I tried to master chess in 30 Days
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 окт 2024
- If you're looking to improve at chess, then sign up here:
Chess.com/?ref_...
Check us out on Patreon!
/ goalguys
Get connected with us HERE:
Facebook:
/ goalguys
Instagram:
/ goalguysinsta
Twitter:
/ goalguys
Have a great week guys! Cheers.
![GEEK TIMË [OFFICIAL AUDIO]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ry-6RvkH880/mqdefault.jpg)
So in an attempt to re-explain information I learned a day earlier, I wound up giving the worst example for calculating a pawn exchanges at 2:01. Moral of the story don't take advice from someone with 1 day of experience.
hehe, Yeah I cringed a little bit there=) I hope you start to fall in love with chess!
The idea you are talking about is solid! even if the example is a little bit sketchy. great video! keep up the awesome content!
Yeah duhh if black recaptures it’s #1 so white just wins the pawn, but that wasn’t the point, your explaination was solid
Goal Guys it’s more about taking the right advice from the right person. Why didn’t you look for advice on the online chess forums? That’s the best place to learn chess. And first thing to playing a game is learning the rules.
in your example after exf5 you just lost a pawn lol you can't recapture because of Qh5 mate
at least you didn't challenge magnus carlsen like that other guy
It looked like he had much more skill than the other guy too.
The algorithm guy? That guy was a total doofus. 🤣
I don't get why people got so butthurt over that. I found it fun. They are people that takes on challenges and ofc they get beaten badly. It's all just fun and games.
@@UnbearableYT True, but he actually thought he could win.
Unbearable I mean he wanted to solve chess by running a self written computer program for a few days...
Master chess in 30 days... Only someone who has never play chess could say that
mauricio97 major facts!
Its like mastering guitar, mastering composing, mastering spanish or mastering tennis in 30 days. It takes clueless to even claim that. Masters have been training for decades every day but this guy can start from nothing and do it in 30 days? Frankly it's insulting.
He was quite humble about the difficulty of chess. Gotta respect that attitude to do his best and learn as much as possible in merely 30 days.
mauricio97 at adult age mastering chess in 30 years is also impossible let alone in 30 months.
@@kevinwellwrought2024 it is possible to master chess or atleast get the title of a gm I. Less than 30 years as a gm, yes most gms started as a kid and yes it is unlikely to get gm when you start chess as an adult but there are and were exceptions, so it is not impossible. Just harder since kid learn insanely fast and adults have less time than kids.
Great video! And good job improving over this 30 day period!
Y'all are just happy he was using chess com in his video and not lichess 😂😂😂
@@protectedmethod9724 FAX
@@protectedmethod9724 Exactly, and it sucks for them that lichess is better in every way :)
GM Samuel Feinberg Pfft it’s not like you’ve become incredibly skilled after several years you can’t talk.
@@SoDamnMetal Not sure about that. I prefer chess.com - their new mentor is better. Lichess is also ok as is Chess24.
Every chess player must have laughed after reading the title.
So true
lol underrated comment
I DIED 😂
😂😂😂
😂😂😂
1st day - lose
30th day - lose
The truth hurts
-Ben Finegold
If you say it again it's right.
The tooth hurts
@@obviouspropaganda8200 kasparov?
Rawrr
Cry like a Grandmaster
Trying is the first step to failure---- Ben Finegold
Manuel Ramirez Ben Finegold has so many hilarious off hand one liners like that
And failure is the first step towards succes - Failing Student
He was quoting Homer from the Simpsons.
Very suspicious...
Rawr!
"I tried to master chess in 30 days"
- Loses horribly to 1500 on day 1.
- Loses horribly to 1500 on day 30.
Chess is hard ^^
He did much better in the second game, though. But, yes, chess is hard.
lol
Men a 1500 Jesus that is hard so hard, I maybe don't know shit, I thin I have won to some of them but maybe they were overated
@@nicanornunez9787 I am 1400 Chess player... Add me in Chess.com
MrElizeusOfArabia
I'm 1800 on rapid add me if u want
Best way to learn chess is to play it more and more.
- Alpha zero
LoL
Very smart guy. I heard he works at google now.
Lol..😂 That said .. Similar but different
One day he will be a GM.
Absolutely .. He works neatly and consistently
This guy is humble and he improved after 30 days. Not like that guy who challenged magnus carlsen and blamed the algorithm.(Of course! The algorithm, it is.)
other guy who?
@@F.E.M.T.O max deutch
You mean the algorithm he pretended to program - but it failed to run, so you'll just have to take his word for it?
@@sixfive9638 ruclips.net/video/ql3KtXtX-Mk/видео.html he did infact program it, the demo vid is unlisted tho
Especially since Stockfish exists, and will beat any human (and other engine [Yes, even AlphaZero with current Stockfish]) on earth.
Magnus Carlsen
Age 8: 1200 Elo Player
Age 13: 2500 Elo Player (Grand Master)
Age 19: 2800 Elo Player (Number #1)
Age 22: +2850 Elo Player (World Champion)
random dude : I wanna beat him, teach me in 30 days
EVEN if magnus himself teaches him for 30 days without any bias, he would still lose
@@SwastikSwarupDas Magnus could teach you for 30 years, and you would still lose.
@@SwastikSwarupDas magnus is not a good teacher in chess (when asked about moves he most of the time cant really explain why they are good) most good teachers arent even gms
@Zesty Meatballs Fischer started at 17.
Also magnus beat anatoly karpov at age 13
Still a better attempt than that other lame "obsessive learner"
River Capulet yeah, I made a program but it’s not done....after a month
M A G N U S C A R L S E N
The goal and approach was a lot more realistic and better defined. And this actually had a control to compare against.
tsssss
Reas his blog. He achieved many insane goals, stop being a hater
Here's why "en passant" exists. In earlier versions of chess, pawns could not jump 2 spaces on their first move. So it was always an option to capture a pawn on its first move. Then around the 15th century, the double jump for a pawn's first move was introduced to accelerate the opening stage of the game. Since this now allowed a pawn to jump over the capture square of another pawn, "en passant" was introduced to maintain the integrity of the earlier version of chess. In other words, if a pawn jumps over the capture square of another pawn, this pawn can choose to capture it as if it was a pre-15th-century game and that pawn would have moved only a single square. Remembering this little story usually helps in not forgetting that you can play the "en passant" move when you have the opportunity.
