Great video. The idea of analyzing the pawn structure of your openings is excellent and I will try to implement that for myself. While watching, here is a question that came to mind. You said chess expertise relies on chunks and pattern recognition. However, super grandmasters (Nakamura, Carlsen, So, etc.) tend to also be very strong at Chess960. Is chunking still the cause of Chess960 strength despite the drastically different board positions?
Great question, thanks! Even Chess960 features many familiar patterns and chunks, e.g. all the pawns are on the second/seventh rank from the initial position. Besides, those super GM's are also great at positional chunks such as the right exchange, pawn play for piece activity, king's safety etc. They are great at achieving harmony between their pieces, even though they start from completely random and disharmonious positions.
👏👏👏💯thank you so much for such lucid explanation,on this matter of the openings I am yet to understand , what is equality 😮no chess book I have come across so far has been able to give clear explanation,an How do I gain equality, what I have done in self coaching is I make a serious study of the first10 moves up to the point of castleing of with reason an logic for every move, then I move to another opening,is this a good idea ,?🤔 would like to know what is equality in. Opening
I think playing typical opening positions with fewer pieces is a fantastic idea to help with understanding. It sounded like you called it the composition method, is that correct? I just discovered your channel and I have subscribed.
Your tip that really helped me was memorizing things as soon as I see them. By trying to do that instead of mindlessly going through moves and planning to remember through repetition, I retain things much faster.
Great content and explanations, really helpful! Side note: somehow in this and in the middlegame video, there is a quite distracting background noise, maybe the computer’s fan? Thanks again!
Grischuk, in a candidates tournament, said after a game he lost that he knew a certain move was good but he didn't know why. The move was recommended by the computer, he believed it, and when the game went away from the line he had memorized he didn't know what was going on and he lost. In another game (I don't remember if this was in the same candidates tournament or a later on) he did much the same thing. One of the best chess players in the world clearly believes that in the opening chess is a game of memory, not of understanding. How can we understand this? I think that ordinary players follow the moves of the grandmasters and the champions, even when weak players don't understand these moves, because they look up to the players identified with these moves. Even top players like Grischuk can be intimidated by the powerful computers, just as weaker players are intimidated by Grischuk and his peers. When a powerful program that could beat Grischuk ten times out of ten effectively tells Grischuk "do this," he does it, just as a club player who hero-worshiped Grischuk would do what he was told if Grischuk told him, "do this." If Grischuk was looking at theory from the games of players of his own strength I think he would be more critical and thoughtful. He would not be intimidated at all. As for theory produced by players weaker than him, he would take an independent view of all of that, based on his own, superior understanding. If one weaker chess friend shows another an opening move he has thought of, again the response would likely be critical and thoughtful. There would not be the feeling that "this is what Magnus plays so I want to play that too (even though I don't know why)." There would be estimates of good and bad points. Chess players may have a similar underlying attitude, but the stronger ones will seem more thoughtful and less reliant on memory just because the stronger players are outmatched less often and so they go into the mode of imitation and memorizing less often.
You can be sure that Grischuk learns theory from other players, because all the top players do. It's why particular variations become trendy. An excellent memory is crucial to being good at chess. Magnus's memory is phenomenal, and it's a very big part of what makes him as good as he is. Kasparov's memory is the same, and Fischer's was as well. They have their limits, though. Top players often say in interviews they forgot their preparation during a game, including Magnus. Caruana said he won't try to learn the best engine lines if they're too complex and hard to memorize. I think the bottom line is that to be good you need understanding, but you can't get far without serious memorization, either.
I'm rated around 1100, and my highest rating so far is 1244. I really just prefer to play chess than study openings or simplified positions. While I'd like to improve, I am just not interested enough in chess to devote resources to serious study of openings, positions, middlegame, endgame, etc. To me, chess is a fun activity, not an area of study, so I think my best option may be just to keep playing and learning organically, rather than by turning the game into what I consider to be a chore. Do you have any advice for people who might view the game like me, other than to keep playing?
Thank you for your comment! Indeed, chess can be played purely for fun without the need for improvement. I would say do what you enjoy the most. It could be solving endgame studies for some people, or looking at classical games & world championship clashes.
I appreciate the explanation on how to understand these chess openings, beautiful ,and it really clicked for me and made perfect sense. I’ve been playing chess for almost 25 years and sometimesI think I’m good, until I playa computer with a2k rating and I get moped like I’m just starting to play. So frustrating but yeah I get it now.
