I beat an 1800 OTB 1 HR 20 min game with your calculation techniques, it was so weird i had one of your advice in my head when i was in a position about the worry on losing a rook, and i played correctly winning 2 minor pieces for a rook, i won the game with 90.8 accuracy with the addition of a brilliant move!! And i only started playing chess 14 months ago! Thanks for your help!!
This is generally good advice, and I do most of it in my own games already. However, what really helps me in tactical situations is to note all checks, captures, and threats for both sides in my head before even thinking about calculating. It prevents me from going into a line without looking at the big picture, and it happens much less often that I miss a move somewhere in my calculation.
This Andras guy absolutely ROCKSSS!!! So down-to-earth, so direct, so helpful... He presents reality as it is, not the "gummy bears" that other chess youtubers offer... PS: even his use of technology is clumsily down-to-earth🤣 gotta luv' it!
Thanks, Andras, for your extremely helpful series on calculation! I dare to remind you of what you have emphasized several times in previous videos: never stop calculating a line before the position has settled down! The 1.Rxe1 line is hardly over after 3. ... Kf8. The possible continuation 4. Qa3 and 4. Qb4 must be also analyzed, because are obvious candidate moves for white and seem very dangerous for black. Now finding a continuation for black and proving is safe means a few more moves to calculate, which is already above the abilities of intermediate players.
Andras, some thoughts from someone who is older (41) and probably weaker than the student who played the game in this video. I have the book Tune Your Chess Tactics Antenna by FM Emmanuel Neiman. It's a solid book. In that book, somewhere near the beginning when the author outlining the same process that you have in this brilliant video, he says that if you took a someone who's not very good at chess i.e. they had no knowledge or skills on any aspect of the game other than the rules and how the pieces move, but you gave them the calculation/visualization ability of a Grandmaster with a FIDE rating of 2600, that player, despite knowing very little about tactics, positional play, openings, endgames etc., would, in theory, be rated about 2400. The editing in the book isn't great and English isn't his first language so he doesn't phrase it as clearly as I have above, but it's clear enough that I can understand what he's driving at. Calculation/visualization is the key chess SKILL. Note that I'm not saying it's knowledge. That's a different thing. SKILL. Most weaker players have great knowledge, but lack skill. At least that's what I've learned as an adult improver. Now the player with the calculation/visualization ability of a Grandmaster with a FIDE rating of 2600 may not end up with the playing strength of 2400, but the point still stands - what you have outlined in this video is the difference between strong players and weak players. Not the only difference, but the major difference. It's the one thing that nobody wants to work on because it's hard (i.e. it's cognitively demanding, at least at first) and it's time consuming. But it's the one thing that will make the biggest difference to your game. I've played enough chess and done enough puzzles (thousands of them at this point) that I can fully understand this because I feel the pain of still not being good at chess even though I'm much better than I was. The two hardest things I find about calculation are visualizing the moves accurately as I go deeper down a line/variation and at every juncture considering my opponents strongest responses, not the mediocre ones that would give me an easy win. The problem is that sometimes I struggle to see the best responses, and when I can't see the best responses because of fatigue or lack of pattern recognition I can't calculate the variations that contain them. But I know that doesn't matter, I just need to keep practicing this skill over and over again. I've learned that the best way to practice these skills is to play games at a time control that is long/slow enough that I have enough time to do exactly what you demonstrated in this video on the majority of moves in the game. Considering that a rapid game with a 15'+10" time control lasting 40 moves will end up giving me 1300 seconds of thinking time (15 minutes is 900 seconds and 10 seconds x 40 moves is 400 seconds) then you divide that 1300 seconds by 40 moves and I realize that on average I'll have 32.5 seconds per move. There's no way that I can personally do everything that you did in this video in that short amount of time. This is why rapid games are a joke to me, blitz is even worse and bullet barely qualifies as chess. I'm sticking to longer games (45'+45") and more difficult puzzles and just grinding it out. As you say, you have to embrace the work. You can't shy away from it. In a world where we have a generation of people, many of whom, thanks to be raised by the internet, want shortcuts, life hacks and the abridged version of everything, this video of yours highlights the fact that there are some things in life where you just have to improve at the thing by simply spending more time doing the thing you can't really deconstruct calculation/visualization. You either engage with it or you don't. As they say, repetition is the mother of skill.
Every word you typed in is liquid gold. In fact I think part of the reasons why my channel is nowhere near as popular as it could (should ) be is because I tell people things they don’t want to do/hear. And yes my view on calculation is exactly the same as the above mentioned author’s and yours !
That being said though, there are lots of things that can go wrong internally (or even externally) that make it difficult (sometimes impossible) to maintain either consistent breadth (monitoring each position for forcing moves) or depth of calculation. Surely the skills to notice and prevent/evade/make it past these obstacles are just as crucial.
Thank you for mentioning that. I find that in positions that aren't overly complex and have enough forced combinations I *can* calculate some number of lines accurately, but the thing is that it takes me forever. Like it would take me almost the length of this video. That makes me a very slow chess player, but I figure that's the only way to actually play good chess. If I forego calculations and rely on gut and some basic pattern recognition then my only hope is that the other player is even worse, which isn't even a satisfying way to win. So I'm also not playing rapid (or even faster) games until I become better (faster) at calculation/visualization. I hope that with practice I can improve on my calculation speed, and eventually I'll tackle rapid, which is all everyone seems to want to play nowadays.
GMs grossly underestimate how much of their calculation "skill" is based on memorization such as mating patterns and tactical motifs such x-rays, attraction/decoys, pins, skewers, interference, etc... We simply don't build skills in a vacuum. Imagine a doctor that claims he can do surgery purely based on "skill." What about a mechanic that can repair your vehicle purely based on "skill." Chess is no different. Skill requires memorization. I don't think you can separate the two. The thing that makes GMs better than you is that they have more knowledge (memorized patterns) and experience. This is why a GM can look at what might look like a random position to a club player and find the best move in seconds while it could take the club player 15-30 minutes to find the best move on his own. So, the question is, how do we acquire more knowledge/experience and utilize the knowledge that we have to improve our skills?
I like most of what you said here. This all takes work and fortunately, the most impactful part is trainable (even if it can be difficult). However, I will push back on 15' + 10" not being enough because your math there is wrong for two reasons. One, you can think on your opponent's time too. Two, not every move requires the same level of thinking. Presumably you have some opening prep (and or can fall back on basic opening principles in unfamiliar openings!) and often times moves are forced (or have a very limited set of options). Conservatively, if your opening prep even goes just five moves deep, another five move throughout the game are fairly trivial decisions and you use your opponent's time as well, you're already up to almost 1.5 minutes/move. (And again, that's assuming you allot the same amount of time to every single move. If you want to spend five minutes on one move, no problem - you might just have to speed up on a few other moves as tradeoff.) Anyway, kudos to you though for being willing to put in the time and effort to play 45' + 45" games. :D
This is incredible! The mess i get in my head is the biggest issue in my chess at the moment and this video explains how to deal with it so clearly! Thank you Andras, your channel is absolute gem!
