This is great. Keep making as many videos as possible with as many masters as possible explaining. That way more people will learn and learn better because of different styles of teaching.
That was very educational. My FIDE and USCF ratings are over 2200 and I would say that my calculation skills are not my strength and I found this video to be very helpful.
Lamarr168 Glad to read your comment. Our videos are also very instructive for 2200+ players. I my side I am 2100 and I always find it instructive for myself.
woaah just oustanding a very new coach and perfect combination of stratergy and tactical blows greatly improves my thought processstthanks al ot damain lemos sir
Now that's how you calculate a single move - follow this procedure for every middlegame move once you are out of your known opening and until you reach an endgame that you know how to play.
In my area tournaments (classical chess) typically have a time control of G90 with an increment of 30 sec, sometimes less. If I were to do the rigorous calculation that Nadya suggests more than once or twice in a game, I would get seriously short of time and probably blunder later on. The question is not just HOW to calculate, but WHEN.
Ken Kurkowski I agree. I thought this lesson would be more appropriately named, "Why you are never going to become a Grandmaster." I made it to the 55 minute mark and still wasn't sure what move she was going to recommend. What time control would accommodate that level of depth in calculation? Was this the only critical position of that game? As a side note, I was impressed by the complexity of the seemingly simple transparent position. If one were to seek a way to outline an extraordinary calculation process, that would be the scenario I'd pick. I almost lost it about halfway when she recommended that we double check everything in case we are able to see more the second time around!
the course is aimed at calculation,when you look at some positions,you just have to go deeply and calculate,some positions are rather positional with minimum calculation needed,but thats the thing which can be covered in another video,she is showing precise way how to calculate in critical and concrete positions and this one I like,she goes step by step and do some evaluation after each line,which is the way you should really calculate
She just shows her calculation in an hour which doesnt mean she calculated in an hour. Even i can calculate that much (but missing a few important moves) in 15-20 minutes. She can probably made all this calculation in 5 minutes or something. I pointed out 2 mistakes when i was watching (first one was she talks about Rc7 and Rf4 threats but bishop returns Bd7 (running away from double attack and blocking rook to come c7) Of course white can have some other tactical resource to win but i am suprised she missed to cover it but it happens we are all humans. The other one i cant remember now (too sleepy) Still my point is, explaining moves by talking aloud is much slower and harder. It doesnt mean 60 minutes needed for this much calculation. I am sure some of the GMs do that much in 1-2 minutes.
Of course you are right,you dont have to calculate that position for an hour,that is nonsense,but you cannot explain all variations in 5 minutes,I think the position is complicated enough for a 15 minutes probably,the thing is to find some moves it takes rather longer time than usual.Of course,everyone has mistakes,but I mean its a good video to show the way to calculate positions and some advice from her experience.
I would not hesitate to bang out N-D5+, QxN, C3 and why do I not get the piece back with boatloads of space for endgame, great effort at explaining the thought processes which was the point so thanks. Q-A5, P-B4, please advise, and thanks again for your hard work
5:31. I don’t like that refutation for the bishop check as white can play c3. Instead, I think f6 is a stronger reply just throwing the ball back in whites court by forcing him to move the bishop.
@@TheDitronik they meant please point out the time in video at which this position occurs so that its easier for them to find the position and get back to you With regards
on 19:00 it's better to activate the rook to d1, instead of retreating the knight to d5. Retreating is too passive, since Kxc7 is followed by Bb6+ with discovered attack on the queen, and whatever king does, white picks up queen with Qxe4. Clearly superior to give bishop and knight for a queen instead of rook and knight for a queen if I'm not mistaken. In retreating variation once black realizes his queen is lost he will pick up the rook on the d1.
This does show us how to calculate, assuming we have several minutes to spare per move and are allowed to have an analysis board that we can move pieces around on. The problem is we need to do all that much faster than she is doing it, and accurately in our heads without the luxury of seeing it with our eyes. No fair moving stuff on the actual board. The problem with all instruction like this is that it doesn't actually portray the problem we face.
It wouldn't make for a great video, but she'd have to call out the moves, slowly, without moving the pieces, and make us visualize the board several moves ahead. Hey, all chess instruction suffers from the same thing. I'm not singling her out. Being shown and actually doing for oneself are two completely different things. Hence, we can watch as much of this stuff as we want and not actually improve.