I am very happy to hear your feedback, thank you so much! I hope this deeper engagement will lead to a change in playing strength. It usually takes time, but keep on watching and actively engage with my material 😊
A great video. And a nice surprise to see 'my' Caro-Kann as an opening example 😀 And I agree wholeheartedly. Most of my opponents (around my rating) leave the book opening early. Or worse, they play an incorrect move. With just memorizing it's really hard to punish mistakes or keep at least a good position. Besides, understanding an opening is much more interesting than the shallowness of memorizing.
Thanks, this actually makes a lot of sense as a way to approach it. Traditionally I've always neglected studying openings, instead restricting myself to mostly to the Caro and Slav where I'm comfortable. Most of my 'study' of openings has been around dealing with Nimzo and Bogo lines which I don't play myself, but usually need to deal with. I think this is the first time I've heard someone approach openings as an organic area of study rather than a series of known variations someone stronger than you'll ever be developed.
Lovely feedback, thank you so much 🙏 It is always good to form connections between the opening, middlegame and endgame. Those separations are often artificial anyways.
Now the question arises: After we have built up an opening repertoire, where can we find the typical middlegame patterns? Are there any books that can help with that?
Usually courses on Chessable should give you seperate chapters on typical middlegame plans, but you should double check that. Rios wrote a book called "Chess Structures". You can also check it out.
Cok denedim ama bir turlu basaramadim bunu TH-cam'de. Auto translate ile Turkce altyazi gerceklestirilemiyor sanirim. Eger bir cozum biliyorsan duymak isterim.
is there a resource that goes through the openings with their middle game patterns? preferably a resource that just covers the main openings and main middle game ideas for them, not a dedicated resource for just one opening.
Wow, really nice and clear video! I mean sure it’s a logical step to look at the pawn structures which could arise from one’s opening but for me it’s a really new way to look at my openings. Coincidence that I play this variation and I knew an endgame would be losing for me but I never thought on “don’t trade pieces”. So thanks for this video!
Nice job as always. I find myself sticking to two or three openings to deepen my understanding. I hate memorizing sequences that fall apart as soon as the opponent does not behave him/her self.
Hello Can. Your videos have been so helpful and I'm about to analyze with ideas in mind (such as multi-purpose moves)... thank you! I'm starting to feel quite bored with the Italian, as if I'm making the same moves every game. I am also unsure what in analysis I'm doing wrong aside from the blunders. It'd be really interesting to hear your thoughts on this, if you get a chance. Perhaps I need to learn different variations of the Italian.
Thank you for your kind thoughts :) Italian move orders can be subtle indeed, perhaps you should have a look at it with a coach to get epistemic feedback. You can mix it up a little, but Italian is a solid choice for upcoming players.
@@Dr.CansClinic Thanks! I'll continue playing the Italian for the time being. It turns out that the blunders were a result of incorrect thought process; Unknowingly, I wasn't calculating all opponent's checks, captures and threats. I've decided to think of blunders as "thought process blunders", to show how embodied, avoidable, and correctable they are. It's easy to fall into the trap of treating moves as we do simple tactics, when games are layered and deep.
Unsure how to message you a question directly so leaving a comment here in hopes you get a chance to read and reply. I am entering my third OTB tournament this year next month and was wondering if you could address the strength difference that exists between online vs over the board between ratings of similar ranges. I know the elo value changes per country (Im with the CFC rating system) and is slightly different in calculations - however it always seems to me as though my games online vs over the board play different. OTB even if they are low rated I find it hard to get an advantage even if the opponent doesn't know theory or have good engame technique - whereas online I seem to be able to have good chances. I was wondering if this is due purely towards games being long time format plus touch move - making you more hesitant to make moves that may be a mistake, or if possibly there is also some psychological aspect where I am precieving my opponents moves in a different light than I should be due to face to face vs online anonymity
Thanks for the question! I think your explanations are correct: people focus more for otb games compared to online - hence you may feel stiffer resistance. Plus, psychological issues may kick into action as well in otb games - you generally feel more tension. Keep on practicing with otb chess, and I think your play will improve there.
ohhh wow, that Alekhine game with the Tartakower pawn structure was beautiful to watch, pinning the rook, leaving the knight hanging, sacrificing the queen for mate! just stunning geometry! great vid once again Sir thankyou!
PERFECT VIDEO! I need this! Opening is my weakness. From now on, I will study the 12 openings I commonly use! It is important to have a strong opening, middle and end game training to become a tougher chess player.
