Love your channel. I'm a 1650 player, and I usually play people who are around the same level as I am. I only play one game per day at a standard time control because I need a block of uninterrupted time to play standard games and I don't have much of that. So when I do get an opportunity to play, I play my games to the bitter end -- even if I get into a lost position. I know that it's rare for someone to play lost positions to the end, so I may be able to provide a somewhat rare statistic: Out of the 500 or so games in which I got into lost positions (e.g. down a full rook or more with no compensation), I was able to draw or win 40 of them. That's an 8% recovery rate. Half of the recoveries were because of stalemate, and most of the rest were because my opponent blundered material. My theory is that if I can make a bonehead mistake to get into a lost position, then someone as good (or as bad) as me can make a bonehead mistake and let me turn the game around. Not sure if it is still considered rude or disrespectful at my level in these casual games. I'm sure some people will think so. But if a hockey team is down 2 goal with just a minute left in the game, it's not considered rude for them to pull their goalie and do whatever they can to try to save the game -- even when the chances of them succeeding are probably not even 8%. Personally, I prefer it when players don't resign on me because if gives me a chance to practice certain technical skills against real people (e.g. certain difficult elementary checkmates).
I've had off nights when I made an insanely stupid move, and you'd be hard pressed to find a reason. Perhaps temporary blindness, when I just didn't see an invisible piece.
Draw ????????? ;O) It may be okay to play on for a few moves, but you quickly get the feel of your opponent: If they are capable of finishing the job. To continue here by Kal was simply a bit weird. As usual: Thanx for your videos, John!
Sam Roy Hmm, it seems my maximum fps rate is 30. I might be able to play around in XSplit and pump it up even higher. Do you think it matters much for the type of recordings I'm doing? For fps-demanding recordings like computer game recordings I can imagine it makes a big difference, but for chess videos...?
About winning that position against anyone. Do you think you could beat full strength stockfish or komodo? I'm fairly certain you could but just curious
Squash Addict Yes, I definitely believe so. The position is so clear-cut that even a full strength 3300-3400 rated engine would have great difficulty complicating the play or confusing me.
John, thanks for sharing with us. Really don't know why he would continue playing a 100% losing position. :\ Also, I wanted to ask if I may, will you consider playing a few matches against a computer? Jerry (ChessNetwork) has a few where he plays Chess.com's engines. Most fun to watch. Would be interesting seeing your line of thought against a computer. I've always been interested in Man vs. Machine matches. ;) Looking back at the videos you first uploaded, I saw you have a few against engines, but they're blindfolded, and it's hard for me to follow these games. :(
aryesegal1988 Thank you! You're right - I should maybe bring back the occasional matches vs. comps. Oftentimes they are demoralizing/one-sided (haha), but they do make for good viewing.
John Bartholomew you previously suggested practicing winning won games by playing against an engine in a position we think we can win. what kind of material odds do you personally need to beat an engine? if they start a piece down, would you win most of the time?
John, what would you say is the average rating at which it is a sure lost position after a -2 blunder? I'm very bad (~650-700 at chess.com) and lost/won games with even 7ish material differences.
horos abukadu It depends on how clear the position is. Sometimes the computer will you one side blundered, but the position remains complex to the human eye. After a blunder as in the game where White had absolutely zero practical counterplay, I'd say I'd lose White's position to a 1800-1900+ USCF player.
John Bartholomew I'm very suprised that there are such huge rating differences, yet they would barely matter at a certain point. Completely different to lower ratings. Thanks for the insight!
Is it really that weird to keep playing? I'm just starting, but I keep playing all of my matches just to practice more. Some of my favorite games are just about trying to survive with no hope of winning.
Not resigning in a hopeless position is a very rude and disrespectful thing to do. I can understand in a speed chess game that you may play on a little longer hoping for a blunder but in this time control it's frankly ridiculous.
Love your channel. I'm a 1650 player, and I usually play people who are around the same level as I am. I only play one game per day at a standard time control because I need a block of uninterrupted time to play standard games and I don't have much of that. So when I do get an opportunity to play, I play my games to the bitter end -- even if I get into a lost position. I know that it's rare for someone to play lost positions to the end, so I may be able to provide a somewhat rare statistic: Out of the 500 or so games in which I got into lost positions (e.g. down a full rook or more with no compensation), I was able to draw or win 40 of them. That's an 8% recovery rate. Half of the recoveries were because of stalemate, and most of the rest were because my opponent blundered material. My theory is that if I can make a bonehead mistake to get into a lost position, then someone as good (or as bad) as me can make a bonehead mistake and let me turn the game around. Not sure if it is still considered rude or disrespectful at my level in these casual games. I'm sure some people will think so. But if a hockey team is down 2 goal with just a minute left in the game, it's not considered rude for them to pull their goalie and do whatever they can to try to save the game -- even when the chances of them succeeding are probably not even 8%. Personally, I prefer it when players don't resign on me because if gives me a chance to practice certain technical skills against real people (e.g. certain difficult elementary checkmates).