I don't really understand your point here. The video is about "method of structured thinking", not the training process. Learn the method once and apply it in your games, in training, to solve puzzles and everywhere else. With practice you will become faster, more precise, the image of chess board in your head will be clearer. One way to train it is: outline ideas from this video on a sheet of paper and mark them as "done" after every puzzle you solve; or try following a game of GMs and guess their moves by applying this method. I wrote a little program with checkboxes for myself. But yeah, you will have to train the visualization part alone. I seriously don't think anyone would make a video calling out moves. Also I noticed that sometimes people don't separate calculation from visualization - maybe that's the thing that needs to be clarified for you. There are special training programs to help you visualize better, even mobile phone applications. I have a book, but it is in Russian (and I think it was never translated to English) with hundreds of visualization exercises. Good visualization affects your calculation greatly, but it is meaningless without applying a method (which moves to consider? how to select what to visualize first? where to stop it? when should I calculate all possible variations and when I should make more "intuitive" moves without calculating everything? etc). What Nadya gives here is very important, but it's not a visualization training. Good luck with your improvement!
She's talking about lines (more than 3 moves ahead), not simple moves. She consider all the moves and deep calculate the best one. Magnus Carlsen say himself that when some lines are too complicated, he don't use them, and go for the simple one. He never calculate more than 3 lines, but he goes very deep. If u got a better method, show me your GM tittle. Nobody can calculate everything, you need to evaluate the position as favorable for white, as she said.
NATURALTALENT me not but lasker ! please read the book: my system... a lot of people give up lines were there is a queen sac. or even cant see ist beacuse of adviceses like hers, but look it games of p. morphy there are lines ... no one concider
You're making no sense, he's not teaching how to be Tal or fancy stuff. And he is aplying the Lasker concept. I have read that book, obviously. You're just a miserable person talking about something you don't know. Instead of talking nonsense, show me a better line. You probably can't calculate a single line. Btw, one of her lines have a Queen sacrifice.
Mathematically, this makes sense.. Say you see that choosing A now, and the opponent replies with B, then you doing C means you are winning. You can stop looking at other replies to B now, because it doesn't matter if C is the best reply to B, B is just not good enough. Once your opponent actually plays B, THEN you can go see if there is a better reply to B then 'just' C.
![Positional Pawn Sacrifice 💀: A Weapon Worth Remembering GM Alex Lenderman [Master Method]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fRK67BNNbSc/mqdefault.jpg)
![Positional Pawn Sacrifice 💀: A Weapon Worth Remembering GM Alex Lenderman [Master Method]](/img/tr.png)
![Precise Chess Calculation Secrets 🕵️ with GM Bryan Smith! [Master Method]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7sbDGyQVBtE/mqdefault.jpg)
![Top 5 Chess Improvement 🙂 Shortcuts! - GingerGM Simon Williams [Master Method]](/img/n.gif)
What a great teaching position, rich in tactics and ideas! Used very effectively to demonstrate how to evaluate the candidate moves. Well done!
This is great. Keep making as many videos as possible with as many masters as possible explaining. That way more people will learn and learn better because of different styles of teaching.
Your method to look for checks, then exchanges, then threats in order helped me a lot, thanks.
Samson Awnee Glad to see it helped you. It's always make me happy to see such comments :D
Hi! Thank you for the courses! She is very good at explaining and I enjoy the accent for some reason lol. But this is helping me a bunch! Thank you
Thanks glad you enjoyed it, Nadya really put a lot of work into this course. We'll be working with her again
I liked her accent too. I thought it might be distracting but it just helped emphasize important points.
Thank you Nadezhda. I am glad to have you in the US. I am also glad that you were in Texas!
That was very educational. My FIDE and USCF ratings are over 2200 and I would say that my calculation skills are not my strength and I found this video to be very helpful.
Lamarr168 Glad to read your comment. Our videos are also very instructive for 2200+ players. I my side I am 2100 and I always find it instructive for myself.
Her system is explainned at 4:10. She makes candidate moves in this order:checks, captures, moves with a threat.
the video is great without a doubt, i just can't imagine how on earth to make all these calculations in mind ...! that's insane.
woaah just oustanding a very new coach and perfect combination of stratergy and tactical blows greatly improves my thought processstthanks al ot damain lemos sir
I wanted to point out 20:05, instead of Qxe5 White can give checkmate with an immediate Bd8# Great video! learned a lot.
_ I'm surprised that she didn't see this!!