My understanding was En passant was invented to prevent the board from being completed locked up. Which would be fairly easy to do. Letting a lesser player get away with a draw due to repetition. Which in turn would keep the integrity of the older style single move play.
@@brettdale8625 The reason why "en passant" exists is what I outlined above. Positions where neither player can make progress are entirely acceptable in chess and result as draws. Even with this rule, the locked positions you mention still happen because the move is optional. So it doesn't forcibly prevent anything, as you suggested.
It exists, period.
Jon B I havent heard of en passant until now
Jon B - I’m glad to see someone else had already said this before I got to the comments.
“Nobody has ever mastered the art of chess. You could be the world champion for 50 years and still not scratch the surface of what chess can really do” - Bobby Fischer
AlphaZero did.
@@lucasz420 it really didn't, it's just the best that we had for a while (and stockfish 13 + Neural net already surpassed it), there will eventually be a stronger engine and who knows, if we manage to master quantum physics we might even come close to solving the game
There are more chess moves possible than the number of atoms in the universe,so there is an ocean of moves we haven't even considered.No one can master every one of these moves even if they had a lifetime.
@@KILLEM43KILLA chess is a big game in other words
@@Kevin-cy2dr that is the most stupid thing i have ever heard. There are more board positions* than atoms in the universe, but as a chess player you dont have to memorize that shit
Him: “to start out, I’m going to try to memorize the Ruy Lopez.”
Me: “oh... oh no. Don’t do that...”
The Ruy Lopez is not a good opening to start with as a beginner. Trying to memorize all of it would be like memorizing an entire book when you don't know how to read yet
Jordan Kellogs actually it kinda is a good opening
@@jontancena it’s one of the best openings but the ideas can be too complex for beginners. The scotch or Italian is safer for beginners
Lol imagine if he went for Sicilian defense. The amount of variations is staggering.
@@Kevin-cy2dr I did start with the ruy lopez and the sicilian. quite a lot of lost games, but no need for gatekeeping.
I’ve improved from 0 to 1600 elo after playing chess for a year. I think what helped me the most was solving tactics and numerous puzzles every day
How much time did you spend playing chess per day ?
I am at 1600
Does anyone have any idea how to crack 2000 online
@@devisnomiac212 play more and analyze all of your games especially the ones you lose
I went from 700 to 1800 rn in 8 months. I’m trying to get 2000 in 1 year
How old are you all? Does age stop this at all?
1500 is no joke. It can take a year or longer of pretty serious study and practice to get to 1500. Very rarely will you see it happen in 30 days. Chess is frustratingly complex and is a game very subject to plateaus.
I would be impressed if anyone could go from never playing to 1500 in a year. I don’t think it’s really possible, but maybe.
1500 FIDE or online rating
@@clirimmurati6183 honestly probably both would be impossible, though obviously 1500 FIDE is harder.
@@victorotene I play on lichess too and have a Fiderating. I think your rating would be 1400-1450 with 1700 on Lichess based on my experience
@@rathelmmc3194There are children who reach 1800 after a year so this will be possible
You learned openings when you should've been learning chess
It's good to learn an opening though. It's much easier to build off a strong opening and to analyze it the reasons n such. But yah, learning chess is far more important
At his level, he should just have played an easy opening with little theory. Going for the sicilian, or any 1.e4 opening for that matter, is just a waste of time. He should have played some calm 1.d4 sideline and studied tactics mostly.
@@postnubilaphoebus96 thats ur opinion. I find e4 openings much. easier to understand than d4. Ive become around 1800 strength online over about a year and a half while rarely using d4
I think every beginner learn openings at the start. This is like learning your ABCs!
@@postnubilaphoebus96 As you said i do agree that he should've focused on tactics a bit more than he did in the video however the point that i do not agree with is regarding the opening. Going for d4 or e4 as he stated in the video is mostly a player preference instead of a necessity, personally i find e4 openings much more manageable than d4 openings. Although i am only a 1150 rated player.
When I was a child, my best friend was very good at chess and he taught me how to play. We were around 10y/o at the time. He had a rough childhood, losing both his parents and grandmother in car accident he survived when he was a few months old. He was an extremely violent child too so he didn't have a lot of friends besides me. We played together for a few months so that I had about 6 months worth of experience. We went on to finish 1-2 at a regional event in France against child prodigies ( my friend was very talented, but I was lucky, the tournament structure made me avoid the real second strongest opponent who really would have destroyed me). We went on to the national competition, my friends finished 9 and I finished 18. I had however a "trick" : my ELO was the lowest possible for my age since I didn't take part in enough competitions, so my opponents always tried to get me through basic fast scheme and I knew enough at the time to counter it. I did not enter competition since then, I'm 23 now and seeing this video reminds me that I want to become good at chess ...Thanks !
cool story bro.
That’s beautiful!
Did your friend find more happy times in chess and life?
"The first thing I gotta do I come up with an opening strategy"
Ahh there's the first common beginner mistake
How should i start learning chess? I really don’t know where to start
@@barddz4646 if you look up "chess network beginner to grand master" on YT there'll be a playlist. it has some of the best chess stuff out there
Barddz While openings are the most fun to study, end game and then mid game should be the first thing you improve on.
I say should, but I still have waaaaaaay more time spent studying openings than anything else ;)
Joseph Joestar although the opening is very important, you should first focus on the entire strategy of your game playing.
