Here's a great tool for learning openings: chessbook.com/hanging-pawns Chessbook allows you to import and practice your repertoire. It focuses on moves people actually play as well as your mistakes. Connect it to your lichess or chess com accounts to correct the biggest gaps in your repertoire!
Karthik Prabhu WOW that’s a great point. Sometimes I do that during analysis, but I’ll try that during my next game. I’m sure it helps when you start blanking out, get the ideas on the table.
Yes, I have started doing that with puzzles as well. I tend to find my game goes to mush a bit during the game, and I don't seem to have any self-talk going on. So, I am trying to build that into my thinking by speaking the variations.
Like in some other of your excellent videos, you are telling people what they (we) don't want to hear: improvement requires very hard work. But you are absolutely right: if you really want to improve, you have to do things thoroughly. Thats why I myself am stuck at the same level for the past few years. Thank you for your work, and congratulations on your brave decision to gve up everything for chess.
I had a very painful defeat today. I am so frustrated but I know that it is an opportunity to learn. I'm going to watch this video then try to analyse it when the tournament is finished.
Thanks for this video. I've been analyzing my games, but only in a half-hearted way. Thank you for your example of thoroughness and total commitment. You've inspired me to analyze my games properly.
The kind of video I watch and think „well, I should do this, really” and decades past and I keep not analyzing seriously my games and keep doing the whole bunch of blunders against players that even don’t now what is a stalemate. Thanks for the video!
13:50 h5 and h6 both give the bishop some breathing room on the h7 square. playing neither will lose the bishop so we can all agree one of those moves should be played. The pros of h5 then are that it gains space on the kingside, though I dont think black looks like he is an position to play on that side of the board, with black intending c5 at some point, and white intending f4, its clear that black wants a queenside/ central attack, and white wants a kingside attack so is that space on the kingside even useful? it is only an advantage if it can be exploited. The cons of h5 give black a relatively secure outpost for his knight on g5 always eyeing the f7 square. yes black can play f7-f6 to kick the knight away at some point, but then that creates a weakness on g7 and a weak pawn on a semi open file for white to take aim at. h6 doesnt give away the g5 square and completely avoids any of the aforementioned complications. the knight cant land there, f7-f6 doesnt need to be played, the e pawn doesnt become a weakness. the pawn structure stays well intact
Good video. And the sound was fine; so people who think otherwise might consider it useful training to focus. I had no problem myself. Everything was fine. I found the endgame section overly strict regarding 100% certainty, since we are not computers, and no analysis is exhaustive, but the rest was useful. I also admire your focus on autonomous learning. It’s good to be a human first, as opposed to relying on a sophisticated engine prop, which can reduce autonomy and critical thinking for some. But it’s a nice tool post-analysis.
Hey! I have been watching your videos for some time now and you've given me great insight for my chess improvement. A 2 months ago, my rating peak online for blitz was 1686 only but i fell and plummeted pretty badly after a classical tournament representing my town. I went down to about 1500+. However, I've just reached a new peak yesterday!!! A new peak rating of 1701! I think your videos have greatly contributed to my growth chess-wise. Thanks so much
@@mikolajochocki2810 Thanks. However, I think that I've reached my fullest potential already and I don't feel like pursuing any further. I'll still try my best though
@@maxng7916 I do think that everyone has their 'max potential' were they suddenly have to start challenging themselves a lot to go any further. Heard most players reach that at 1600. May I ask, what tips would you recommend me to go from 1300 to 1500 or further in rapid games (1 hour long)?
Seems like a great video with depth.I should add on my watch later list.By the way a video which you cover the London system would be great.Keep up the hard work! :)
Could you give a brief example of the type of short report you are talking about? At 1700 Blitz rating, I have played 3,999 games on Lichess, and I want to analyse my c.2,000 defeats, and THEN play some more games and see what happens.
16:47 "If you practice doing the analysis properly you will improve". And if you keep doing your analysis improperly? you know, If a rookie could do the analysis well, he would not be a rookie...