Yes she did miss Bd8 mate, but Qe8 is not mate, its covered by the queen on c6
Great video! Thank you guys, especially to Nadya. love your accent :)
Nicely explained....👍
I think she miss the Bd8# mate on the video under 20:05 instead she play Qxe5 but to sum up it is well calculated
Indeed, a mate in one was missed 😚
Very useful!!
thank you so much for the work you are doing, i really appreciate it, i have improved alot from just watching this
The Russian accent is awesome!
Wow! I feel very different from my former self after watching this! Thank you Nadya!
thank you
Thanks so much!
Now that's how you calculate a single move - follow this procedure for every middlegame move once you are out of your known opening and until you reach an endgame that you know how to play.
At 18:25 Maybe I am wrong but I think after Qxg7 there is Nf6 Qxh8 Bh3 discovered attack on the queen and on Qg7 Rg8 and on Qh6 Rxg2+ Kh1 Qxh2#
Classy lady. Like the accent.
Accent...is that English? I better watch it again and pay closer attention...
Great lesson!
Daniel M you're right. It is a very good and instructive lesson :D
In my area tournaments (classical chess) typically have a time control of G90 with an increment of 30 sec, sometimes less. If I were to do the rigorous calculation that Nadya suggests more than once or twice in a game, I would get seriously short of time and probably blunder later on. The question is not just HOW to calculate, but WHEN.
Ken Kurkowski I agree. I thought this lesson would be more appropriately named, "Why you are never going to become a Grandmaster." I made it to the 55 minute mark and still wasn't sure what move she was going to recommend. What time control would accommodate that level of depth in calculation? Was this the only critical position of that game?
As a side note, I was impressed by the complexity of the seemingly simple transparent position. If one were to seek a way to outline an extraordinary calculation process, that would be the scenario I'd pick.
I almost lost it about halfway when she recommended that we double check everything in case we are able to see more the second time around!
the course is aimed at calculation,when you look at some positions,you just have to go deeply and calculate,some positions are rather positional with minimum calculation needed,but thats the thing which can be covered in another video,she is showing precise way how to calculate in critical and concrete positions and this one I like,she goes step by step and do some evaluation after each line,which is the way you should really calculate
She just shows her calculation in an hour which doesnt mean she calculated in an hour. Even i can calculate that much (but missing a few important moves) in 15-20 minutes. She can probably made all this calculation in 5 minutes or something. I pointed out 2 mistakes when i was watching (first one was she talks about Rc7 and Rf4 threats but bishop returns Bd7 (running away from double attack and blocking rook to come c7) Of course white can have some other tactical resource to win but i am suprised she missed to cover it but it happens we are all humans. The other one i cant remember now (too sleepy) Still my point is, explaining moves by talking aloud is much slower and harder. It doesnt mean 60 minutes needed for this much calculation. I am sure some of the GMs do that much in 1-2 minutes.
Of course you are right,you dont have to calculate that position for an hour,that is nonsense,but you cannot explain all variations in 5 minutes,I think the position is complicated enough for a 15 minutes probably,the thing is to find some moves it takes rather longer time than usual.Of course,everyone has mistakes,but I mean its a good video to show the way to calculate positions and some advice from her experience.
Nadya your explanations are great. I just loved it. U so lovely.
sashi sharma We hope it will help you to improve your game :D
Good video, thank you!
piotr monn Glad to see you enjoy the course
This is nice.
Talyanna Tal Thank you
Thanks Nadya for posting this video full of interesting ideas.
I don’t have any ratings I Chess I hope this video help me in Calculation in chess, Such a little bit of improvement I hope so 😊
Please let us know how it goes! We hope it really helps you out! 👍
Remember to sink outside seh box
lol
Great video, really. High chess! Good job!
I would not hesitate to bang out N-D5+, QxN, C3 and why do I not get the piece back with boatloads of space for endgame, great effort at explaining the thought processes which was the point so thanks. Q-A5, P-B4, please advise, and thanks again for your hard work
Qa5 is not problematic but Qxg2 is
Thank you,
5:31. I don’t like that refutation for the bishop check as white can play c3. Instead, I think f6 is a stronger reply just throwing the ball back in whites court by forcing him to move the bishop.
such a beautiful accent :)
subd and liked. great video!
StayGold PwNyBoY Welcome on board. Hope to see you soon !
Nice
What level is this course aimed at?
no idea. However I'm unrated (1750 on lichess) and just found improvement over position at 19:00 :D
what about after O-O
1. O-O Bh3 2. gxh3 Rd8 3. ...? i think it is playable 9:16
Do you have a time stamp?