@@barddz4646 understand checkmate patterns, study tactics. Games are won by checkmate. If you can't checkmate in the middlegame, they're won by material and converting endgames. Endgames really aren't that important until you get to a certain level. Just know how to win with a rook vs. a king.
Idk where all the hate coming from, I find it cool to see someone really get into chess and study it
So many people do that though. And they do it better. There’s nothing special about a guy “trying to master” chess in a month. Chess is a slow and tedious grind. It’s disrespectful and foolish to even suggest something like that is possible.
Even a child who has played chess for a few months would scoff at this. He’s overestimating his ability, underestimating how hard chess is, and he’s not going about learning it the proper way.
There are no shortcuts in a game like chess where there are millions of people who have being playing and studying the game for literally hundreds of years.
@@HieronymousLex Ok.
I would say that he didn't understand how hard chess is and that it is naïve.
@@HieronymousLex I mean that's pretty obvious smartass
@@HieronymousLexkaren, he obviously doesn’t believe he’s truly going to master the game… 🤣
Kind of reminds me of that one amateur who tried to beat Magnus Carlsen after only a month of training.
Not me, that kid didn't even train. He was working on this algorith, he couldn't finish in time. So he decided to face Magnus without any training at all. That game was a shame.
Does a 1500 player look like Magnus Carlsen to you?
I think it's more respectable that he decided to challenge an average tournament player rather than a master to show everyone just how steep the chess learning curve is, and to not completely waste someone's time like Max Deutsch did. You don't need to challenge the best player in the world to get a point across.
The main difference is that this guy actually trained, and the way he trained wasn’t bad at all. This is how you can actually get good at chess, and this guy just seemed a lot more respectful to the game and the masters of the game than the guy who claimed he “made [Carlsen] nervous” because he played 8 moves of Ruy Lopez theory
@@softan Yeah, everyone would lose against Magnus, but that isn't the point. If you are some kind of superfast learner and you get the world champion to take your challenge, the least you can do is give it your best shot.
*starting game*
Me: Brilliant chess openings
*end game*
Me: Sacrificing queen to a pawn
My mindset at endgame :
1. Queen = pawn
2. Rook < pawn
3. Bishop < pawn
4. Knight < pawn
XD
i like this guy, he actually tried to learn and actually improved himself. He didnt brag about "scaring anyone" or bs like that, he was humble and confronted his mistakes. Unlike the other obsessive learner, who was super cocky, didnt do shit, piss poor planning, relied on his computer's unsuccessful algorithm which is not learning chess, and played magnus only to claim he "scared" him a for a couple moves and loss horribly.
You couldn’t master chess in 30 days even with Gary Kasparov coaching you.
@@HenryLobber in 5 years, definitely. You can become a fide master within 2-3 years if you work really, really hard
@@sirtetris No . Not in 5 years maybe more like 10. Btw if u say so how long u have been playnig chess, whats your rating and if you are on FIDE whats your name?
2:01 if u trade u lose in 1 move
Lmao thanks for ur input
Fool’s mate
*win, because it's white turn. exf5 gxf5 Qh5#
@@johnrubensaragi4125 *lose
You're an honest to God inspiration. You take on every challenge with a mindset like no one I've ever seen and a smile and tenacity to just learn and dive in! You never give up and I along with so many others admire you for it. You inspire me to challenge myself everyday and in new ways!
Hey man, thanks so much! I'm really glad if people see these and try taking on new challenges for themselves.
Are you serious? This was honestly just a bad approach at chess. Memorizing lines by hard is not 'playing' it will not give you any understanding.
@@Fiskie666 you didn't actualy watch the full video did you
@@Fiskie666 I don't care about approach. I just respect his ability to set goals and try to reach them by any means. Not every goal has to be reached to perfection or even reached for that matter. The video is called "I Tried To Master Chess in 30 Days" because he's TRYING to. Never said he did master it or he was gonna do it in some elaborate manner. I just like that he does whatever he can to reach the goals he makes.
@@greninjax1712 With all respect your goal has to be somewhat realistic.This goal is funny to chess masters because it' tantamount to saying you want to become a surgeon in 30 days
2:00 "Trading pawns might be to black's advantage"... No, trading pawns leads to mate in one Qh5# lmao
😂😂😂😂
XD
Haha great catch!
Thats not a mate thats the queen
He is a N00b
Next try to master the electric guitar and play Hendrix solos in 30 days.
If you’re starting with only knowing how the pieces move I doubt you’d beat a 1500 after 30 days. An under dog’s chance is maybe vs 1100.
Exactly, maybe 1000 rated player might be close to 50/50. But it was more fun to watch him get destroyed.
A chess player with the same elo as...as Radits?
Nah I don't think so... it depends on the person I guess. I knew the rules of chess before but only really started playing 6 days ago, yet im about 1100. But as I said, I guess it depends on the person
@@pegaburn782 is 1100 your lichess rating? Because if it is than you're really like 500. I'm 1250 on chess.com but 1700 on lichess. Either way, i practically guarantee we couldn't beat someone 1500 uscf/fide.
@@kaylickwhiskeyjack9394 around 1100 pn chess.com. i know lichess rankings are exaggerated but i dont use it so yeah, its on chess.com
"Up next: Master American football in 30 days! Will I be able to bullrush a 320 lbs offensive lineman with only a month of training? Let's find out!!"
exactly the same as beating a real chess master
@@miguelbenavides9160 Strong chess master is to newbie like 3000lbs lineman, or 30000lbs... There is much larger scale of strength in mental sports than physical.
@@miguelbenavides9160 at least here he doesn't risk any injuries.
Its not the bullrushing part that's difficult, it's the surviving and getting past him that is.
bekanav that’s nearly true and sometimes [very] true
Master chess in 30 days, try 30 years. That's a bit more like it.
Hol' up that too much, maybe 30 Months?
@@metehan8551 30 months my ass! You can't be a strong player in 30 months. Try being a violin or lyra virtuoso in 30 months. It won't happen until you're a gifted prodigy.