I've had off nights when I made an insanely stupid move, and you'd be hard pressed to find a reason. Perhaps temporary blindness, when I just didn't see an invisible piece.
Hey John, love your videos! I am getting into the French defense, and I'm hoping you can play it in a standard game coming up. Thanks in advance.
Resolution doesn't really matter! The improving player should have good enough chess vision to not care, Cheers!
Jacob Tarallo Cheers, Jacob!
Draw ????????? ;O)
It may be okay to play on for a few moves, but you quickly get the feel of your opponent: If they are capable of finishing the job. To continue here by Kal was simply a bit weird.
As usual: Thanx for your videos, John!
+Stefan Holbek Hehe :) Thanks, Stefan!
Even I would've beat that guy if he had played me like he played you, and I'm just 1300.
John, record the videos in 60fps if possible. It makes a huge difference in the production quality. 720p60fps > 1080p30fps
Sam Roy Hmm, it seems my maximum fps rate is 30. I might be able to play around in XSplit and pump it up even higher. Do you think it matters much for the type of recordings I'm doing? For fps-demanding recordings like computer game recordings I can imagine it makes a big difference, but for chess videos...?
+John Bartholomew For chess videos, I personally do not think it matters much.
+John Bartholomew I am definitely a 1080p lover. I can tell the difference. Not the biggest thing in the world, but just an extra nice addition.
catharsis222 Noted :) Thanks.
John Bartholomew I'm just imagining the silky smooth mouse and piece movements... But no not really a huge deal. Thanks
About winning that position against anyone. Do you think you could beat full strength stockfish or komodo? I'm fairly certain you could but just curious
Squash Addict Yes, I definitely believe so. The position is so clear-cut that even a full strength 3300-3400 rated engine would have great difficulty complicating the play or confusing me.
John, thanks for sharing with us. Really don't know why he would continue playing a 100% losing position. :\ Also, I wanted to ask if I may, will you consider playing a few matches against a computer? Jerry (ChessNetwork) has a few where he plays Chess.com's engines. Most fun to watch. Would be interesting seeing your line of thought against a computer. I've always been interested in Man vs. Machine matches. ;) Looking back at the videos you first uploaded, I saw you have a few against engines, but they're blindfolded, and it's hard for me to follow these games. :(
aryesegal1988 Thank you! You're right - I should maybe bring back the occasional matches vs. comps. Oftentimes they are demoralizing/one-sided (haha), but they do make for good viewing.
John Bartholomew you previously suggested practicing winning won games by playing against an engine in a position we think we can win. what kind of material odds do you personally need to beat an engine? if they start a piece down, would you win most of the time?
jason engler If I were a piece ahead: definitely. 1-2 pawns would be quite competitive, imo.
John Bartholomew if the engine was down 1-2 pawns, which pawns would you pick?
jason engler First choice: f-pawn. Second choice: more difficult, but I'd say d-pawn.
John, what would you say is the average rating at which it is a sure lost position after a -2 blunder? I'm very bad (~650-700 at chess.com) and lost/won games with even 7ish material differences.
horos abukadu It depends on how clear the position is. Sometimes the computer will you one side blundered, but the position remains complex to the human eye. After a blunder as in the game where White had absolutely zero practical counterplay, I'd say I'd lose White's position to a 1800-1900+ USCF player.
John Bartholomew I'm very suprised that there are such huge rating differences, yet they would barely matter at a certain point. Completely different to lower ratings. Thanks for the insight!
I Had to smile after "Draw" at about 8:00!
Is it really that weird to keep playing? I'm just starting, but I keep playing all of my matches just to practice more. Some of my favorite games are just about trying to survive with no hope of winning.
Not resigning in a hopeless position is a very rude and disrespectful thing to do. I can understand in a speed chess game that you may play on a little longer hoping for a blunder but in this time control it's frankly ridiculous.
john skelley Yeah, I know a lot of players who would be very upset about him playing it out. It's an annoyance, but nothing more :)
Why would a player rated almost 1900 make several hideous blunders like that xD?