This is so amazing. I played a game on Monday in which I had a winning attack. I just couldn't concentrate and calculate the lines AND evaluate them right. This video really helps, thanks :)
One thing that has really helped me force myself to calculate is counting the ply in my head. So I find myself counting '1,2,3,4' etc. If I land on an even number I know I have at least calculated an opponent's (hopefully) best reply in that position. This also helps anchor the position so if I need to go back and calculate a different option at something like move 4... Doing this also helps me cut through more overwhelming positions as the focus is now on counting out variations and sub variations as opposed to worrying about how complicated a position is. It has started to become a little bit more automatic for me. I have had so much trouble getting myself to actually calculate and make conclusions during a live game and this little trick has helped
I think you nailed it Coach. I was excited to see this video. Im sooo satisfied after seeing it. I DO do this method somewhat naturally. By naturally I mean I SEARCH for clarity starting SOMEWHERE. But seeing YOU do it has given me a greater understanding of what I do, and a desire to do the method even more methodical and clearer. I didnt understand what I was doing before. Now that I do, I can do it with precision and eagerness! I always felt a bit of... Not dread but, ok here we go! Complicated position time! But its not complicated. The method is simple! Just do the method to turn the position into your domain and your playground! What a gift this video was. Thank you
To anyone asking about Nxf4. Nxf4 Nxf4 is forced as Rxe6 gets met with Nxe6. So Nxf4 Nxf4 Rxe1 Qxf7+ Kxf7 Rxe1 Rd8 Transposes to what we saw in the video. But Rxe1 gives them more opportunities to mess up as presented in the video.
@@ChessCoachAndras But Coach, isn't that promoting a very bad habit, namely "tunnel-thinking"? One looks at one line, it's okay, so one plays it, never having looked at other moves which might have been better? In this case its equal, but maybe next time there would have been a difference?
Thanks, Coach Andras. Great as usual. Question: how important is it to mentally "say" the move names as you calculate? That is, should you calculate using algebraic notation? Or is it enough to just try and mentally visualize the position without names?
Saying helps with "missing pieces" if you say "I take the knight on f4" it's easier to realise there no longer is a knight on f4. It sounds trivial but it helps. For me; I say the moves in slower time control, but can't be bothered in rapid or faster.
@daniellevin4174 Pretty certain with a quick look that it ends up in the same lines as Re1, but you have to be a little bit cautious about making assumptions like that I guess.
After 1. Rxe1 Rxe1 2. Nf7+ Kf8 I was a bit worried about 3. Qa3. White threatens Ng6+ and winning back the material on f4 and also maybe Nc8+ and taking on b6 due to the unprotected rook on a8. It's not working, but how do you know without even calculating the lines? Imho, I would not stop on Kf8. I think you should calculate refutations to those lines/ideas otherwise it's just luck that there is no good discover check for white.
I mean you could start with knight x f4. Im sure people are thinking the same as me. Now there are another several variations to calculate. This can be overwhelming.
Kotov can finally sleep in his grave without guilt. Can Coach Andras also comment on the “stepping stones” method described by Jon Tisdall in Improve Your Chess Now as well as the Stoyko method of training on complex positions. Thanks for a great video. Love your Chessable courses.
Answer this elsewhere. Long story short : it’s very similar lines that also win. Wanted to keep the video digestible. In an ideal world your calculate nxf4 using the same technique and then pick the better one.
Yes, to me that is the more logical move so I started with that and quickly (probably spent about half a minute) concluded that Black has winning chances. That move is actually easier to calculate than the one in the video, but they do transpose. I would still need less than a minute for the other line too.
I think I can see a way forward to practice calculations now. Bot match. Notebook. Pen. I can definitely relate to the chaos picture although as a spaniel owner I might prefer to call it "spaniel brain".
My second question: is this not oversimplifying? If Rxe1 is just slightly better, don't you also have to do this for other candidate moves, for example, here Nxf4 as well. Unless it's clearly winning, you can't often calculate only the first move that comes into your head, but other options as well.
Good video but I'd say 1.Rxe1, Rxe1 2.Nxf4, Ne7+ 3.Kf8, Qa3 creating a discovered and double check, even though it doesn't work out for white, is a nightmare to calculate for us amateurs.
But is that a reasonable move? Just putting up a random discovery doesn't justify a line. It is a tricky move, but you play for tricks when you are losing - you don't give away a piece willingly and then start to play for tricks. So should that move be calculated before you write that line off the board? Maybe. And yes, I admit that calculating that from the original position is not that easy. But at some point you just have to trust that such a line is not likely to work out and be willing to work hard to find a solution if you find yourself there. You are an entire piece up! Ideally you would like to calculate every move and line under the sun, but that is not always possible or practical. Once you are there you should be able to find a good move. It is a tricky move, but your opponent had just invested an entire knight to create the complications so taking a long think here would be very well worth it. Obviously, just winning a pawn will not cut it for White. There are really only three candidate moves worth considering: c5, Nc4 and Ne6. It turns out that Ne6 is a mistake due to the response Nf5+ followed by Qg3, which I must confess, didn't see. But that is also the move that gives Black free hand since you are not attacking anything in Black's army. To me, Nc4 is the simplest since you notice that Qb4 can be answered by Nd3 - not particularly difficult to see from the position after Qa3. If you are a piece up you don't want to make live complicated for yourself and the dubble check is never dangerous and the knight would be hanging on g6. Yes, White can try to confuse Black with Qa3 in that line, but if you are a piece up it is well worth having to work thru some variations and complications. First of all, I think Nxf4 is simpler than Rxe1. You could argue that the other possibilities favour Black so Rxe1 is for this reason better. I guess that we can have different opinions about. If I calculated Nxf4 and found your line with Qa3, I would be mildly concerned. However, if I saw the responses c5 and Nc4 but had a hard time to figure everything out, I would just trust my experience and my instinct and not worry about. Could that turn out to be serious misjudgement on my part? Absolutely! But that is unlikely. (The only threat I can see is the double check or discovered check followed by capturing the knight on f4.) Taking a small risk when the potential reward is big is well worth it.