So basically you can be a jack of all trades and master of none...or you can choose one opening and after a few years you'll understand it and play it well
Thank you so much for your kind comment. I am happy that you found it useful. Opening books should normally touch middlegame/endgame patterns, but many do not. Chess Structures from Rios is a good book, but it suits stronger players the most. You can check Chessable courses for your own openings - there is a recent trend in this direction of including typical middlegame patterns.
Thank you! I will surely do that at some point in the future. Please also check out my previous video on intuition and the upcoming one where I will reveal the results!
What an absolutely outstanding video. I have never heard anyone present these ideas in such a digestible way- this video earned my sub!
Thank you so much for your feedback and the subscription! Such comments energise me to produce even better content!
Great video. The idea of analyzing the pawn structure of your openings is excellent and I will try to implement that for myself. While watching, here is a question that came to mind.
You said chess expertise relies on chunks and pattern recognition. However, super grandmasters (Nakamura, Carlsen, So, etc.) tend to also be very strong at Chess960. Is chunking still the cause of Chess960 strength despite the drastically different board positions?
Great question, thanks! Even Chess960 features many familiar patterns and chunks, e.g. all the pawns are on the second/seventh rank from the initial position. Besides, those super GM's are also great at positional chunks such as the right exchange, pawn play for piece activity, king's safety etc. They are great at achieving harmony between their pieces, even though they start from completely random and disharmonious positions.
Dude, are you awesome or what? (- ‿◦ )
That is your awesomeness dude :)
@@Dr.CansClinic :)
Pretty amazing video. I'll come back to it in around half a year ;)
👏👏👏💯thank you so much for such lucid explanation,on this matter of the openings I am yet to understand , what is equality 😮no chess book I have come across so far has been able to give clear explanation,an How do I gain equality, what I have done in self coaching is I make a serious study of the first10 moves up to the point of castleing of with reason an logic for every move, then I move to another opening,is this a good idea ,?🤔 would like to know what is equality in. Opening
Genius, my man, you are awesome
So motivating to hear that, thanks! ☺️
I think playing typical opening positions with fewer pieces is a fantastic idea to help with understanding. It sounded like you called it the composition method, is that correct?
I just discovered your channel and I have subscribed.
Thank you so much for subscribing! It is called "decomposition method".
Your tip that really helped me was memorizing things as soon as I see them. By trying to do that instead of mindlessly going through moves and planning to remember through repetition, I retain things much faster.
Thank you for your comment!
Genius. Few other teachers explain so clearly and connect the dots.
Lovely to hear your motivating thoughts. Please do not hesitate sharing the channel with your chess friends & other platforms. 🙏
Keep making videos frequently - I guarantee you're at 10-50k subs in a few months
Thank you so much for your inspiring words! I will keep making them! :)
Great content and explanations, really helpful! Side note: somehow in this and in the middlegame video, there is a quite distracting background noise, maybe the computer’s fan? Thanks again!
Thank you! Yes, my first 5 videos had fan issues unfortunately. But I solved that problem later :)
Grischuk, in a candidates tournament, said after a game he lost that he knew a certain move was good but he didn't know why. The move was recommended by the computer, he believed it, and when the game went away from the line he had memorized he didn't know what was going on and he lost. In another game (I don't remember if this was in the same candidates tournament or a later on) he did much the same thing.
One of the best chess players in the world clearly believes that in the opening chess is a game of memory, not of understanding. How can we understand this?
I think that ordinary players follow the moves of the grandmasters and the champions, even when weak players don't understand these moves, because they look up to the players identified with these moves.
Even top players like Grischuk can be intimidated by the powerful computers, just as weaker players are intimidated by Grischuk and his peers. When a powerful program that could beat Grischuk ten times out of ten effectively tells Grischuk "do this," he does it, just as a club player who hero-worshiped Grischuk would do what he was told if Grischuk told him, "do this."
If Grischuk was looking at theory from the games of players of his own strength I think he would be more critical and thoughtful. He would not be intimidated at all. As for theory produced by players weaker than him, he would take an independent view of all of that, based on his own, superior understanding.
If one weaker chess friend shows another an opening move he has thought of, again the response would likely be critical and thoughtful. There would not be the feeling that "this is what Magnus plays so I want to play that too (even though I don't know why)." There would be estimates of good and bad points.
