@@VivPlayzX777 Of course! I think he does not improve because he misses a lot hanging pieces and hang a lot of pieces himself. Still, everything else being equal, by consciously trying to follow these principles, his chess got worse. When he does bad moves and I ask him why he did that, he answers things like : "I was trying to develop quickly". My point is, the principles alone can be misleading if you follow them blindly.
Love the channel and I'm glad you're back to making content! I actually have an explanation for the logic behind the "knights before bishops" principle. After you play 1.e4 or 1.d4, since the bishops are now on an open diagonal, they are effectively half developed already. The knight however is not developed at all. Moving the knight is also generally both useful and non-committal. Using 1.e4 as an example, the move Nf3 is used played in all of the "big 4" mainlines at some point. Obviously it's not a perfect rule as you showed, but its just a principle not an immutable law. Overall, developing the knight first is generally better than the bishop.
There are two other reasons that I can think of: 1) is that the position of yours and your opponents pawn chains dictate bishop placement. It's better to wait and understand your opponent's pawn structure before developing your bishops. 2) bishops are more valuable and easier to trap than knights. We develop our least valuable pieces first so we don't get our more valuable into trouble early in the game
Glad to see you posting videos again. As far as Knights Before Bishops, I think the principle has a point and a couple caveats. Point: you usually know where the knight goes before you know where the bishop does, so put the knight into play first. For instance 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 is the most forcing. 2.Bc4 and 2.Nc3 both allow 2…Nf6 where black actually has a little initiative via threat on the e4-pawn. Caveat 1: knights before bishops seems more related to classical openings: QGD, Italian, Spanish, Scotch, English (sometimes), Sicilian, French, Caro-Kann (sometimes) etc. Caveat 2: it’s only talking about pieces on the same side of the board (eg the queenside N and B or the kingside N and B). Hence the Italian and Spanish still “meet” the requirement of the principle. You’re right though, this principle drops off in the face of established opening theory pretty quickly - really only for beginners who don’t necessarily understand the concept behind more hypermodern openings such as b3/b6.
Thanks! I think also modern engines give humans the answers to navigate out of sub optimal lines. Maybe players from 50-100 years ago thought defying principles was much worse than it actually is.
Glad you are back LightSquares! #4 Yes!!!! I am always getting attacked while I am trying to develop and I am always yelling at my opponent through the computer screen, "Why are you attacking me so quickly, you're supposed to be developing!!!!!"🤣
@@DhrjMakj Plenty of more qualified people than me for this. Have a search on YT. I would start with ideas e.g. Classical Dutch usually equals pawns on f5, e6 and d6 and you must pay special attention to the weak e6 pawn.
You do the chess community a disservice by this video. "Hope chess" was a term coined by NM Dan Heisman and it means making a move without looking at the opponent's replies, and thus just hoping you can deal with them and are not blundering. It does not mean what you are using it to mean here, which is purposely playing inferior but aggressive lines and hoping your opponent doesn't handle them correctly. In fairness, you are not the only one who makes the mistake of confusing these two completely different ideas. But please, do not muddy the waters. Heisman coined the term "hope chess" and his meaning is the correct one therefore. See some of his videos where he himself explains what he meant by the term, and also specifically says that how you are using it, is not what he meant.
That's excessively dogmatic. I've read quite a lot about chess over the years and have simply never heard of Heisman's phrase. It's possible for two different commentators to happen upon the same phrase.
@@ahahaha3505 It is dogmatic to ask a person to know and adhere to the meaning of a chess phrase? Sorry, but when you put yourself up as an authority figure, you have an obligation to know your subject. He isn't coining a new phrase, he is claiming that an established one is incorrect, when he doesn't even know what it means. Its bad enough that there are "alternative facts" in politics, lets not try to have them in chess.
My father was 400 elo. I taught him these principles. 200 games later, he is 350 elo.
I think you are 100 elo
I'm 1000 and you're no Magnus to say that maybe he can't focus or calculation lack
@@VivPlayzX777 Of course! I think he does not improve because he misses a lot hanging pieces and hang a lot of pieces himself. Still, everything else being equal, by consciously trying to follow these principles, his chess got worse. When he does bad moves and I ask him why he did that, he answers things like : "I was trying to develop quickly". My point is, the principles alone can be misleading if you follow them blindly.