This is a really excellent video. I think that one of the main things chess books have done for me is that they have given me time staring at a board calculating variations. Nothing helped my chess more than getting two or three moves deep and considering candidate moves from different positions
Hey Coach! Question for ya. Do you cancel a line when you convinced yourself that it's worse for you? How do we prevent ourselves from wasting so much time calculating fantasy lines/hope chess instead of seeing the truth quickly and clearly? Thanks!
Dear Andras, thanks for sharing this great video. I am 36y old, played some chess online the last 2 years and i have just joined a club and am hovering around 1450 range. I have this all the time in my head, especially when i am tired or under pressure by an attacking player or strong opponent. Hopefully this will help. I am going to try this out in my real games. However i have two questions. Why start with Rxe1? In a game i would also want to calculate 1. Nxf4 and all the possible captures/sidelines after that. That means way more work and a lot of more time to spend. How did you decide to only calculate Rxe1? Nxf4 looks tempting to me at first sight. My rook on e6 will be attacked two times but is also covered by the Knight on f4. If he takes with Rxf4 i simply take back with Nxf4 and am a piece up. 2. Nxf4 is stronger for him, then i will trade rooks with 2. Rxe1. 3. Rxe1. Resulting in an open file for white and after trading queens he still has the open file and my rook is passive. My evaluation would be that 1. Nxf4 leads to a slightly better position for white. Therefor i still would have calculated Rxe1 and found it is better, but it would cost me a lot of time. My second question is what to do when you are lost during a calculation? I find myself going over the same lines multiple times in a row to come to a conclusion. I think its just poor visualization and calculation skills but maybe there is something wrong that i do not see :)
Great video. In really complex variations (in games, not training) I something evaluate as "this requires further investigation" I save those lines for last. If I spot something that is bad for me I can skip the hardest line. Also I would also calculate Nxf4 in the position. If time allows it. Then I consider which is more difficult for my opponent. Great video, I like you trying out different packages to the same message.
very nice man it feels so easy i played 5 or more games and i win all of them in such critical position i used this method also with the mindset of clarity and it felt so easy to do upload more videos like this thankyou mann 😀
Thank you Andras, this is a wonderful video. If I was to drill aspects of my chess to improve at a beginner (1000 ELO) level to get to 1500, would you say 20% pattern recognition (Susan Polgar "learn chess the right way", for example) 30% longer calculation tactics and then focus on games is reasonable? I'm curious what you typically recommend.
Thank you coach Andras! I really appreciate the effort you put in this video in relating to the typical thinking process of an amateur and striving to rewire it. I totally relate to rhe situation you described, and I'll try to bring clarity in my calculations. Thank you!
That image was perfect it made me unable to follow the lines with all that chaos imagine if you looked up a line in a database and it had all that chaos and bad font on the screen.
Very good video! In your first line you stopped and evaluated before noting that White still has Qb4 setting up a double +, but this does not seem to lead anywhere anyhow, so whatever... The important thing is the method, and its demonstration, and that was done with clarity....
Excellent video - I often struggle to find a way in the jungle of variations. (for example this position from a game of mine 2r2bk1/3N1p1p/1r3np1/p4N1q/PpR1P3/3Q1P2/1P4PP/3R2K1 b - - 0 26 where I couldnt find the right move, cause of too many variations - my opponent surprised me with an incorrect sacrifice after a 20 min thought...) Would like to see some more videos like this about proper calculation.
It looks like the analysis finds that the candidate move ...Rxe1 leads to good results in all lines, which is great. But don't we need to consider similar analyses for other forcing candidates, like ...Nxf4, etc.? Or is that "obviously" bad? Or... was ...Rxe1 just the scope of this lesson?
This really hits a pain point! Thanks for the video. I want to make an addition: Never end a line on your turn! You risk missing a strong reply. In your main line 4.Qb4 or Qa3 could be interesting continuations to look at before the final evaluation.
Something I like to ask myself in complex / uncertain positions is: do I have a way to liquidate and simplify the position and if so is the result better for me than for the opponent? Sometimes in such situations there are forcing captures, and the resulting position can be easier to evaluate.
You are just an awesome instructor/content-creator thanks for helping us improving . By the way I have a question can you make a video about your chess journey from the start till now
How to find the correct first move? You just go for the most forcing or the most obvious? Lets say the correct move was something subtle, everything else is just making my position a bit hard. How can this method help me find the right first move, as i think checking all the options with bad first move only leads to me wasting time. Thank you. Great content
Thanks for this coach! :) I try to follow this advice and be precise, but always end up very behind on the clock. Then most of my losses are on time ^^'
12:22 I had always read/heard "long analysis wrong analysis" and more attention needs to be paid at the beginning of variation. So for example, after Rxe1 Rxe1. I should then analyze Rxe1 Nxd5 before Rxe1 Rxe1 Nxf4. Whar are your thoughts on this?
This is a fine video. Thank you. But maybe not for the reasons you intended. The actual method here is no different than the tree method. OS on that level the intellectual contribution isn't there. But it is immensely helpful to see you actually go through the tree method step by step. There is something to doing, and doing with expert supervision that doing on one's own can't achieve. So to have you basically hold our hands and go through the tree method step by step in small enough pieces that we don't get overwhelmed is important. You also chose a good example that was neither too difficult nor to easy. And you put in appropriate time to guide us through it rather than blazing through the calculations faster than ordinary brains can follow. You continue to improve as a teacher, with some ups and downs. Your channel is worth following. Thanks.
Players under FIDE 1850 (me) who have solved fewer than 10,000 puzzles (not me) need an algorithm for assessing the position. That is, after confirming who is to move, they need a supremely specific algorithm just to assess the material on the board consistently (before looking at any K safety or any moves). Then they need to continue receiving feedback to develop precise steps they take to assess K safety--checks, safe checks and unsafe checks, check-captures vs. bare checks, direct checks vs indirect/X-ray+s; and # threats all on our K first; and then on the Opponent's K. Next, they need precise steps to assess Captures without checks on our army; then Caps on Opp.
My problem with this is, I can do it, but to do what we did here probably would have taken me 15 minutes or so. My opponents seem to be able to do it in 30 seconds. As a result, I eventually get to a position where I don't have time for this kind of calculation anymore, and have to basically play on instinct. How can I get faster? Just keep doing it?
maybe obvious question and maybe because my english is bad, but, when you calculate, do you have the square names in your head? In my head i only have 2 squares, "here", "there". I mean, Rook there, Knight here check etc
This changes over time. Actually it becomes way easier once you get used to it, because each square is like a little room in a house that you know very well, so say my knight is on f6, without even looking at a board I already know which squares the knight sees from there etc. Pretty soon things like "Qb6" pop up enough times that you know exactly what the general threats and ideas are with that piece on that square. So I definitely started with "here here here there" but if you name the squares you'll actually get more out of it because you're getting to know the geometry sort of by brute force. It doesn't matter as much to name squares when every position is unfamiliar so it feels counter intuitive to add MORE info to already complex calculations but they soon become huge shortcuts.