@@emilphoryew9436 a decade is good enough, 30 years is way too over the top.
@@metehan8551 I've been playing for 21 years regularly and with experience in checkers before and even I am not a champion player.
@@emilphoryew9436 well everyone is different Polish comrade, if a player with a decade full of experience or idk, the guy in this video played together, you can't really say that the 1st guy is gonna win, some people think differently, a decade is enough for an Average player to get decent at the game, but remember i'm saying "Average" this time.
The reason for en passant: in the beginnings of chess, pawns were only allowed to move one square even with their first move. Later chess openings were sped up and a rule was made to allow pawn to move twice. Shortly thereafter en passant was added as a rule, because technically the pawn is moving twice, the first square and then the second square. This allows an existing pawn to capture at both points: en passant. Hope this is helpful.
Some random thoughts of mine:
2:01 while yes in general it would be strategically disadvantageous to trade center pawns for wing pawns, here it's entirely justified. If white plays exf, black cannot recapture with gxf because of Qh5#! I nitpick because this illustrates the difficulty and the beauty of chess: there are multiple ideas in every position, and we have to decide as players which idea is most important in our current position.
4:06 : "I went back to the club to see if what I have learned had any effect" ... It won't. Getting bogged down in opening study as a beginner is a mistake. Stick to basic principles: develop, control the center, move every piece once before you move any piece twice, castle early. Instead, a beginner should focus on tactics. It's a cliche, but it's really true. The entire game revolves around the concrete features of the position. If you cannot calculate and you are not equipped well enough to spot and utilize tactical elements, strategic opening and endgame knowledge will do you little good. It's like this: you can know all the Spanish grammar rules in the world, but if you don't have the vocabulary, you can't even begin to speak the language.
4:14 : YES! Good to learn that early. But your justification is wrong. Opening study as a beginner isn't low value because your opponents play weird openings. It's low value because your opponents are better at the game than you, and they can get away with playing dubious openings because of that. This goes back to tactics. Get better at the game's basics before you start trying to iron out the finer details of your approach.
5:48: it appears you're writing out the first 8 or so moves of main line openings, and as mentioned above, this is more or less a waste of time. Chess is just as much about building SKILL as it is having the correct KNOWLEDGE.
6:20: reviewing your games is an excellent way to improve, good that you're doing it.
7:45: this game looks better, but you really didn't need to know any opening theory beyond "move each piece once before I move any piece twice, control the center, develop." You lost because your opponent spotted a tactical resource that you missed. You played Qxb5 missing that Ba6 skewers the rook at f1. While it's incorrect, I actually like that you tried Bb6 because it's aggressive. Of course after BxQ BxQ BxR you've still lost material (we call it losing "the exchange" when you lose a rook for a minor piece), and the inclusion of Bb6 has only ensured that you're getting the queens off the board (something you want to avoid when you're behind). That all being said, it shows a good mentality. Unfortunately it also shows a lack of calculative ability and tactical awareness, which simply put, has cost you the game. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, that's the problem with studying openings first. If you play 15 moves perfectly only to blunder horribly on 16, of what good did those first 15 ultra precise moves do you?
8:00 same as above. Nf6+ is a blunder most likely because you didn't have the visualization to see the squares the enemy N was controlling (and by the way we've all made similar blunders). Same point as in my previous note. If you are blundering for tactical/visualization reasons, why spend time studying opening moves? Instead, study tactics and work on visualization.
8:30: You got mated but you played far better than someone who has been going at it for only 30 days. I imagine your opponent has been playing for years.
8:38: "you started by following opening theory" this is bad b/c you're being reinforced for studying openings at this stage, which is not helpful
If you continue playing chess and would like some free pointers, I'd be happy to help. I'm a meager USCF class A, but I started playing at the age of 20 and recall what it was like progressing from learning how the pieces move all the way up to where I am now. I'm grateful for your making an episode on chess. It's a beautiful game, and I'm certain this video will encourage more people to learn it.
i know this was a month ago. But im actually wanting to learn chess but dont know anyone to give an armature tips. where do i start exactly? ive been playing on chess24 and lose every game. im also in the middle of chess24's tutorial videos to try learning basics
@Bicey - just keep playing. It’s all about practice. Play against a computer on the easiest difficulty. Before you move, check to see if there is anything threatening the block you want to move to, and of any enemy pieces are threatening any of yours. Don’t just move randomly. Pick a goal, and try position your pieces to take it. That goal will likely change as you play and better vulnerabilities open up on the other player’s side, so then you adapt.
That's why Capablanca said.. "Study the endgame first!"
Saurabh Bhide capabæanca mastered chess in a couple hours too
But he meant chess masters. Beginners will never survive until the endgame. Middlegame tactics is the most important to study first.
@@chessthisout it's cking complicated and takes years to notice different tactics coming from the enemy side .
But capablanca lose so many games
@@chessthisout the basic idea about studying endgames first is that endgames have tons of tactics and visualizations. That's why studying it first, even as a beginner, is beneficial. The idea is not to win but to improve visualization
TL;DR: Chess is hard.
Long version: Chess is an incredibly deep game where everything starts with principles and slowly becomes crazier and crazier until barely anything is ever as it seems. I don't think any first time player ever understands the amount of knowledge that goes into getting better. I'll be honest. I'm talentless, but I've worked on chess on and off for about 2 years. In that time I've gone from about 600 to 1250. I've done tactics, endgame problems, familiarized myself with a solid response for both e4 and d4, watched dozens of videos and informational streams, done interactive lessons, self-analysis, and training games.
