struggle is real from the very onset of the opening. You have positional strengths and weaknesses however in this opening. The key is neutralize the effect of the weaknesses while simultaneously using the strengths to better your position. Really the opening is good for him because he has a innate ability to understand where his pieces need to be in such situations. He feels he can make use of the positives while subduing the negatives.
1st) Albert Einstein never said that. 2nd) Magnus understands chess not only better than any human in history but even better than computers. 3rd) What Magnus said was that the Stonewall is great because if you are able to overcome the positional problems that it brings, then your draw is theoretically at least guaranteed, so if your opponent makes a mistake black will be better basically.
The problem with people as smart as him is that they don't realize some things that seem very simple to them may seem confusing to others. On top of that, Magnus is humble. He understands the complexity of chess and the multiple things that can be said simultaneously and never seems to give a clear verdict, which will make it simple to understand. He rather presents it in its entire ambiguity.
@@-_Nuke_- so you are disputing albert einstein's quotes? and nobody said he didnt "understand" chess well. this was about him "explaining" chess. get your facts straight dummy.
Magnus is a brilliant Master of Chess but he sucks at explaining Chess tactics and theories. Maybe it's English which is the reason or he can't convert his thoughts into words, I don't know.
And why would I listen to a human his ridiculous opinion about chess that he knows nothing about. I'll pay attention when he beats stockfish or Alfa zero. Before that he's just another patzer.
The kid probably plays more stone wall now lol
"things can only go upward" sigma stonewall mindset 🗿
Everyone saying you don’t understand what he’s saying just need to listen.
i agree
Magnus is ambiguous, not revealing the advantages and disadvantages of the stone wall haha.
no his english just wasnt good back then weirdo
well.. revealing the advantages and disadvantages would have taken an extra 10 minutes at least that he didn't have.
Basically, the advantage is that is has disadvantages from where you can improve
One of the great things about the Stonewall is that you're making some positional concessions early on... 😂❤
Keeping in mind there is dues paying to learning chess. It is an extremely deep and complex game and you have to play openings to learn openings. We need to be aware of what attacking possibilities there are out of each opening we play, and we can't just blindly go on autopilot. The Stonewall is similar to the London, the main idea here is for players up to about 1300-1400 to keep the opening principles. The main advantage to these system openings is that you short-circuit a lot of the "trick" openings: fool's mate, scholar's mate, fried liver and you decline basically all gambits. Castle as soon as possible, connect your rooks and start attacking. I still see the elite players do these things, they are just slighly more oblique with it, maybe a different move order, and they attack a little earlier.
Bro...
@@Yellowstone300 ikr
Same is true about the 1.g4, 2. f3 system. I mean, can it really get much worse afterwards?
Look at the best games on lichess database. some geniuses actually used 1. G4 E5 2. F3 to illegally farm elo
Can we get much higher?
You asked Magnus about openings and expected a human response?
Bro the kid who played Elton John in the movie could play magnus easy if there ever was a movie made
He has movies already
Thanks, Magnus. Rather partial to the Stonewall myself.
The questioner didn't specify Stonewall Attack (w/White) or Stonewall Dutch Defense (w/Black).
thats my world champion!!!!!!!
The chess speaks for itself
Umm, can someone explain his answer for me please? I kinda didn't get his point at the end there.
@Marax Aram and to add a bit, a lot of the opponents play in the game is to create weakness, and force black to respond and white can keep control of the game. but since stonewall just has weakened everything, it leaves the white opponent without as much rapid opportunity to force black more than black really forces themself.
and secondly, if black knows how to defend those weaknesses, the game for him wont really get out of control.
@@guywhoneversleeps yes, precisely. You know that when you put pawns on c6-d5-e6-f5 that white will play on dark squares. so everything that you do will be based around subduing that while simultaneously using your advantage of light square control. the static structure early on clearly defines the necessity of the pieces.
@@lukepuque8410 which is actually quite uncommon for black to get to do. however, i still dont recommend playing it, but there is something there to play for
He doesn’t sound very sure of his answer.