@@kylezo thank u so much for the a explanation, i probably started this process because some squares like e4 c5 or f5 are clear for me just because my opening memorization. Ill try to name them in my calculation, its a little hard to me like many other things. Thanks
My query is the same as a couple of other posts here. I started calculating ...Nxc5 first and was waiting for you to cover those lines after ...Rxd1, but you decided on your best move without calculating those lines . Not complaining, but I was surprised it wasn't covered because I thought it was so asking to be looked at. It certainly increases the number of calculations involved and therefore can make it seem more intimidating.
Surprises me that in the main line you make a conclusion after kf8. I was a little bit worried about Qb4 next, where white is threatening some discovery attack possibly.
@@ZZuluZ yes it looks a bit scary and I find it hard to evaluate these positions when there Is a discovered attack like that. But I guess black just moves the king back and the knight isn't really able to attack anything while our knight on d3 is still forking rook and queen
“Everybody wants to be a bodybuilder, but don’t nobody wanna lift no heavy ass weight.”- Ronnie Coleman Thanks for the tip about double checking the line from the end. Your videos always help rebuild my confidence, when I'm in a slump that feels like I barely understand how the pieces move. Always full for gems.
I had a game the other day where the computer said i was winning the entire time graph 📈 was going up steadily leading to a position where i had taken on f2 with queen check and the only move was queen takes rook sacrificing the queen leading to a fork of his queen( which was immediate that was just the best line for him yet he could have moved his queen many places) and it was ridiculously complex and i was down to like 2 mins and could not see that was the only move although i did briefly consider it. That seems to be the story of my chess. Playing extremely strong and good leading up to a position im completely winning like +2 or +3 according to computer and there is some very obscure and hard tactic im not prepared to calculate throughly and i drop the ball and lose the entire game. Lately im dropping elo like crazy and it makes me doubt that i have ever even had a good grasp on the game. I think i need to pick a line and study it.
It sems to me that your problem and your proposed solution have no overlap whatsoever. If you build winning positions that you cant convert, the last you need is studying lines. Instead of focus on aggressive, attacking chess and calculation.
@@ChessCoachAndras Yeah true but it always seem to be some crazy only move the computer wants or im completely losing and the reason i think certain lines may fix it is because for one i play random openings often and also perhaps i would reach winning positions in lines that im familiar with rather than some only move variations where it seems mind bogglingly complex only move being a queen sac for rook and then knight coming in for the kill. Im referring to this specific game that seems to be a reocurring theme i face.
@@ChessCoachAndras i can show the one im referring to the other day and i could probably find some others if i look. I dont know how to send games. Its always deletes them from the comment section if i link pgns
@@ChessCoachAndras I love your English language accent. I hear the Hungarian very clearly but there's definitely some Australian/cockney influence right?
I’m sorry but this was very chaotic and irrational. You basically started with the move Rxe1 and never looked at any other line that doesn’t start with Rxe1, only to conclude that Rxe1 should be our move since all those variations are good for black. How do we know there is no better starting move if we only analyse that one starting move? Regardless if all the variations give us the edge, there might be a better starting move that gives us an even greater advantage. The whole point of stopping and calculating a certain position is to figure out your NEXT move. And we only analyzed one…
Happy to do a 45 minute video but I thought, in order to demonstrate the concept I had to cut back. obviously to same process need to be done to determine which first move is best.
Yet another 30 minute "just do it" video. Isn't it. Most of tutorials in the world are focused on making stuff digestible and simple. With all due respect, "just do it" is motivational but not educational
![Kodak Black - Catch Fire [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A4ch-olIuZo/mqdefault.jpg)
You are a good coach. Thank your for not polluting the video with extra spectacular-unnecessary-theatrical stuff. Helps to learn too.
@@dzmitrysp this is precisely the idea! Thanks for appreciating my efforts!
what about the chicos😥?
My recording software got laggy and missed the first few seconds 😂😂😂
Let the chicas have their day, we don't always have to be included
I beat an 1800 OTB 1 HR 20 min game with your calculation techniques, it was so weird i had one of your advice in my head when i was in a position about the worry on losing a rook, and i played correctly winning 2 minor pieces for a rook, i won the game with 90.8 accuracy with the addition of a brilliant move!! And i only started playing chess 14 months ago! Thanks for your help!!
This is generally good advice, and I do most of it in my own games already. However, what really helps me in tactical situations is to note all checks, captures, and threats for both sides in my head before even thinking about calculating. It prevents me from going into a line without looking at the big picture, and it happens much less often that I miss a move somewhere in my calculation.
Now that I think about it, this probably has another mental advantage. I always know how to begin engaging with a position.
This Andras guy absolutely ROCKSSS!!! So down-to-earth, so direct, so helpful... He presents reality as it is, not the "gummy bears" that other chess youtubers offer...
PS: even his use of technology is clumsily down-to-earth🤣 gotta luv' it!
Cheers mate, glad you liked the video!
This is seriously one of your best vids for us adult improvers.
Glad you think so!
Thanks, Andras, for your extremely helpful series on calculation! I dare to remind you of what you have emphasized several times in previous videos: never stop calculating a line before the position has settled down! The 1.Rxe1 line is hardly over after 3. ... Kf8. The possible continuation 4. Qa3 and 4. Qb4 must be also analyzed, because are obvious candidate moves for white and seem very dangerous for black. Now finding a continuation for black and proving is safe means a few more moves to calculate, which is already above the abilities of intermediate players.
Glad you enjoy my videos
@@ChessCoachAndras "Enjoy" is an understatement. Add enlightening, eye-opener and so on. Many thanks!
Andras, some thoughts from someone who is older (41) and probably weaker than the student who played the game in this video.
I have the book Tune Your Chess Tactics Antenna by FM Emmanuel Neiman. It's a solid book. In that book, somewhere near the beginning when the author outlining the same process that you have in this brilliant video, he says that if you took a someone who's not very good at chess i.e. they had no knowledge or skills on any aspect of the game other than the rules and how the pieces move, but you gave them the calculation/visualization ability of a Grandmaster with a FIDE rating of 2600, that player, despite knowing very little about tactics, positional play, openings, endgames etc., would, in theory, be rated about 2400.