My point isn't at all to brag; there are people who take to the game like a fish to water and I've taken to the game like a fish to land. My point is that I don't think I even have an outside chance of beating a 1500 who decides to play seriously. It would take a whole heck of a lot more than one month to beat that guy, but that's not indicative of the Goal Guys. It says a lot more about the hard work the tournament player has put in. I think all of the negative comments come from the same place. These are folks that have probably worked very, very hard for years to get where they are. The idea that one month of dedicated training could stack up to that is probably a notion they find insulting. But I hope this dude sticks with chess and comes to appreciate why so many of us love chess. Maybe in a few years he can look back on this video and laugh about it. :)
Well said, and then it becomes even crazier when you realize that a 1500 gets beat every game by a national master who will lose every game to a grandmaster who will lose practically every game against the super grandmasters.
@@rathelmmc3194 Agreed.
It's something like for every 200 ELO the higher-rated player can expect to win 76 out of 100 points. When I first learned that I was stunned. That means there is a player out there who wins 3/4 of the time vs. the tournament player in this video... and he loses to a guy 3/4 of the time... and that guy loses to some other guy 3/4 of the time, and that a Candidate Master is STILL 100 points higher rated than THAT hypothetical guy.
What really stuns me about that is the rock solid perfection it demands out of the top level players. Ben Finegold explained what makes chess so ruthless once. He said if you're up 56-0 and you blunder in football, you're still winning 56-7. But if you're in an incredibly winning position in chess and you blunder you can lose instantly. Let's say you're GM Andrew Tang and you're just playing some local tournament somewhere for fun. The highest player other than you is some NM somewhere, but the average field is 1800+ You're expected to go 5/5 in games that will probably average 40-50 moves. You'll play somewhere between 200-250 moves, under touch move conditions, with a ticking clock... and not blunder a single piece. Your opponents have literally spent thousands of hours on the game, learning how to trick other players, and gotten quite incredible in their own right. But in 200+ moves, you will not fall for a single tactic, even really complex ones, or sound sacrifice, or opening trap. You won't accidentally even touch the wrong piece. Chess masters are freaks of nature.
Especially when he looks back and sees that he’s says at 2:00 that if White trades on f5 it’s better for Black haha!!! He unknowingly set up Fools mate. The fastest possible way for Black to lose the game.
Continue this challenge!! Mastering chess takes way longer than 30 days. Episode 2!!
More like a five year plan
More like 10 year.
@@svhoecke Nah magnus made a draw with current world champion after 4 years:D and at the start it wasn't even serious lmao
More like 20 year plan
@@ok-sj7bx but Magnus was kid and he was super talented in chess. Kids learn a lot quicker since their head is more empty and ready to fill with new stuff compered to older guys =)
Really cool, well done. Seriously. You made tremendous progress for the 30 days you had. Keep playing, it's fun!
3:49 While some openings transpose into others, you can't just go on with your Italian Game while your computer opponent plays the Nimzowitsch Defence. For beginners, it's usually better to play tactically and focus more on just one or two specific openings.
Chess players be laughing really hard at this! XD
right?!
TRUEE 🤣
This video is the height of idiocracy
Not really i think it was pretty interesting
@@optini6662 definitely more interesting than your comment
The only way to get better at chess is to lose a lot. It’s a sport just like any other one
Yeah, but that's just the chess version of pushing yourself to the limit which is the secret to getting better at anything. If you play only people you can beat then you are never pushing yourself. You're staying in your comfort zone. You need to play good players that will punish your mistakes. But this is just like in any sport, the best way to get better is to get on a team where most of them are better than you and you need to bust your ass to not get cut.
It's not a sport though
WRONG.
the only way to improve your chess is to study your games...every game every move....and you must use known chess openings at the same time....losing a lot WILL DO NOTHING TO IMPROVE YOUR GAME.
@@epsilonalpha2430 - An intellectual sport - a mind sport. The only difference between it and football is that you have to manually push people out of the way in football - you still have to figure out the best path in both scenarios.
Jade Zee you’re exactly right. People don’t realize that at a certain point one will just lose games over and over and fail to realize why. They need to study theory and motifs/ concepts behind positions to improve. ..
Plus tactics ...
LOL he doesn't even have the board set up right in the scenes where he is at his kitchen table 1:30. (that is one of the several times it appears lol) the bishop and knight on our left are switched.
Well spotted 👍
I was looking to see if the black and white squares were right as well. That's a rookie mistake that all my books caution.
He was training with 960 surely
Lmao, just when I thought I couldn't face palm anymore
lmao
First mistake I made as an amateur was studying the opening first; I didn't progress nearly as quickly as I could have if I focused on the endgame. Then, as a 1400, I abandoned the game for a couple years when I did really badly in a tournament. I'm trying to get back into it by studying tactics daily and analyzing my games rather than just watching youtube videos and learning passively like I used to. This video is really encouraging
Thanks how's your rating now btw
I've been playing chess for about two weeks now. Swore an oath to myself that I wouldn't study any theory as it just feels more pure to improve independently by just playing playing playing. I watch SOME videos about it but this one is by FAR the most helpful one I've ever watched. Thank you so so much for this... I think I'm gonna have to change my mind on my "no studying" technique
Paul Morphy was the catalyst for piece development. In his time, he had no references to study the game and most if not all of his opponents were pretty bad. You pretty much have to be a savant if you want to master the game independently.
Next 30 day challenge
•How much strength can you gain/1rep max in 30 days (power lifting)
•Learn to play the Piano in 30 days.
• Learn to draw in 30 days.
•Learn Chinese in 30 days.
I've done 3 of these 4 :) ✌
@@MaxsMonthlyChallenge I'm sure not in 30 day though.
I'd like to see the piano one
I love Powerlifting and chess! I've been doing both for about 5 years and I'm very average! Even Bobby Fischer or Ed Coan couldn't achieve much in 30 days though.
The keyword is "tried".
2:00 "trading pawns might be slightly to blacks advantage" ... yeah except he gets mated in one lol
I was looking for this comment, lol
Alternative title:Johny sins tried to master chess in 30 days
Mastering johnny sins positions
I love how at 2:08 he says that trading pawns is in black's favor but after exf5 gxf5 its Qh5#
Its if black captures not white
@@terimiller6730 white moves first?