I see two problems with your suggested way of analysing games 1. You are overcomplicating it and seem to be equating the concept of preparation/general understanding of anything one can come up with, with analysing and thus assuming that the ticking all the boxes you have listed will guarantee a successful analysis and this seems to me like putting the cart before the horse. The reason I am saying this is it is your analysis that will show you which of these boxes you have not ticked and not the other way around. If you knew perfectly all the things you have listed (nobody does) you would not need to be analysing at all as you would be winning all the time while playing perfect chess(nobody does) 2. Analysing without an engine is a waste of time in my view. You can add this way of analysing once you know the objectively correct computer assesment. The problem with objectively correct assesment is that it often feels and looks unnatural for a human player. Once you know the computer assesment there are two options -you are happy with it you understand all the reasons behind it as you see yourself playing in this manner - no reason to evaluate further (unless you think you can find an objectively better move than the computer) -you are not happy with it as you do not feel you would ever play like this over the board and check your human choices once again only with the help of the computer (doing otherwise is simply unproductive and unjustified at best) The purpose of analysing a chess game is to find out where you went wrong/what could have been done better. So perhaps it is better to focus on that by doing the following: 1. Find out where and when things went wrong by identifiying the critical moments in the game by analysing from start to finish with a computer and focus on the moments where the computer evaluation changes drastically as these are likely the critical moments in the game. FIND OUT WHY THE COMPUTER THINKS WHAT IT THINKS. Find out what lead to it and how it can be avoided or improved.(I have noticed when you analyse your games you spent very little time on the critical moments and what would help with this is summarising why a game was lost or won ). By using this way of analysing you can analyse quickly and also efficiently - analysing 100 losses per day while focusing mainly on the critical moments is totally possible You in contrast spend 3 hours on analysing a game and you will never cover as much ground by spending so much time. 2. Once that is done start analysing again from the start to see if you played the opening in line with existing theory you understanding of it or did you just get away with some moves which are objectively incorrect. The reason for this is that mistakes in the opening are some of the most repetative ones unless identified as such.
Cambridge Dictionary says Analysis is "the process of studying or examining something in an organized way to learn more about it, or a particular study of something". With this in mind I would disagree with the idea that Stjepan is "equating the concept of preparation... with the concept of analysing". Going through every move thoroughly from openning to endgame IS analysis. I believe that analysing critical positions AND quiet positions are both essential, as we may understand how we got to that critical moment in the first place. Chess is a thinking game. I believe going over positions without a chess engine is not a waste of time, on the contrary, especially for those who want a deeper understanding of the game and their thinking process, those who want to truly improve and those who enjoy every aspect of Chess.
@@ulvessens5902 I said "preparation/general understanding of anything one can come up with" and not just preparation. He himself said the quality of your analysis as a player will depend on your understanding and strength as a player. Are you suggesting and are we then to assume that a 1500 , 1700 or a 1900 player should take it for granted their analysis is flawless and not look beyond what they alone think (or others before them - reference games)? To me personally that looks like a chess suicide in the long run. I don't disagree with the dictionary definition of analysis you have provided but lets not forget there is efficient analysis and inefficient analysis - there can be many ways of structuring the way you try to learn about something. And what I am suggesting is not supplenting your analysis with that of an engine while having a massive check list which you bang your head against for 3-4 hours per game as a 1200 to 2000 player is likely to be inefficient. (I suggested analysing without an engine so I do favour both on certain occassions so what I really meant by "analysing without an engine is a waste of time" was analysing without an engine alone is a waste of time and analysing without an engine is a waste of time most if the time). My point is the quality of your analysis does not have to depend on your strength as a player - you can have a close to perfect analysis while being an average player all you need is to turn that SF10 on. All else while potentially useful and necessary is secondary.
@@winningtechnique1849 "Equating the concept of preparation/general understanding of anything one can come up with, with the concept of analysing". "A general understanding of anything one can come up with", seems to fall within the definition of analysis given, although that phrase is pretty vague and could mean any type of human thought under the sun. Still, Stjepan does not seem to be incorrect in his concept of analysis, which is what you suggest in the first paragraph of you initial post. I am not suggesting that chess players should take their analysis as flawless, and cannot understand why you would ask this. The only thing I mentioned in my reply regarding chess engines was: "I believe going over positions without a chess engine is not a waste of time, on the contrary". I was pointing out the importance I believe analysing games without an engine is, to the improvement of our knowledge and skill as chess players. When you said "analysing without an engine is a waste of time", I thought you meant analysing without an engine is a waste of time. Quality of analysis is important, yes, as is quality in most things that are important to us. The "quality" (strength) of an engine can be close to perfect as you say, but if my strength is around the 1400 rating, then trying to understand why a 3400+ strength engine told me the best move was whatever, and having no idea why, is pretty useless to my understanding of the game and improvement.
@@ulvessens5902 Any thought under the sun is precicely what I meant is part of the suggested prerequisites for being a good analyst according to this video. Not prioritising analysing with an engine assumes the engine has nothing to teach you i.e your analysis is flawless or somewhat superior by definition I suspected you might point out the rating discrepancy/strength between a strong engine and a low rated player and here is how this should be dealt with. If you don't understand what the engine is telling you check the alternatives and find out why the engine is not playing them. The deeper you go into the lines the more you will understand. (if you don't like that your other option is to go with your own analysis which as a 1400 player would most likely be horrendously awful and incorrect)
Winning Technique Couldn’t agree more, the idea of analysing without an engine simply repeats your thinking during the game. You might still not see the correct ideas and you will never have a definitive answer about the evaluation of your position. Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me!