Possibly because this isn’t his first language and he is sat in front of hundreds of people being asked tricky and complicated answers?
It is as Alastair says. If you ever watch him speak on any topic, you'll notice he speaks with a greater degree of hesitancy across his speech, I think probably both because of his having to speak outside of his native tongue and because of his mind turning over a bunch of different ideas at once. He is certainly not the most efficient communicator, but I doubt very much that he is unsure of what he ultimately says, except as far as intelligent people are unsure of what they know.
He just doesn't have good English
For me it sounds like he has a lot of good things he can't say at once
To anyone that understands the stonewall at a basic level understands his answer clearly. Putting all of your pawns on 1 color creates a great stronghold on e5 but e4 is weak. So there’s no hiding that weakness from the start, but you have a good plan and good attacking chances with your F pawn. So his answer is good if people understand the minimum.
11 year old 1500 rated player LMFAO i'm fucking rolling
Ye what a clown. Kids who are serious bout chess are usually 1800+ at 11
Yeah, 1500 rated at home
That's a good start, the level of a decent club player. On lichess or OTB, because that is a big difference. Only 500 Elo to go for Expert, 1000 Elo to go till GM norms. That will be a good exercise in humility. I don't think you see much Stonewall above 1400 truly, but there are some historical games to be aware of. If you aren't, some surprises may be in store for you.
And anyone 2100 or above will crush you immediately with ANY opening, less than 20 moves.
Lots of chess prodigies hit that level pretty quickly. Levy Rozman hit 2000 FIDE when he was 10
What?
his speech-craft elo is 200
He speaks 4 languages… you’re speech isn’t even close to as good as his.
Magnus wasn’t being very forthcoming in his reply to the question. He was stonewalling.
Bro said nothing!!!
😂😂🤣🤣🤣
is he drunk?
Magnus really doesnt explain chess very well. Im not sure what the explanation is for that. Albert Einstein once said "If you can't explain it simply, then you don't understand it well enough". However, I don't believe that is the case here, that Magnus doesn't understand different aspects of chess well enough to explain them. I don't know Magnus well enough to be able to diagnose the situation. Anyway, basically what he is trying to say, I believe, about the stonewall opening is that you make certain square weaknesses (positional), and the struggle is real from the very onset of the opening. You have positional strengths and weaknesses however in this opening. The key is neutralize the effect of the weaknesses while simultaneously using the strengths to better your position. Really the opening is good for him because he has a innate ability to understand where his pieces need to be in such situations. He feels he can make use of the positives while subduing the negatives.
English obviously isn't his first language. I doubt he'd have any trouble explaining it now.
1st) Albert Einstein never said that.
2nd) Magnus understands chess not only better than any human in history but even better than computers.
3rd) What Magnus said was that the Stonewall is great because if you are able to overcome the positional problems that it brings, then your draw is theoretically at least guaranteed, so if your opponent makes a mistake black will be better basically.
The problem with people as smart as him is that they don't realize some things that seem very simple to them may seem confusing to others. On top of that, Magnus is humble. He understands the complexity of chess and the multiple things that can be said simultaneously and never seems to give a clear verdict, which will make it simple to understand. He rather presents it in its entire ambiguity.
@@-_Nuke_- so you are disputing albert einstein's quotes? and nobody said he didnt "understand" chess well. this was about him "explaining" chess. get your facts straight dummy.
@@alfa-psi Einstein died in 1958.
Magnus is a brilliant Master of Chess but he sucks at explaining Chess tactics and theories. Maybe it's English which is the reason or he can't convert his thoughts into words, I don't know.
And why would I listen to a human his ridiculous opinion about chess that he knows nothing about. I'll pay attention when he beats stockfish or Alfa zero. Before that he's just another patzer.
Stockfish can’t talk
The OP is trolling. If not, he should try playing chess. Maybe then he would appreciate the genius of the "patzer".
Obvious bait is obvious