Hahaha he’s cooked
Love the balance of fitness and intellectual challenges!
Thanks! We're always trying to figure out how to balance the types of videos we make!
I haven’t watched this yet but this isn’t humanly possible so I’m going to go with he failed
This is such a unique twist on these 30 day challenges
*_edit:_* Goal Guys will one day be a trend setter
The book I recommend above everything for a beginner is Lasker's Manual of Chess. Lasker brings a philosophy into it and makes it interesting. The Lasker method makes you a very a different kind of opponent and one who is very difficult to beat.
7:43 happy levy moment
You made excellent progress in 30 days! I would highly suggest making this a long-term project, maybe "I tried reaching 1600 rating in 1 year" or something :)
more like 1400 elo in one year.
I went to 2214 in blitz 2112 in rapid and 1936 in classic one year the only reason my classic is lower because I move fast and classic has more time
@@ExodusMC_ How old were you at the time?
studyin openings since day 2: t e r r i b l e
worst idea ever haha.
I personally think there's nothing wrong with studying openings. The trap people fall into is that they stop analyzing after like the first 8 moves, which means they still have absolutely no idea what the point of the opening actually is. People need to study 'games' rather than just the first few moves.
@@dhirajpallin2572
You should not study openings when you just start learning chess. it's a general rule
I think that really depends on what you mean by 'studying openings'. Yes if you're learning to the extent of basically memorizing move orders then that's probably not going to help. However, understanding how different opening themes translate into middle game strategies can never be a bad thing.
@@dhirajpallin2572, the problem is if you're a new player you don't even know what that means. How is someone new going to be able to analyze the kind of middle games that develop from different openings. Pick an opening as white and familiarize yourself with it, learn how to defend against e4 and d4 as black in a way you like, then spend the next 5 years trying to not hang pieces. After that maybe then you'll be competent enough to understand how to evaluate middle games to pick ones you like.
The sad fact is that its like any other sport although it does't feel or seem that way at first sight.
You can't say "i'll be top football player in 30 days" and there are no challenges like this because it takes years of practice for the muscles to be build in order to be good football player. but in fact that's not true because any athlete who's muscles are in shape for football can't be good at it in 30 days because the most important muscle in football is brain and muscle memory and the ability to measure action in your head and translate it into muscles action instinctively.
chess is the same. you're doing mistakes and your brain remembers so you will improve next game.
the only difference is that the brain doesn't do it on muscle movement but rather on field complexity.
You studied openings which is not what you want to do as a beginner. It’s like putting effort into learning to serve in tennis while you don’t really know how to hit a forehand yet.
Wants to learn Chess:
Starts with Openings and the Ruy freakin Lopez
If it helps I’ve been playing over 20 years and these are my tips:
Don’t base the importance of a piece on its value, but on its position
Never check for the sake of it, check doesn’t win you the game, checkmate does
Don’t take a piece unless it gives you more control of the board
Try to get pieces in positions so they control as many squares as possible
Never underestimate the strength of two pawns side by side going for promotion
Don’t be afraid to sacrifice a piece for the sake of winning the game
Those tips are mostly true, but might confuse a new player.
If you can, check, capture, threat...in that order...
This helps a lot though
Btw I dare you to remove the 'b' in your name
@Oissev Onos - It's called a sense of humour my friend, look it up!
@Oissev Onos I would say English speakers in general...I am Canadian, but humour is tough to grasp sometime as a non-native speaker.
I would recommend agadmator's Chess Channel on RUclips to see some beautiful games and to learn. Also focus on end games because you will learn a lot that will help you win.
i don't hate agadmator like a lot of people and enjoy his vids but how can his channel help you improve
@@khattab5351 (Who can possibly hate agadmator? He's great!) Watch him play over a game and see if you can keep up with his descriptions of the moves, the reasons behind them, pluses and minuses. Also when he says to pause the video and see if you can find the right move, do that and see if you can. It will help you. Just watching a master game played over will help you.
@@nedmerrill5705
well first alot of people hate him cos reasons , one of them is that he just show moves and is not a grand master or international master , anyway when he says pause the video that is just a puzzle
@@khattab5351 "Hate" is a very strong word in English, a word reserved for your worst enemy, etc. Maybe you mean you "disrespect" him because he is not a strong player, or think he is a "braggart" because he acts like he knows more than he knows and runs a web site though he is only a candidate master or lower master. I doubt you mean "hate". I suggested his site because his commentary and puzzles are suitable for a beginner.
@@nedmerrill5705
hate is reserved for worst enemy? it just means intense dislike ,yeah i mean hate
This was a really cool thing to learn! I feel like Chess is one of those staple games where everyone knows how to play but not many are actually good.
I love that you did this. Chess is an amazing game. However, I would add to anyone trying to imitate your goal to completely ignore openings until you have a 1600+ rating...maybe higher. Start with the basic chess principles, learning the value of the pieces and which squares the pieces are most valuable, and study the endgame. If you follow basic chess principles and place your pieces on good squares, you will often find yourself in an equal-ish endgame if you face opponents around your skill level. If you studied the endgame then you will have an edge, because most likely your opponent only cared about openings...which come naturally by following the basic chess principles and knowing which squares are best for your pieces. Anyways, a fun video. I really enjoyed it.
A good point. A lot of inexperienced players blunder a lot in the end game and often miscalculate who is going to be able to queen their pawn first.
How do I learn which squares are best for my pieces?
Search on RUclips for "The Chess Elements by Yasser". It's a video on chessbrah's channel. Best explanation I've seen. I've been playing for years and am decently rated, but his explanation changed how I view the board and the pieces. He's a bit slower in his flow, but if you are patient and watch the entire video I guarantee it helps you. He explains the "prime" squares for each piece and where they are at their best and worst. Most of the stuff is fairly basic, but it's a topic many skip in favor of finding a way to "quickly and easily win". You know...those people that continually try the scholars mate or fried liver instead of actually learning the game beyond those few moves.