Chess players may have a similar underlying attitude, but the stronger ones will seem more thoughtful and less reliant on memory just because the stronger players are outmatched less often and so they go into the mode of imitation and memorizing less often.
You can be sure that Grischuk learns theory from other players, because all the top players do. It's why particular variations become trendy.
An excellent memory is crucial to being good at chess. Magnus's memory is phenomenal, and it's a very big part of what makes him as good as he is. Kasparov's memory is the same, and Fischer's was as well. They have their limits, though. Top players often say in interviews they forgot their preparation during a game, including Magnus. Caruana said he won't try to learn the best engine lines if they're too complex and hard to memorize.
I think the bottom line is that to be good you need understanding, but you can't get far without serious memorization, either.
@@bluefin.64 Very well put, thanks! It is always a combination of understanding and memorisation.
I'm rated around 1100, and my highest rating so far is 1244. I really just prefer to play chess than study openings or simplified positions. While I'd like to improve, I am just not interested enough in chess to devote resources to serious study of openings, positions, middlegame, endgame, etc. To me, chess is a fun activity, not an area of study, so I think my best option may be just to keep playing and learning organically, rather than by turning the game into what I consider to be a chore. Do you have any advice for people who might view the game like me, other than to keep playing?
Thank you for your comment! Indeed, chess can be played purely for fun without the need for improvement. I would say do what you enjoy the most. It could be solving endgame studies for some people, or looking at classical games & world championship clashes.
I appreciate the explanation on how to understand these chess openings, beautiful ,and it really clicked for me and made perfect sense. I’ve been playing chess for almost 25 years and sometimesI think I’m good, until I playa computer with a2k rating and I get moped like I’m just starting to play. So frustrating but yeah I get it now.
I am very happy to hear your feedback, thank you so much!
I hope this deeper engagement will lead to a change in playing strength. It usually takes time, but keep on watching and actively engage with my material 😊
A great video. And a nice surprise to see 'my' Caro-Kann as an opening example 😀
And I agree wholeheartedly. Most of my opponents (around my rating) leave the book opening early. Or worse, they play an incorrect move. With just memorizing it's really hard to punish mistakes or keep at least a good position. Besides, understanding an opening is much more interesting than the shallowness of memorizing.
I totally agree :)
Thanks, this actually makes a lot of sense as a way to approach it. Traditionally I've always neglected studying openings, instead restricting myself to mostly to the Caro and Slav where I'm comfortable. Most of my 'study' of openings has been around dealing with Nimzo and Bogo lines which I don't play myself, but usually need to deal with. I think this is the first time I've heard someone approach openings as an organic area of study rather than a series of known variations someone stronger than you'll ever be developed.
Lovely feedback, thank you so much 🙏 It is always good to form connections between the opening, middlegame and endgame. Those separations are often artificial anyways.
Wow,what an idea,thanks I never actualy thought of this
You are so welcome!
My understanding is if black in the Karo can achieve the pawn cube he can generate a passer but don't know the specifics mechanics...
Yes, the cube can roll forward slowly in the middlegame too, creating havoc on White's kingside.
Now the question arises: After we have built up an opening repertoire, where can we find the typical middlegame patterns? Are there any books that can help with that?
Usually courses on Chessable should give you seperate chapters on typical middlegame plans, but you should double check that. Rios wrote a book called "Chess Structures". You can also check it out.
keşke videolarınızda Türkçe altyazı olsa
Cok denedim ama bir turlu basaramadim bunu TH-cam'de. Auto translate ile Turkce altyazi gerceklestirilemiyor sanirim. Eger bir cozum biliyorsan duymak isterim.
Is someone vacuuming in the living room? Haha sorry. You are a fabulous teacher.
Haha sorry about it, the first 5 videos I produced had technical issues. That is the sound of the fan 😅
is there a resource that goes through the openings with their middle game patterns? preferably a resource that just covers the main openings and main middle game ideas for them, not a dedicated resource for just one opening.
Chess Structures by Rios. But it may be a little too advanced for beginners.
Wow, really nice and clear video! I mean sure it’s a logical step to look at the pawn structures which could arise from one’s opening but for me it’s a really new way to look at my openings. Coincidence that I play this variation and I knew an endgame would be losing for me but I never thought on “don’t trade pieces”. So thanks for this video!
Thank you so much for your comment! I am happy that you found it useful.
Nice job as always. I find myself sticking to two or three openings to deepen my understanding. I hate memorizing sequences that fall apart as soon as the opponent does not behave him/her self.