I watched for 20 seconds before turning this off. Come on dude, do you really not hear that loud super annoying sound behind you? If its insects or whatever take the lesson indoors.
Here's a great tool for learning openings: chessbook.com/hanging-pawns
Chessbook allows you to import and practice your repertoire. It focuses on moves people actually play as well as your mistakes. Connect it to your lichess or chess com accounts to correct the biggest gaps in your repertoire!
Sometimes when I speak out loud during a game (online) I play little better. I always felt this is a great way to start off analysing chess games.
Karthik Prabhu WOW that’s a great point. Sometimes I do that during analysis, but I’ll try that during my next game. I’m sure it helps when you start blanking out, get the ideas on the table.
Me too
Similar to how writing down my analysis in a notebook helps me a lot
Yes, I have started doing that with puzzles as well. I tend to find my game goes to mush a bit during the game, and I don't seem to have any self-talk going on. So, I am trying to build that into my thinking by speaking the variations.
Like in some other of your excellent videos, you are telling people what they (we) don't want to hear: improvement requires very hard work. But you are absolutely right: if you really want to improve, you have to do things thoroughly. Thats why I myself am stuck at the same level for the past few years. Thank you for your work, and congratulations on your brave decision to gve up everything for chess.
I had a very painful defeat today. I am so frustrated but I know that it is an opportunity to learn. I'm going to watch this video then try to analyse it when the tournament is finished.
At the moment of defeat, and a bit after, it seems futile. But analyzing, making yourself stronger, turns a defeat into a win, a gain of knowledge.
Hey I like the album starry cat too. It's your pfp
@@punkseth1 isn't that congratulation by Mgmt?
That was one of the most instructive chess videos I have ever seen. Thank you very much! I shall certainly try your method!
I like the ‘learn from your mistakes” feature on lichess, if you don’t have much time.
Thanks for this video. I've been analyzing my games, but only in a half-hearted way. Thank you for your example of thoroughness and total commitment. You've inspired me to analyze my games properly.
When analyzing a game where you've lost by making a blunder, do you analyze past that point where you have a clearly lost position?
The kind of video I watch and think „well, I should do this, really” and decades past and I keep not analyzing seriously my games and keep doing the whole bunch of blunders against players that even don’t now what is a stalemate. Thanks for the video!
great analysis of analysis
Bro i found your channel about when you posted this video. You deserve so many more subs
13:50 h5 and h6 both give the bishop some breathing room on the h7 square. playing neither will lose the bishop so we can all agree one of those moves should be played.
The pros of h5 then are that it gains space on the kingside, though I dont think black looks like he is an position to play on that side of the board, with black intending c5 at some point, and white intending f4, its clear that black wants a queenside/ central attack, and white wants a kingside attack so is that space on the kingside even useful? it is only an advantage if it can be exploited.
The cons of h5 give black a relatively secure outpost for his knight on g5 always eyeing the f7 square. yes black can play f7-f6 to kick the knight away at some point, but then that creates a weakness on g7 and a weak pawn on a semi open file for white to take aim at.
h6 doesnt give away the g5 square and completely avoids any of the aforementioned complications. the knight cant land there, f7-f6 doesnt need to be played, the e pawn doesnt become a weakness. the pawn structure stays well intact
Good video. And the sound was fine; so people who think otherwise might consider it useful training to focus. I had no problem myself. Everything was fine.
I found the endgame section overly strict regarding 100% certainty, since we are not computers, and no analysis is exhaustive, but the rest was useful. I also admire your focus on autonomous learning. It’s good to be a human first, as opposed to relying on a sophisticated engine prop, which can reduce autonomy and critical thinking for some. But it’s a nice tool post-analysis.
Great video and good luck with your journey. Ps, if you turned down the bass on your mic you would probably be easier to understand at lower volumes.
Hey! I have been watching your videos for some time now and you've given me great insight for my chess improvement. A 2 months ago, my rating peak online for blitz was 1686 only but i fell and plummeted pretty badly after a classical tournament representing my town. I went down to about 1500+. However, I've just reached a new peak yesterday!!! A new peak rating of 1701! I think your videos have greatly contributed to my growth chess-wise. Thanks so much
How's your chess now?