Bad advice. There is no reason to ignore opening theory. You need some basic knowledge of openings at any level, otherwise you will end up in bad positions. Great if you have good endgame skills, but you first you have to reach the endgame...
@@TSgitaar Bad response. Bad refutation. Basic chess principles, an understanding of the value of the pieces and where the pieces are most valuable as well as a knowledge of attacking concepts (including tactics) will by nature give you good opening prep. That is how these openings came about. All of these openings that have names of great grandmasters were invented by following basic chess principles. Control the center, develop your minor pieces first, try not to move the same piece twice in the opening, etc etc etc. But I really don't need to defend my position as it is the same position of modern GMs/IMs as well as the old masters like Capablanca, Lasker and even Morphy. You reach the endgame by first getting through the opening and the middlegame....which Goal Guys made a brilliant case for why all of these chess masters (not the 1500 he played or random YT commenters) give the advice that I am repeating. He studied openings...as soon as he was out of book he blundered the game before getting to the endgame. I bet if he had even learned what the basic chess principles are as well as studying some tactics and attacking strategies/maneuvers then he has a far better chance of reaching the endgame...where he again would've most likely blundered because he spent zero time on it. I love this video because it is a glowing example of why focusing solely on openings as a beginner is a horrible idea.
Bobby Fisher one day said I learned Russian by reading Russian chess books.
I mean his iq was estimated to be like 180 so yeah he was 100% a genius
Bobby Fischer teaches chess is very much at the absolute beginner level. Game 1 the Ne5 move was way premature, but you explain that.
To really master chess you might want to learn 1. d4. The book "Logical Chess Move by Move" is useful in this regard.
The en-passant rule has to do with the fact that pawns used to only move one square from the start. Moving two squares was a way to speed up the game (and so is castling), so enemy pawns can normally capture your pawn if you move up one square and this is important for allowing pawns to blockade other pawns. En-passant allows a capture as if the pawn had only moved up one square, which maintains the ability to blockade.
My experience is that you are unlikely to reach a memorized opening past move 11. There are some exceptions where certain openings, like the Dragon, don't really get started until around move 10. Everything up to that point frequently follows the same sequence.
In the last game, I don't like 5. Bd3. It is not a great spot for the Bishop, which is serving the purpose of a pawn. The move b2-b4 creates weakness on the C file with a backward pawn on c2. Here your pawn is well guarded but there is a big hole on c3 creating a weak spot that your opponent should try to occupy. Your pieces (bishops and knights) are somewhat passive and in defensive positions, and eventually you will want to get them to better spots. (Grandmasters really like to have active pieces.) Ouch, you got skewered with Ba6! The game is technically lost at that point. The Bb6 response is probably bad. I think that he should respond with Qb7 and try to pin your b6 bishop. He didn't have to capture the queen immediately. Instead of Nb3, the knight taking on e4 makes more sense to me because material is important. When you played Nf6+ (check) you had two attackers on the square and he had two defenders on the square, but you moved one of your attackers to the square meaning that he was going to win the piece. You really need more attackers than defenders on that square to make that move. After he captured the knight it is better not to trade your bishop because you should not trade when you are down material, because your percentage of the total material becomes worse. Likewise, you should not have traded your last piece, but the game is pretty much over by that point. (Overall, you were too anxious to trade pieces. Many beginners do this, but I only trade when I think that it is to my advantage.)
Best wishes,
John Coffey (rated 2016)
My free online chess lessons: www.entertainmentjourney.com/index1.htm
Pattern recognition is a huge factor in this game, and on my website, I stress doing tactical exercises to improve pattern recognition.
P.S. Your hypothetical example of where trading pawns might be favorable to Black is really bad because after 1. e4 g6 2. d3?! f5? White can play 3. exf5 and then if 3... gxf5???? 4. Qh5# (checkmate), which is a variation on "Fools Mate."
Day 1: I'll memorize multiple openings and many lines from them.
Yep, you're going far kid
😂😂
yup wasted like 10 days on that. ^^
lol, I was like "Oh no! Someone please save him!"
The author wasn’t demonstrating any ability to make simple 2 and 3 move calculations. I couldn’t believe the trades he forced that ended up costing a piece. A great way for him to improve would be doing chess puzzles
True, puzzles/tactics training is the best way to improve quickly. Books and theory study are for more long term learning.
Chess is the game of Kings!! It ruined video games for me.
Ha! Video gamer, huh?
You're calling yourself a king? I don't get it. Slay kiingggg
Impressive improvement for 30 days! Welcome to our game. Be careful. Play much more and it may never let you go. Red pill or blue pill?
Yellow
Brown
Green one... or two, or a hand..
People who think they are smart always believe they can take up chess at anytime and become a master quickly. They don't understand that chess is about skill, not intelligence.
It's been a year since i learn how to play chess and even though it's been 1 year i did not study many opening because memorizing openings isn't a good idea for your improvements. So if you want to get improved in chess you should study endgame and tactics and puzzle and also try to calculate the moves played by the grandmaster or other strong player
If you're starting out then you should learn the openings and see why they are the best openings. Just learning them isn't enough, learning why they are, is.
@@thisbevibhor yeah you're right memorizing opening i ls not a good idea but understanding every move they make is the right choice
@@thisbevibhor no. when you are just starting, learning the general opening principles is enough. for starting up players, focus should be given more at improving tactical ability and endgame.
What was the rating increase?
30 days, huh? I've been playing for 30 years and still haven't mastered it.
Been playing chess for last 30 years. Never mastered it, but what dramatically improved my abilities is of course, studying opening moves to establish decent middle game, solving chess puzzles, and watching Agadmators channel on YT.
What's your ELO at?
I saw a couple of things I thought I'd point out.