Love the channel and I'm glad you're back to making content! I actually have an explanation for the logic behind the "knights before bishops" principle.
After you play 1.e4 or 1.d4, since the bishops are now on an open diagonal, they are effectively half developed already. The knight however is not developed at all. Moving the knight is also generally both useful and non-committal. Using 1.e4 as an example, the move Nf3 is used played in all of the "big 4" mainlines at some point. Obviously it's not a perfect rule as you showed, but its just a principle not an immutable law. Overall, developing the knight first is generally better than the bishop.
There are two other reasons that I can think of:
1) is that the position of yours and your opponents pawn chains dictate bishop placement. It's better to wait and understand your opponent's pawn structure before developing your bishops.
2) bishops are more valuable and easier to trap than knights. We develop our least valuable pieces first so we don't get our more valuable into trouble early in the game
So glad the channels back!
Glad to see you posting videos again.
As far as Knights Before Bishops, I think the principle has a point and a couple caveats.
Point: you usually know where the knight goes before you know where the bishop does, so put the knight into play first. For instance 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 is the most forcing. 2.Bc4 and 2.Nc3 both allow 2…Nf6 where black actually has a little initiative via threat on the e4-pawn.
Caveat 1: knights before bishops seems more related to classical openings: QGD, Italian, Spanish, Scotch, English (sometimes), Sicilian, French, Caro-Kann (sometimes) etc.
Caveat 2: it’s only talking about pieces on the same side of the board (eg the queenside N and B or the kingside N and B). Hence the Italian and Spanish still “meet” the requirement of the principle.
You’re right though, this principle drops off in the face of established opening theory pretty quickly - really only for beginners who don’t necessarily understand the concept behind more hypermodern openings such as b3/b6.
Thanks! I think also modern engines give humans the answers to navigate out of sub optimal lines. Maybe players from 50-100 years ago thought defying principles was much worse than it actually is.
Glad you are back LightSquares!
#4 Yes!!!!
I am always getting attacked while I am trying to develop and I am always yelling at my opponent through the computer screen, "Why are you attacking me so quickly, you're supposed to be developing!!!!!"🤣
This may be your most helpful video for me, at this stage in my chess journey. Thanks!
Great video. Thanks. I also appreciate the reminder about the value of using the lichess db, something i haven’t incorporated into my study.
Welcome back mate!
Oh my god he's back
We missed you ❤
Hey this is some cool analysis :)
you iconoclast, you!
I almost don't care if I agree with the advice - I am just so happy, you're back :)
“Almost” …. I need to up my standards 😊
You back❤
What about the f pawn move?
“Never play f6” ~ GM Ben Finegold . Of course, chess is full of positions where moving your f-pawn can launch a brilliant kingside attack. 😊
@LightSquares A video on the Dutch Defense, pls?
@@DhrjMakj Plenty of more qualified people than me for this. Have a search on YT. I would start with ideas e.g. Classical Dutch usually equals pawns on f5, e6 and d6 and you must pay special attention to the weak e6 pawn.
You do the chess community a disservice by this video. "Hope chess" was a term coined by NM Dan Heisman and it means making a move without looking at the opponent's replies, and thus just hoping you can deal with them and are not blundering. It does not mean what you are using it to mean here, which is purposely playing inferior but aggressive lines and hoping your opponent doesn't handle them correctly. In fairness, you are not the only one who makes the mistake of confusing these two completely different ideas. But please, do not muddy the waters. Heisman coined the term "hope chess" and his meaning is the correct one therefore. See some of his videos where he himself explains what he meant by the term, and also specifically says that how you are using it, is not what he meant.
That's excessively dogmatic. I've read quite a lot about chess over the years and have simply never heard of Heisman's phrase.
It's possible for two different commentators to happen upon the same phrase.
Nobody cares, we understood what he meant by ''hope chess''.
@@ahahaha3505 It is dogmatic to ask a person to know and adhere to the meaning of a chess phrase? Sorry, but when you put yourself up as an authority figure, you have an obligation to know your subject. He isn't coining a new phrase, he is claiming that an established one is incorrect, when he doesn't even know what it means. Its bad enough that there are "alternative facts" in politics, lets not try to have them in chess.