@@mikolajochocki2810 my peak is 2000+ for blitz. These days I'm busy with schoolwork so I play seldomly and I've gone down to 1900
@@maxng7916 it's impressive how you've jumped from 1700 to 2000 in 1 year. You've got some good potential !
@@mikolajochocki2810 Thanks. However, I think that I've reached my fullest potential already and I don't feel like pursuing any further. I'll still try my best though
@@maxng7916 I do think that everyone has their 'max potential' were they suddenly have to start challenging themselves a lot to go any further. Heard most players reach that at 1600. May I ask, what tips would you recommend me to go from 1300 to 1500 or further in rapid games (1 hour long)?
FINALLY! A video that teaches us *how* to analyze. Most other videos just devolve into "here was the analysis I did". This video is priceless.
Yey thank you for the upload. Please upload more chess tips. We Love it.
Seems like a great video with depth.I should add on my watch later list.By the way a video which you cover the London system would be great.Keep up the hard work! :)
One of the most instructive chess videos
You are awesome!! Thanks for quality info. Fan of your meditation series. Keep posting. Thank you.
Excellent video. Thanks VERY much. Very helpful, clear and structured.
well i play h6 in both the cases. i thinks its ok .i m not comfortable in giving up a pawn
well it would be nice if u would guide me
i love this video. very good for beginners
This man show what it takes to be a master
Gooduck buddy!
I have a question how can i do a quick analysis with low time because i start missing my opponent blunder?
"Your first mistake will probably be around move 20". I laughed out loud at that.
I just analyzed my recent chess game and found that I missed checkmate in two 😔( I am sad)
Could you give a brief example of the type of short report you are talking about?
At 1700 Blitz rating, I have played 3,999 games on Lichess, and I want to analyse my c.2,000 defeats, and THEN play some more games and see what happens.
That's gonna take years dude.
Gerhard Symons that sounds like a waste of time. Just analyze recent games. Better if the game is still fresh in your memory
Gerhard Symons Blitz games don‘t need to be analyzed, at least not in the depth of an OTB game.
which games I should analyse? Normal games? games which I lost? or only tournament games?
Can you do the kings Indian attack? Opening
Do you analyse also your rapid games?
Completa explicación de análisis, pero quizás sería interesante auxiliarse de más tiempo, gracias de Cd Juárez Chihuahua México
Thanks 🙏
Where’s the Midwest cicada comments?
How did you know how I analyse my games!?!? ;)
Hi mate, Those crickets are really noisy. I couldn't able to follow you properly. Kindly change the location. Keep rocking 👍👍
They really are loud. I wonder if a cover on the mic would cut much of that noise out.
I like the rhythm of those Croatian crickets
I can’t watch the video!
When capturing a piece like e.g a white bishop on E2 takes a pawn on A6 is it BXA6 or WbXa6
It's just Bxa6. In the very rare case where two bishops can move to the same square you specify the file of the bishop like Bexa6
16:47 "If you practice doing the analysis properly you will improve". And if you keep doing your analysis improperly? you know, If a rookie could do the analysis well, he would not be a rookie...
thanks man
how do you know what the main move is in a position?
using reference games
I didn't think this type of video exist
I see two problems with your suggested way of analysing games
1. You are overcomplicating it and seem to be equating the concept of preparation/general understanding of anything one can come up with, with analysing and thus assuming that the ticking all the boxes you have listed will guarantee a successful analysis and this seems to me like putting the cart before the horse. The reason I am saying this is it is your analysis that will show you which of these boxes you have not ticked and not the other way around. If you knew perfectly all the things you have listed (nobody does) you would not need to be analysing at all as you would be winning all the time while playing perfect chess(nobody does)
2. Analysing without an engine is a waste of time in my view. You can add this way of analysing once you know the objectively correct computer assesment. The problem with objectively correct assesment is that it often feels and looks unnatural for a human player. Once you know the computer assesment there are two options
-you are happy with it you understand all the reasons behind it as you see yourself playing in this manner - no reason to evaluate further (unless you think you can find an objectively better move than the computer)
-you are not happy with it as you do not feel you would ever play like this over the board and check your human choices once again only with the help of the computer (doing otherwise is simply unproductive and unjustified at best)
The purpose of analysing a chess game is to find out where you went wrong/what could have been done better. So perhaps it is better to focus on that by doing the following:
1. Find out where and when things went wrong by identifiying the critical moments in the game by analysing from start to finish with a computer and focus on the moments where the computer evaluation changes drastically as these are likely the critical moments in the game. FIND OUT WHY THE COMPUTER THINKS WHAT IT THINKS. Find out what lead to it and how it can be avoided or improved.(I have noticed when you analyse your games you spent very little time on the critical moments and what would help with this is summarising why a game was lost or won ). By using this way of analysing you can analyse quickly and also efficiently - analysing 100 losses per day while focusing mainly on the critical moments is totally possible You in contrast spend 3 hours on analysing a game and you will never cover as much ground by spending so much time.