@@TheDitronik they meant please point out the time in video at which this position occurs so that its easier for them to find the position and get back to you
With regards
@@umdbest001 9:16
@@ChesscomGames 9:16
@@TheDitronik Bh3 looks like a strong move, but I think white is just much better after 3.Re1 holding all glued together!
on 19:00 it's better to activate the rook to d1, instead of retreating the knight to d5. Retreating is too passive, since Kxc7 is followed by Bb6+ with discovered attack on the queen, and whatever king does, white picks up queen with Qxe4. Clearly superior to give bishop and knight for a queen instead of rook and knight for a queen if I'm not mistaken. In retreating variation once black realizes his queen is lost he will pick up the rook on the d1.
Yes, you are right! The knight can't be taken, so Rd1+ is a much better move!
Thank you!
I guess I was paying attention during the class :) You are welcome.
This does show us how to calculate, assuming we have several minutes to spare per move and are allowed to have an analysis board that we can move pieces around on. The problem is we need to do all that much faster than she is doing it, and accurately in our heads without the luxury of seeing it with our eyes. No fair moving stuff on the actual board. The problem with all instruction like this is that it doesn't actually portray the problem we face.
Ken Greiner Play longer time controls, and practice blindfold chess often. That should solve, or at the very least, assuage your problem.
How else can she show us the variations?
It wouldn't make for a great video, but she'd have to call out the moves, slowly, without moving the pieces, and make us visualize the board several moves ahead. Hey, all chess instruction suffers from the same thing. I'm not singling her out. Being shown and actually doing for oneself are two completely different things. Hence, we can watch as much of this stuff as we want and not actually improve.
I don't really understand your point here. The video is about "method of structured thinking", not the training process. Learn the method once and apply it in your games, in training, to solve puzzles and everywhere else. With practice you will become faster, more precise, the image of chess board in your head will be clearer.
One way to train it is: outline ideas from this video on a sheet of paper and mark them as "done" after every puzzle you solve; or try following a game of GMs and guess their moves by applying this method. I wrote a little program with checkboxes for myself.
But yeah, you will have to train the visualization part alone. I seriously don't think anyone would make a video calling out moves.
Also I noticed that sometimes people don't separate calculation from visualization - maybe that's the thing that needs to be clarified for you. There are special training programs to help you visualize better, even mobile phone applications. I have a book, but it is in Russian (and I think it was never translated to English) with hundreds of visualization exercises. Good visualization affects your calculation greatly, but it is meaningless without applying a method (which moves to consider? how to select what to visualize first? where to stop it? when should I calculate all possible variations and when I should make more "intuitive" moves without calculating everything? etc). What Nadya gives here is very important, but it's not a visualization training.
Good luck with your improvement!
@@kgsphinx that's not how videos work sir
20:04 Bd8+#
My memory is terrible, any ideas?
I sure prefer Tatiana.
WTF ? at 15:51 "don't..." What...??? Your a GM but omg.... please... "if you see a good move, look for a better one" (dr. e. lasker)
She's talking about lines (more than 3 moves ahead), not simple moves. She consider all the moves and deep calculate the best one. Magnus Carlsen say himself that when some lines are too complicated, he don't use them, and go for the simple one. He never calculate more than 3 lines, but he goes very deep. If u got a better method, show me your GM tittle. Nobody can calculate everything, you need to evaluate the position as favorable for white, as she said.
NATURALTALENT me not but lasker ! please read the book: my system... a lot of people give up lines were there is a queen sac. or even cant see ist beacuse of adviceses like hers, but look it games of p. morphy there are lines ... no one concider
You're making no sense, he's not teaching how to be Tal or fancy stuff. And he is aplying the Lasker concept. I have read that book, obviously. You're just a miserable person talking about something you don't know. Instead of talking nonsense, show me a better line. You probably can't calculate a single line. Btw, one of her lines have a Queen sacrifice.
Mathematically, this makes sense.. Say you see that choosing A now, and the opponent replies with B, then you doing C means you are winning. You can stop looking at other replies to B now, because it doesn't matter if C is the best reply to B, B is just not good enough. Once your opponent actually plays B, THEN you can go see if there is a better reply to B then 'just' C.
jippiedoe thank you !
White Russian? No thanks bartender, make mine a blonde.
Alejandro Sosa Dead joke.