The editing in the book isn't great and English isn't his first language so he doesn't phrase it as clearly as I have above, but it's clear enough that I can understand what he's driving at. Calculation/visualization is the key chess SKILL. Note that I'm not saying it's knowledge. That's a different thing. SKILL. Most weaker players have great knowledge, but lack skill. At least that's what I've learned as an adult improver.
Now the player with the calculation/visualization ability of a Grandmaster with a FIDE rating of 2600 may not end up with the playing strength of 2400, but the point still stands - what you have outlined in this video is the difference between strong players and weak players. Not the only difference, but the major difference.
It's the one thing that nobody wants to work on because it's hard (i.e. it's cognitively demanding, at least at first) and it's time consuming. But it's the one thing that will make the biggest difference to your game. I've played enough chess and done enough puzzles (thousands of them at this point) that I can fully understand this because I feel the pain of still not being good at chess even though I'm much better than I was.
The two hardest things I find about calculation are visualizing the moves accurately as I go deeper down a line/variation and at every juncture considering my opponents strongest responses, not the mediocre ones that would give me an easy win. The problem is that sometimes I struggle to see the best responses, and when I can't see the best responses because of fatigue or lack of pattern recognition I can't calculate the variations that contain them. But I know that doesn't matter, I just need to keep practicing this skill over and over again.
I've learned that the best way to practice these skills is to play games at a time control that is long/slow enough that I have enough time to do exactly what you demonstrated in this video on the majority of moves in the game.
Considering that a rapid game with a 15'+10" time control lasting 40 moves will end up giving me 1300 seconds of thinking time (15 minutes is 900 seconds and 10 seconds x 40 moves is 400 seconds) then you divide that 1300 seconds by 40 moves and I realize that on average I'll have 32.5 seconds per move. There's no way that I can personally do everything that you did in this video in that short amount of time. This is why rapid games are a joke to me, blitz is even worse and bullet barely qualifies as chess.
I'm sticking to longer games (45'+45") and more difficult puzzles and just grinding it out. As you say, you have to embrace the work. You can't shy away from it. In a world where we have a generation of people, many of whom, thanks to be raised by the internet, want shortcuts, life hacks and the abridged version of everything, this video of yours highlights the fact that there are some things in life where you just have to improve at the thing by simply spending more time doing the thing you can't really deconstruct calculation/visualization. You either engage with it or you don't. As they say, repetition is the mother of skill.
Every word you typed in is liquid gold. In fact I think part of the reasons why my channel is nowhere near as popular as it could (should ) be is because I tell people things they don’t want to do/hear.
And yes my view on calculation is exactly the same as the above mentioned author’s and yours !
That being said though, there are lots of things that can go wrong internally (or even externally) that make it difficult (sometimes impossible) to maintain either consistent breadth (monitoring each position for forcing moves) or depth of calculation. Surely the skills to notice and prevent/evade/make it past these obstacles are just as crucial.
Thank you for mentioning that. I find that in positions that aren't overly complex and have enough forced combinations I *can* calculate some number of lines accurately, but the thing is that it takes me forever. Like it would take me almost the length of this video. That makes me a very slow chess player, but I figure that's the only way to actually play good chess. If I forego calculations and rely on gut and some basic pattern recognition then my only hope is that the other player is even worse, which isn't even a satisfying way to win. So I'm also not playing rapid (or even faster) games until I become better (faster) at calculation/visualization. I hope that with practice I can improve on my calculation speed, and eventually I'll tackle rapid, which is all everyone seems to want to play nowadays.
GMs grossly underestimate how much of their calculation "skill" is based on memorization such as mating patterns and tactical motifs such x-rays, attraction/decoys, pins, skewers, interference, etc... We simply don't build skills in a vacuum. Imagine a doctor that claims he can do surgery purely based on "skill." What about a mechanic that can repair your vehicle purely based on "skill." Chess is no different. Skill requires memorization. I don't think you can separate the two. The thing that makes GMs better than you is that they have more knowledge (memorized patterns) and experience. This is why a GM can look at what might look like a random position to a club player and find the best move in seconds while it could take the club player 15-30 minutes to find the best move on his own. So, the question is, how do we acquire more knowledge/experience and utilize the knowledge that we have to improve our skills?
I like most of what you said here. This all takes work and fortunately, the most impactful part is trainable (even if it can be difficult).
However, I will push back on 15' + 10" not being enough because your math there is wrong for two reasons. One, you can think on your opponent's time too. Two, not every move requires the same level of thinking. Presumably you have some opening prep (and or can fall back on basic opening principles in unfamiliar openings!) and often times moves are forced (or have a very limited set of options).
Conservatively, if your opening prep even goes just five moves deep, another five move throughout the game are fairly trivial decisions and you use your opponent's time as well, you're already up to almost 1.5 minutes/move. (And again, that's assuming you allot the same amount of time to every single move. If you want to spend five minutes on one move, no problem - you might just have to speed up on a few other moves as tradeoff.)
Anyway, kudos to you though for being willing to put in the time and effort to play 45' + 45" games. :D
This is incredible! The mess i get in my head is the biggest issue in my chess at the moment and this video explains how to deal with it so clearly! Thank you Andras, your channel is absolute gem!
Cheers, glad you found the video useful!
Seems like 1. Nxf4 should have been considered too, even if it transposes to the Rxe1 variation
This is so amazing. I played a game on Monday in which I had a winning attack. I just couldn't concentrate and calculate the lines AND evaluate them right. This video really helps, thanks :)
Thanks mate, glad you liked it !
One thing that has really helped me force myself to calculate is counting the ply in my head. So I find myself counting '1,2,3,4' etc. If I land on an even number I know I have at least calculated an opponent's (hopefully) best reply in that position. This also helps anchor the position so if I need to go back and calculate a different option at something like move 4... Doing this also helps me cut through more overwhelming positions as the focus is now on counting out variations and sub variations as opposed to worrying about how complicated a position is. It has started to become a little bit more automatic for me. I have had so much trouble getting myself to actually calculate and make conclusions during a live game and this little trick has helped
Mikhail Tal be like: "If I do not understand the position that i was calculating then my opponent does not understand it as well. I'll play it."
Amazing video. I had quickly calculated Rxe1 Nxd5 Rxd1 Nxe7+ and had concluded that I had to pay Nxf4 before Rxe1.
I think you nailed it Coach. I was excited to see this video. Im sooo satisfied after seeing it. I DO do this method somewhat naturally. By naturally I mean I SEARCH for clarity starting SOMEWHERE. But seeing YOU do it has given me a greater understanding of what I do, and a desire to do the method even more methodical and clearer. I didnt understand what I was doing before. Now that I do, I can do it with precision and eagerness! I always felt a bit of... Not dread but, ok here we go! Complicated position time! But its not complicated. The method is simple! Just do the method to turn the position into your domain and your playground! What a gift this video was. Thank you
Thanks, happy you found it helpful!