Well said!
Volume is much better on this video! Really enjoying your content and learning a lot about the beautiful game of chess! Thank you! :D
Thank you so much for the feedback! Technical issues will hopefully be fully resolved in the future :) Glad that you are benefiting from those!
Hello Can. Your videos have been so helpful and I'm about to analyze with ideas in mind (such as multi-purpose moves)... thank you! I'm starting to feel quite bored with the Italian, as if I'm making the same moves every game. I am also unsure what in analysis I'm doing wrong aside from the blunders. It'd be really interesting to hear your thoughts on this, if you get a chance. Perhaps I need to learn different variations of the Italian.
Thank you for your kind thoughts :) Italian move orders can be subtle indeed, perhaps you should have a look at it with a coach to get epistemic feedback. You can mix it up a little, but Italian is a solid choice for upcoming players.
@@Dr.CansClinic Thanks! I'll continue playing the Italian for the time being. It turns out that the blunders were a result of incorrect thought process; Unknowingly, I wasn't calculating all opponent's checks, captures and threats. I've decided to think of blunders as "thought process blunders", to show how embodied, avoidable, and correctable they are. It's easy to fall into the trap of treating moves as we do simple tactics, when games are layered and deep.
@@ShaShaSha534 Loved reading your comment and the change in how you perceived those issues.
@@Dr.CansClinic Thanks :)
Thank you veeeery much
Most welcome ❤️
👌👌👌👌❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
❤❤
Hi, HenryChess here, can't believe someone used a video instead of plain text to answer my question 🤣
Hi! Your question was so good that it deserved a video response! ;)
Unsure how to message you a question directly so leaving a comment here in hopes you get a chance to read and reply.
I am entering my third OTB tournament this year next month and was wondering if you could address the strength difference that exists between online vs over the board between ratings of similar ranges.
I know the elo value changes per country (Im with the CFC rating system) and is slightly different in calculations - however it always seems to me as though my games online vs over the board play different.
OTB even if they are low rated I find it hard to get an advantage even if the opponent doesn't know theory or have good engame technique - whereas online I seem to be able to have good chances.
I was wondering if this is due purely towards games being long time format plus touch move - making you more hesitant to make moves that may be a mistake, or if possibly there is also some psychological aspect where I am precieving my opponents moves in a different light than I should be due to face to face vs online anonymity
Thanks for the question! I think your explanations are correct: people focus more for otb games compared to online - hence you may feel stiffer resistance. Plus, psychological issues may kick into action as well in otb games - you generally feel more tension. Keep on practicing with otb chess, and I think your play will improve there.
Awesome. I instantly recognised your voice from the chessable courses I owned. Often hear you saying that the pieces are crying :D
Haha thank you so much! Good that my voice is internalised in your brain - so that you won't let down your pieces :D
ohhh wow, that Alekhine game with the Tartakower pawn structure was beautiful to watch, pinning the rook, leaving the knight hanging, sacrificing the queen for mate! just stunning geometry!
great vid once again Sir thankyou!
Glad you enjoyed it!
PERFECT VIDEO! I need this! Opening is my weakness. From now on, I will study the 12 openings I commonly use! It is important to have a strong opening, middle and end game training to become a tougher chess player.
Glad it was helpful! Thanks!
So basically you can be a jack of all trades and master of none...or you can choose one opening and after a few years you'll understand it and play it well
Great way to put it concisely! Thanks!
Very interesting thought process w the "decomposition" method
Glad you liked it!
This is great advice, thanks Can! Very classy choice for the example opening. 👍
Thank you Mason!
Fantastic work!! Thank you Dr. Can!! 🙏🏻🏅
My pleasure! Thank you for your kind comment!
Waw, amazing explanation! Your videos are terrific! Can you recommend a book to study these ideas? Thanks a lot for sharing your knowledge.
Thank you so much for your kind comment. I am happy that you found it useful. Opening books should normally touch middlegame/endgame patterns, but many do not. Chess Structures from Rios is a good book, but it suits stronger players the most. You can check Chessable courses for your own openings - there is a recent trend in this direction of including typical middlegame patterns.
@@Dr.CansClinic thanks a lot!
sir..could u please make video or a series of videos on evaluation
Thank you! I will surely do that at some point in the future. Please also check out my previous video on intuition and the upcoming one where I will reveal the results!
Thanks for sharing!
My pleasure 🙏
Great advice Dr. Can!
Thank you!