2. Once that is done start analysing again from the start to see if you played the opening in line with existing theory you understanding of it or did you just get away with some moves which are objectively incorrect. The reason for this is that mistakes in the opening are some of the most repetative ones unless identified as such.
Cambridge Dictionary says Analysis is "the process of studying or examining something in an organized way to learn more about it, or a particular study of something".
With this in mind I would disagree with the idea that Stjepan is "equating the concept of preparation... with the concept of analysing". Going through every move thoroughly from openning to endgame IS analysis.
I believe that analysing critical positions AND quiet positions are both essential, as we may understand how we got to that critical moment in the first place.
Chess is a thinking game. I believe going over positions without a chess engine is not a waste of time, on the contrary, especially for those who want a deeper understanding of the game and their thinking process, those who want to truly improve and those who enjoy every aspect of Chess.
@@ulvessens5902 I said "preparation/general understanding of anything one can come up with" and not just preparation. He himself said the quality of your analysis as a player will depend on your understanding and strength as a player.
Are you suggesting and are we then to assume that a 1500 , 1700 or a 1900 player should take it for granted their analysis is flawless and not look beyond what they alone think (or others before them - reference games)? To me personally that looks like a chess suicide in the long run.
I don't disagree with the dictionary definition of analysis you have provided but lets not forget there is efficient analysis and inefficient analysis - there can be many ways of structuring the way you try to learn about something. And what I am suggesting is not supplenting your analysis with that of an engine while having a massive check list which you bang your head against for 3-4 hours per game as a 1200 to 2000 player is likely to be inefficient. (I suggested analysing without an engine so I do favour both on certain occassions so what I really meant by "analysing without an engine is a waste of time" was analysing without an engine alone is a waste of time and analysing without an engine is a waste of time most if the time).
My point is the quality of your analysis does not have to depend on your strength as a player - you can have a close to perfect analysis while being an average player all you need is to turn that SF10 on. All else while potentially useful and necessary is secondary.
@@winningtechnique1849
"Equating the concept of preparation/general understanding of anything one can come up with, with the concept of analysing". "A general understanding of anything one can come up with", seems to fall within the definition of analysis given, although that phrase is pretty vague and could mean any type of human thought under the sun. Still, Stjepan does not seem to be incorrect in his concept of analysis, which is what you suggest in the first paragraph of you initial post.
I am not suggesting that chess players should take their analysis as flawless, and cannot understand why you would ask this. The only thing I mentioned in my reply regarding chess engines was: "I believe going over positions without a chess engine is not a waste of time, on the contrary". I was pointing out the importance I believe analysing games without an engine is, to the improvement of our knowledge and skill as chess players. When you said "analysing without an engine is a waste of time", I thought you meant analysing without an engine is a waste of time.
Quality of analysis is important, yes, as is quality in most things that are important to us. The "quality" (strength) of an engine can be close to perfect as you say, but if my strength is around the 1400 rating, then trying to understand why a 3400+ strength engine told me the best move was whatever, and having no idea why, is pretty useless to my understanding of the game and improvement.
@@ulvessens5902 Any thought under the sun is precicely what I meant is part of the suggested prerequisites for being a good analyst according to this video.
Not prioritising analysing with an engine assumes the engine has nothing to teach you i.e your analysis is flawless or somewhat superior by definition
I suspected you might point out the rating discrepancy/strength between a strong engine and a low rated player and here is how this should be dealt with. If you don't understand what the engine is telling you check the alternatives and find out why the engine is not playing them.
The deeper you go into the lines the more you will understand. (if you don't like that your other option is to go with your own analysis which as a 1400 player would most likely be horrendously awful and incorrect)
Winning Technique Couldn’t agree more, the idea of analysing without an engine simply repeats your thinking during the game. You might still not see the correct ideas and you will never have a definitive answer about the evaluation of your position. Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me!
Did ur wife kick you out the house...the outside noise is killing me I'm done
Hahhah😂
Tbh I didn't even hear it after watching this video twice until I heard the comments, probably because I live in the country.
ok all the chess is talk good but did he juts record a vid in a park???
Thank you! I can't follow at all!
That no possible. 3 days for 1 game that is to much
What’s that sound in the background??? So annoying!
Hi everyone, stay upon here 😂
I watched for 20 seconds before turning this off. Come on dude, do you really not hear that loud super annoying sound behind you? If its insects or whatever take the lesson indoors.