To anyone asking about Nxf4. Nxf4 Nxf4 is forced as Rxe6 gets met with Nxe6. So Nxf4 Nxf4 Rxe1 Qxf7+ Kxf7 Rxe1 Rd8 Transposes to what we saw in the video. But Rxe1 gives them more opportunities to mess up as presented in the video.
Yes and this should be in the video
Yea and no. Nxf4 is also winning in very similar ways, I chose to omit it on account of keeping the video digestable.
@@ChessCoachAndras But Coach, isn't that promoting a very bad habit, namely "tunnel-thinking"? One looks at one line, it's okay, so one plays it, never having looked at other moves which might have been better? In this case its equal, but maybe next time there would have been a difference?
Thanks, Coach Andras. Great as usual. Question: how important is it to mentally "say" the move names as you calculate? That is, should you calculate using algebraic notation? Or is it enough to just try and mentally visualize the position without names?
I really think saying is important. It makes the lines "stick" better in your head!
Saying helps with "missing pieces" if you say "I take the knight on f4" it's easier to realise there no longer is a knight on f4. It sounds trivial but it helps.
For me; I say the moves in slower time control, but can't be bothered in rapid or faster.
I would suggest what students lack that you have, Andras, is a useful evaluation of the intial position that leads you to start calculations with Re1.
What would the chart look like if calculation included Nxf4 as a candidate move?
@daniellevin4174 Pretty certain with a quick look that it ends up in the same lines as Re1, but you have to be a little bit cautious about making assumptions like that I guess.
After 1. Rxe1 Rxe1 2. Nf7+ Kf8 I was a bit worried about 3. Qa3. White threatens Ng6+ and winning back the material on f4 and also maybe Nc8+ and taking on b6 due to the unprotected rook on a8. It's not working, but how do you know without even calculating the lines? Imho, I would not stop on Kf8. I think you should calculate refutations to those lines/ideas otherwise it's just luck that there is no good discover check for white.
Yes I forgot to include those important lines. Qa3 is met by Nc4 and Qb4 is met by Nd3
I mean you could start with knight x f4. Im sure people are thinking the same as me. Now there are another several variations to calculate. This can be overwhelming.
Great video btw :)
ya I wish he talked about that too
you're never getting good by complaining at the work you gotta do anyway
@@dariogreggio7981 in a classical game i would do all the calculations but in rapid and blitz i dont find it as easy
17:29 You meant Qxf7+ Kxf7
Kotov can finally sleep in his grave without guilt. Can Coach Andras also comment on the “stepping stones” method described by Jon Tisdall in Improve Your Chess Now as well as the Stoyko method of training on complex positions. Thanks for a great video. Love your Chessable courses.
Thanks man, yea will look into those! Glad you like my courses!
There are some other good chess teachers online with millions of subs but if you're in this comment section, you found the best teacher on RUclips ❤
Wow, thanks!
Why don't you consider 1. Nxf4 in the process? Is the conclusion of 1. Rxe1 'good enough' not to calculate it?
I had the same question. Rook on e6 is under attack and both Rxe1 and Nxf4 address the problem. Both should be calculated and compared.
Answer this elsewhere. Long story short : it’s very similar lines that also win. Wanted to keep the video digestible.
In an ideal world your calculate nxf4 using the same technique and then pick the better one.
Yes, to me that is the more logical move so I started with that and quickly (probably spent about half a minute) concluded that Black has winning chances. That move is actually easier to calculate than the one in the video, but they do transpose. I would still need less than a minute for the other line too.
I think I can see a way forward to practice calculations now. Bot match. Notebook. Pen. I can definitely relate to the chaos picture although as a spaniel owner I might prefer to call it "spaniel brain".
Terrific Video Coach! I suck at calculating and this has helped enormously to clarify where I need to work in my chess. Great job! Subbed!
My second question: is this not oversimplifying? If Rxe1 is just slightly better, don't you also have to do this for other candidate moves, for example, here Nxf4 as well. Unless it's clearly winning, you can't often calculate only the first move that comes into your head, but other options as well.
Yes, I simply omitted the other candidates to keep the video short and sharp. Optimally you wanna compare Rxe1 with Nxf4
Good video but I'd say 1.Rxe1, Rxe1 2.Nxf4, Ne7+ 3.Kf8, Qa3 creating a discovered and double check, even though it doesn't work out for white, is a nightmare to calculate for us amateurs.
But is that a reasonable move? Just putting up a random discovery doesn't justify a line. It is a tricky move, but you play for tricks when you are losing - you don't give away a piece willingly and then start to play for tricks.
So should that move be calculated before you write that line off the board? Maybe. And yes, I admit that calculating that from the original position is not that easy. But at some point you just have to trust that such a line is not likely to work out and be willing to work hard to find a solution if you find yourself there. You are an entire piece up! Ideally you would like to calculate every move and line under the sun, but that is not always possible or practical.
Once you are there you should be able to find a good move. It is a tricky move, but your opponent had just invested an entire knight to create the complications so taking a long think here would be very well worth it. Obviously, just winning a pawn will not cut it for White. There are really only three candidate moves worth considering: c5, Nc4 and Ne6. It turns out that Ne6 is a mistake due to the response Nf5+ followed by Qg3, which I must confess, didn't see. But that is also the move that gives Black free hand since you are not attacking anything in Black's army. To me, Nc4 is the simplest since you notice that Qb4 can be answered by Nd3 - not particularly difficult to see from the position after Qa3. If you are a piece up you don't want to make live complicated for yourself and the dubble check is never dangerous and the knight would be hanging on g6. Yes, White can try to confuse Black with Qa3 in that line, but if you are a piece up it is well worth having to work thru some variations and complications.
First of all, I think Nxf4 is simpler than Rxe1. You could argue that the other possibilities favour Black so Rxe1 is for this reason better. I guess that we can have different opinions about. If I calculated Nxf4 and found your line with Qa3, I would be mildly concerned. However, if I saw the responses c5 and Nc4 but had a hard time to figure everything out, I would just trust my experience and my instinct and not worry about. Could that turn out to be serious misjudgement on my part? Absolutely! But that is unlikely. (The only threat I can see is the double check or discovered check followed by capturing the knight on f4.) Taking a small risk when the potential reward is big is well worth it.
Thanks coach. Just the calming advice I needed before heading out to my tournament today.
This is a really excellent video.