One, is to know the value of the pieces--not saying you don't, but there was the example where it seemed you willingly gave up a rook for a bishop. There's no point system in chess but each piece is given points based on their worth compared to other pieces. This is: Queen=9 points, Rook=5 points, bishop/knight=3 points, pawn=1 point. So, as you can see, with everything being equal, a rook is more valuable than a bishop or knight. You shouldn't give up your rook for a knight or bishop unless it leads to a decisive attack.
Two, when you're down material, as you were in the second game, you willingly exchanged your knight for a bishop when the knight was your only piece left. This left you with just pawns vs. your opponent's rook. When your down material this way do not enter into an exchange--it will quickly lose. Hold out as long as you can, obtaining the best position you can. Don't exchange your last piece when your opponent has more pieces!
Hope this helps someone in some way.
well made video man, looks like that you have spent a lot of time on it but please don't make moves like 2:00 by saying "trading pawns might actually be slightly to Black's advantage rather than White"
It's Suren!!
Hey mate.. Good to see you here!
Common dude no problem
He was on his 2nd day
Though it is mate-leading
He's beginner you know
@@art-xlr8 Hey mate ;)
@@marcopolo1357 he is ))))
4:10 well, you're ahead of 50% of chess players already
true, Im 1600 but just too lazy to study opening theory
batistalift tbf you probably won’t need to until about 1800
You aren't going to master chess in 30 days...
You may not master it in 30 years.
He did become a Master _Baiter_ in 30 days though... lol
@@MrSupernova111 not really he said he tried
You cant master any complex task in 30 days i would venture to say...
chess is an ocean in which every game you play is a single drop of water
Originally chess rules only allowed the pawn to move forward one space. When they changed the rule so that pawns could advance 2 spaces, they compromised by implementing en passant so that you could still capture the pawn the same way you would before the rule change.
I was honestly very impressed by your final game. Lots of progress in a month!
Who is here after watching The Queen's Gambit
You are.
@@loot6 we are**
@@_ahmedwalid_ We? I thought you are only one person lol. I've never watched The Queen's Gambit myself so not sure about your Maths there.
@@loot6 what the fuck was that
Love the content! Yea you need at least 300 days of training to be a decent match for a 1500. You did well
Why do people outside the chess world think that mastering chess is no harder than mastering tic-tac-toe or a 2 x 2 rubix cube? The mere idea this guy had that he could master chess after a month of practice is insulting to all those who have dedicated their LIVES to mastering the game but haven't come close.
Thank you
not trying to show any hate, but mate look at the position of your pieces in the chess board you are demonstrating 2:11 you should learn to place your pieces before "mastering" the game.
You should watch John Bartholomews series ‘Chess Fundamentals’ they are the best!
Supernova what?
Looses queen by a bad tactic
"I must study fisher opening strategies more"
Boy that's a pretty loose definition of tactic. The guys queen was attacked and he defended the queen with the rook. So he saw the queen was attacked.
@@rathelmmc3194 touche :)
en passant is based on the concept that pawns (soldiers) would have shields in front of them. That's why you can't capture forward. You have to capture at an angle, which makes sense because you could stab someone up and to the left/right. In en passant, the soldier is "running" past you, so you could stab them before they fully advanced. Thus the rule.
The worst part about this year of college is I've been too busy to go play chess, and it genuinely hurts me at an emotional level. I feel like I'm missing a defining part of me. Seeing nice chess videos like these really make me want to play again. Damn.
At least you were not the "super" learner that decided to create a position based algorithm, where he would memorise quintillions of combinations and challenge the #1 chess world player.
Lol. The people that don't know chess are scratching their heads in confusion every 30 seconds.
I'm just imagining how confusing pawn e4 must be to people who don't know
@@mandaloriancrusader3746 how about him talking about pass pawns? 😂
Literally everyone knows what chess is my guy
@@87channels haha. Knowing what chess is and knowing the nomenclature and rules, they are two very different things.
That's true. The depth he went into during this video for people similar to him who do not know the game is about as shallow as his "master chess in 30 days" claim.
2:01 moving your kingside pawns is so dangerous Q.Q
in fact, if white takes and black takes back it's mate in 1.
I thought he wants the stalemate
@@hellohanma5717 in the position he shows, it would be impossible to reach a stalemate, as both players have many, many pieces with which to move. He is trying to demonstrate the idea that central pawns are worth more (which is accurate), but has accidentally demonstrated a position in which black has significantly weakened their king-side pawn structure and made his kings safety somewhat questionable.
@@taylorfisdboss5200 sorry i thought you are refering to the end game at last portion of the video, 2:01 is indeed dangerous
@@girlmeetstech9946 How is it mate in 1?
"I tried to master Chess in 30 days" It sounds to me like the old greeks challenging the Gods, what can go wrong?
1500 rating after 30 days is amazing really...many play all their lives and don't get over 1400...
I just love how after 1. e4 g6 2 d3 f5, he says black would be better but exf5 cause a center pawn is exchanged for a less valuable pawn, would result in a mate on h5 if black takes :) The real lesson is that all pawns that control the center are important, from f to c. It's nice that he pinned a post based on that.
Saw the title, laughed and laughed, had to click. Very enjoyable. Somebody suggested below episode2, I vote yes.
May try to do a follow up sometime
@@GoalGuys good. Look forward to it.
Thought the best way to learn chess was to mindlessly memorize openings rather than actually playing lol
Nope lol
En passent exists because it clogs up the game if it doesn't exist
Thank you. That is the why I remember being taught it as well. I think that is also how Magnus Trainer explains in its foundation lessons. For me, the simplest explanation when learning was that the pawn's option for 2 spaces on first move is not totally 'free' and that an opposing pawn must have the option to capture as though the pawn moved 1 space.
@@krys3001 En passant is not allowing a pawn to avoid capture due to its ability to more two spaces on their first move, that's exactly right.
2:30 about the books
1 - did you really read much of those books in your 30 days?
2 - did you just throw the books away or sell/donate them or something afterwards? or did you idk still read them for whatever reason?
Btw. Fischer lent his name to a well known book that he in fact annotated ...it called my 60 memorable games