I think that one of the main things chess books have done for me is that they have given me time staring at a board calculating variations. Nothing helped my chess more than getting two or three moves deep and considering candidate moves from different positions
Exactly! Master this and your rating will soar!
Very educational lesson. Thank you!
Hey Coach! Question for ya. Do you cancel a line when you convinced yourself that it's worse for you? How do we prevent ourselves from wasting so much time calculating fantasy lines/hope chess instead of seeing the truth quickly and clearly? Thanks!
Thank you! Clarity triumphs over chaos! Great process.
You are so welcome
Dear Andras, thanks for sharing this great video. I am 36y old, played some chess online the last 2 years and i have just joined a club and am hovering around 1450 range. I have this all the time in my head, especially when i am tired or under pressure by an attacking player or strong opponent. Hopefully this will help. I am going to try this out in my real games.
However i have two questions. Why start with Rxe1? In a game i would also want to calculate 1. Nxf4 and all the possible captures/sidelines after that. That means way more work and a lot of more time to spend. How did you decide to only calculate Rxe1?
Nxf4 looks tempting to me at first sight. My rook on e6 will be attacked two times but is also covered by the Knight on f4. If he takes with Rxf4 i simply take back with Nxf4 and am a piece up. 2. Nxf4 is stronger for him, then i will trade rooks with 2. Rxe1. 3. Rxe1. Resulting in an open file for white and after trading queens he still has the open file and my rook is passive. My evaluation would be that 1. Nxf4 leads to a slightly better position for white. Therefor i still would have calculated Rxe1 and found it is better, but it would cost me a lot of time.
My second question is what to do when you are lost during a calculation? I find myself going over the same lines multiple times in a row to come to a conclusion. I think its just poor visualization and calculation skills but maybe there is something wrong that i do not see :)
Great video. In really complex variations (in games, not training) I something evaluate as "this requires further investigation" I save those lines for last. If I spot something that is bad for me I can skip the hardest line.
Also I would also calculate Nxf4 in the position. If time allows it.
Then I consider which is more difficult for my opponent.
Great video, I like you trying out different packages to the same message.
I am beginning to get this. Thanks.
very nice man it feels so easy i played 5 or more games and i win all of them in such critical position i used this method also with the mindset of clarity and it felt so easy to do
upload more videos like this thankyou mann 😀
Nice work!
Thank you Andras, this is a wonderful video. If I was to drill aspects of my chess to improve at a beginner (1000 ELO) level to get to 1500, would you say 20% pattern recognition (Susan Polgar "learn chess the right way", for example) 30% longer calculation tactics and then focus on games is reasonable? I'm curious what you typically recommend.
This was great!
Thank you coach Andras! I really appreciate the effort you put in this video in relating to the typical thinking process of an amateur and striving to rewire it. I totally relate to rhe situation you described, and I'll try to bring clarity in my calculations. Thank you!
My Pleasure!
Man this channel is just the best ❤
I liked how you took the board away and just showed notation several times. Forced me to visualize the position.
Wonderful job communicating complex concepts so clearly
Thanks, glad you liked it !
Great video Andras, I really liked the presentation style. It was challenging, but in a good way.
Thank you very much!
That image was perfect it made me unable to follow the lines with all that chaos imagine if you looked up a line in a database and it had all that chaos and bad font on the screen.
Really like this dive into calculation
Great method thank you 😃
Very good video! In your first line you stopped and evaluated before noting that White still has Qb4 setting up a double +, but this does not seem to lead anywhere anyhow, so whatever... The important thing is the method, and its demonstration, and that was done with clarity....
Good point!
Absolutely lovely idea to deep dive into calculation techniques, etc. Looking forward to more of this.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Excellent video - I often struggle to find a way in the jungle of variations. (for example this position from a game of mine 2r2bk1/3N1p1p/1r3np1/p4N1q/PpR1P3/3Q1P2/1P4PP/3R2K1 b - - 0 26 where I couldnt find the right move, cause of too many variations - my opponent surprised me with an incorrect sacrifice after a 20 min thought...) Would like to see some more videos like this about proper calculation.
It looks like the analysis finds that the candidate move ...Rxe1 leads to good results in all lines, which is great. But don't we need to consider similar analyses for other forcing candidates, like ...Nxf4, etc.? Or is that "obviously" bad? Or... was ...Rxe1 just the scope of this lesson?
Definitely! They should be calculated the same way and then pick the best !
This really hits a pain point! Thanks for the video.
I want to make an addition: Never end a line on your turn! You risk missing a strong reply. In your main line 4.Qb4 or Qa3 could be interesting continuations to look at before the final evaluation.
Well said!
Great and direct video. thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thank you
Amazing video ❤
Thank you so much 😀
thank you a lot. very helpful
Something I like to ask myself in complex / uncertain positions is: do I have a way to liquidate and simplify the position and if so is the result better for me than for the opponent? Sometimes in such situations there are forcing captures, and the resulting position can be easier to evaluate.
You are just an awesome instructor/content-creator thanks for helping us improving .
By the way I have a question can you make a video about your chess journey from the start till now
Absolutely great video coach. I've missed your streams a lot!
Glad you like them! Streamed today!
How to find the correct first move? You just go for the most forcing or the most obvious? Lets say the correct move was something subtle, everything else is just making my position a bit hard. How can this method help me find the right first move, as i think checking all the options with bad first move only leads to me wasting time.
Thank you. Great content
Thanks for this coach! :) I try to follow this advice and be precise, but always end up very behind on the clock. Then most of my losses are on time ^^'
12:22 I had always read/heard "long analysis wrong analysis" and more attention needs to be paid at the beginning of variation. So for example, after Rxe1 Rxe1. I should then analyze Rxe1 Nxd5 before Rxe1 Rxe1 Nxf4.
Whar are your thoughts on this?
I love it!!!
Great video, and the chaos picture was 100% accurate.
Glad you think so!
This is a fine video. Thank you. But maybe not for the reasons you intended.
The actual method here is no different than the tree method. OS on that level the intellectual contribution isn't there.
But it is immensely helpful to see you actually go through the tree method step by step. There is something to doing, and doing with expert supervision that doing on one's own can't achieve. So to have you basically hold our hands and go through the tree method step by step in small enough pieces that we don't get overwhelmed is important.
You also chose a good example that was neither too difficult nor to easy. And you put in appropriate time to guide us through it rather than blazing through the calculations faster than ordinary brains can follow.
You continue to improve as a teacher, with some ups and downs. Your channel is worth following. Thanks.
Players under FIDE 1850 (me) who have solved fewer than 10,000 puzzles (not me) need an algorithm for assessing the position.
That is, after confirming who is to move, they need a supremely specific algorithm just to assess the material on the board consistently (before looking at any K safety or any moves).
Then they need to continue receiving feedback to develop precise steps they take to assess K safety--checks, safe checks and unsafe checks, check-captures vs. bare checks, direct checks vs indirect/X-ray+s; and # threats all on our K first; and then on the Opponent's K.
Next, they need precise steps to assess Captures without checks on our army; then Caps on Opp.
Great video
The school teacher shines through Here😄😄
hermoso video chico .. gg clarity
Lovely stuff as usual Andras!
Glad you like it!
Thanks!
Thank you !
The unsung chess hero on RUclips!
But why did you choose 1. Rxe1?
Fair question. In reality I should have compared it to Nxf4 but it would have made the video too long .
Great video!
Glad you enjoyed it
My problem with this is, I can do it, but to do what we did here probably would have taken me 15 minutes or so. My opponents seem to be able to do it in 30 seconds. As a result, I eventually get to a position where I don't have time for this kind of calculation anymore, and have to basically play on instinct. How can I get faster? Just keep doing it?
Quality chess takes time. Play longer controls but also practise this kind of calculation, so you get faster at it.
maybe obvious question and maybe because my english is bad, but, when you calculate, do you have the square names in your head? In my head i only have 2 squares, "here", "there". I mean, Rook there, Knight here check etc
This changes over time. Actually it becomes way easier once you get used to it, because each square is like a little room in a house that you know very well, so say my knight is on f6, without even looking at a board I already know which squares the knight sees from there etc. Pretty soon things like "Qb6" pop up enough times that you know exactly what the general threats and ideas are with that piece on that square. So I definitely started with "here here here there" but if you name the squares you'll actually get more out of it because you're getting to know the geometry sort of by brute force. It doesn't matter as much to name squares when every position is unfamiliar so it feels counter intuitive to add MORE info to already complex calculations but they soon become huge shortcuts.
@@kylezo thank u so much for the a explanation, i probably started this process because some squares like e4 c5 or f5 are clear for me just because my opening memorization. Ill try to name them in my calculation, its a little hard to me like many other things. Thanks
@@GuilleBSO that's the right track! That's how it started for me too.
My query is the same as a couple of other posts here.
I started calculating ...Nxc5 first and was waiting for you to cover those lines after ...Rxd1, but you decided on your best move without calculating those lines .
Not complaining, but I was surprised it wasn't covered because I thought it was so asking to be looked at.
It certainly increases the number of calculations involved and therefore can make it seem more intimidating.
It’s a different branch I purposely omitted as it leads to almost identical lines but would have made the video too long and heavy.
Surprises me that in the main line you make a conclusion after kf8. I was a little bit worried about Qb4 next, where white is threatening some discovery attack possibly.
Good observation. Nd3 wins for Black but you are right, it needed a bit more love!
Great point and this is where mistakes happen… like why is nd3 winning?? Once the e7 knight moves it’s a double check discovered attack!
@@ZZuluZ yes it looks a bit scary and I find it hard to evaluate these positions when there Is a discovered attack like that. But I guess black just moves the king back and the knight isn't really able to attack anything while our knight on d3 is still forking rook and queen
“Everybody wants to be a bodybuilder, but don’t nobody wanna lift no heavy ass weight.”- Ronnie Coleman
Thanks for the tip about double checking the line from the end.
Your videos always help rebuild my confidence, when I'm in a slump that feels like I barely understand how the pieces move. Always full for gems.
Thanks, and yea, great quote there!:)
"the opponent of the opponent of my student" 😂😂😂😂
I understand the very reasonable arguments against Kotov`s tree. However, this example is just a one branch Kotovian tree.
back to the drawing for me i think. i went for doubling the rooks and Re8 and it wasnt mentioned ...ooops
I had a game the other day where the computer said i was winning the entire time graph 📈 was going up steadily leading to a position where i had taken on f2 with queen check and the only move was queen takes rook sacrificing the queen leading to a fork of his queen( which was immediate that was just the best line for him yet he could have moved his queen many places) and it was ridiculously complex and i was down to like 2 mins and could not see that was the only move although i did briefly consider it. That seems to be the story of my chess. Playing extremely strong and good leading up to a position im completely winning like +2 or +3 according to computer and there is some very obscure and hard tactic im not prepared to calculate throughly and i drop the ball and lose the entire game. Lately im dropping elo like crazy and it makes me doubt that i have ever even had a good grasp on the game. I think i need to pick a line and study it.
It sems to me that your problem and your proposed solution have no overlap whatsoever. If you build winning positions that you cant convert, the last you need is studying lines. Instead of focus on aggressive, attacking chess and calculation.
@@ChessCoachAndras Yeah true but it always seem to be some crazy only move the computer wants or im completely losing and the reason i think certain lines may fix it is because for one i play random openings often and also perhaps i would reach winning positions in lines that im familiar with rather than some only move variations where it seems mind bogglingly complex only move being a queen sac for rook and then knight coming in for the kill. Im referring to this specific game that seems to be a reocurring theme i face.
@@ChessCoachAndras Thanks for the feed back.
@@wellutopia2237 can you show me at least 3 examples when this exact problem happened?
@@ChessCoachAndras i can show the one im referring to the other day and i could probably find some others if i look. I dont know how to send games. Its always deletes them from the comment section if i link pgns
I know I haven't watched the video but ik its gonna be a good one
Hs accent is a combination of Cockney, Aussie and Hispanic.
No Hispanic. It’s Hungarian
@@ChessCoachAndras I love your English language accent. I hear the Hungarian very clearly but there's definitely some Australian/cockney influence right?
@@kylezo Yup, definitely!
Also should mention Hispanic is not a language lol
@@kylezo
Neither is Australian or Cockney.
👏🏾💯
yh lemme spend 20 min to calculate real quick :D
Chess Coach Clarity!
You know it!
Beauty
I’m sorry but this was very chaotic and irrational. You basically started with the move Rxe1 and never looked at any other line that doesn’t start with Rxe1, only to conclude that Rxe1 should be our move since all those variations are good for black. How do we know there is no better starting move if we only analyse that one starting move? Regardless if all the variations give us the edge, there might be a better starting move that gives us an even greater advantage. The whole point of stopping and calculating a certain position is to figure out your NEXT move. And we only analyzed one…
Happy to do a 45 minute video but I thought, in order to demonstrate the concept I had to cut back. obviously to same process need to be done to determine which first move is best.
Yet another 30 minute "just do it" video. Isn't it. Most of tutorials in the world are focused on making stuff digestible and simple. With all due respect, "just do it" is motivational but not educational