This is a really cool video! I don't think we talk enough in general about best practices around being a coach or a coachee. Thanks for contributing to the discourse.
I’m a chess newbie so I could be totally wrong. But in regard to the chess engine question… it seems like at the end of the day, this is a debate about how to train students *and* what you want chess to become in the future. Do you want to train a generation of students who sees chess engines as critical to their gameplay or not? If you do, it’s likely that longer term Chess will become a sport which disproportionately values people who can memorize and apply vast amounts of information at the exclusion of all else (which would be consistent with most pedagogy in the U.S.). On the other hand, it seems like it would be great to raise a generation of chess which highly values the creation of new theories, game play, and creative/unique applications. Ideally you could do both, but at least in the West, pedagogical philosophies are approached in an all or nothing kind of way. This was a great episode.
One inherent issue with chess study is we really only are accountable to ourselves. For the most part I think the last time I was actually accountable to something where I felt like I needed to do study that wasn’t enjoyable was high school trying to get good grades for college. I was indirectly accountable to my parents and the college admissions process. If coaches were able to send letter grades to their students parents that the students cared about they would probably have a lot more productive students. Just having a coach to at least be partially accountable to compared to just yourself is probably a huge coaching benefit to most students. Random but I actually took a chess class in college. It was taught by an eccentric professor rated 1200 and the entire evaluation for the class was 3 annotated games. My friend still got a bad grade in the class because he could only manage to turn in 2 annotated games of the 3.
Great discussion as always. The question of 'should you use an engine' is always engaging although I've felt in the past like I've disagreed with the cast (as a superior 1400 rated player), I felt like the nuance was really picked at here and now I have a much better appreciation of why Jesse and David hold the views they do. Specifically, David's point is that the more lower-rated you are, the lower chance you have of actually understanding why the computer is telling you what to do. I used to find this point kind of annoying (don't have a better word for it) because I always felt that at a lower rating and if playing a decent time control if I was unable to find a tactic that leads to a 3-5 swing in eval during the live game, I also wouldn't be able to find such a move in post-game evaluation. After all, at this rating level it feels like every move made past move 7 or 10 has the chance to hold some 3-5 move sequence to win material and I'm unable to see it. In other words, I feel that an 800 player will never be able to solve a 1900 rated puzzle in a reasonable amount of time, and in this case they KNOW there's a tactic in the position! All of this is to say I still feel like there's value to be had in using an engine to evaluate a game to know when big opportunities (clear piece) are missed. When it comes to more subtle positional advantages, I'm totally in the dojo camp now. Thanks!
25:00 David brings something up that is also important in learning other skills like languages. You must be comfortable with ambiguity. You have to accept that you don't understand everything, that you CAN'T understand everything, that you misunderstood things you thought you understood! It's OK not to know and to not understand. Be confident in the learning process, put your head down and try to learn a bit more and test your ideas and eventually you will look up and you'll see all the improvement you've made in your wake.
Great talk there, guys! Very inspiring for coaches, like me, who want to improve as a coach. Looking forward to seeing the Part II. I am a coach myself and I have a question that I find no answers to anywhere: How do I create a profile of a player? What questions should the coach ask the student and what do we have to pay attention to when seeing thei students' games in order to work out their strenghts and weaknesses and create a training plan accordingly? Thanks!
GM Jesse Kraai has a video in this channel on a simple line on how to play against the French defense. He doesn't mention the line name but I think it's called advanced French Wade variation. For the Caro Kan - I would check GothamChess course
As a boomer who grew up reading Al Horowitz, I disagree with your take on engines. Wandering in the wilderness through trial and error is a tough way to improve. Especially if you don't have access to a better player. In my day the two best players I knew were 2100 and 1800 USCF. I would watch them analyze Fischer's road to the WC. I also think your goal matters. If your goal is understanding and chess culture, you might prefer a different path than someone just worried about improving their rating. But overall I think it's an empirical question. How did the new Indian generation get so strong so fast? Did they use engines? I know they had coaching and Anand played a role. But at the beginning?
I miss the board with the topics listed and the Finger. And the timer. Ten minutes, which was already too much time. Did Kostya nix it? "Don't constrain me, bro!" Seems like a lot more rambling between dudes on the internet going on in Dojo Talks now.
If I'm 600 do I understand how the computer beats down my idea! I'm pretty sure you are overestimating lower rated players having ideas! I know I didn't have ideas back then!
![Pointers in C / C++ [Full Course]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zuegQmMdy8M/mqdefault.jpg)
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | Survival Stage วันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FVFT-PFwU80/mqdefault.jpg)
Huge fan of Jesse Kraai ❤️
This is a really cool video! I don't think we talk enough in general about best practices around being a coach or a coachee. Thanks for contributing to the discourse.
I’m a chess newbie so I could be totally wrong. But in regard to the chess engine question… it seems like at the end of the day, this is a debate about how to train students *and* what you want chess to become in the future.
Do you want to train a generation of students who sees chess engines as critical to their gameplay or not? If you do, it’s likely that longer term Chess will become a sport which disproportionately values people who can memorize and apply vast amounts of information at the exclusion of all else (which would be consistent with most pedagogy in the U.S.).
On the other hand, it seems like it would be great to raise a generation of chess which highly values the creation of new theories, game play, and creative/unique applications.
Ideally you could do both, but at least in the West, pedagogical philosophies are approached in an all or nothing kind of way.
This was a great episode.
One inherent issue with chess study is we really only are accountable to ourselves. For the most part I think the last time I was actually accountable to something where I felt like I needed to do study that wasn’t enjoyable was high school trying to get good grades for college. I was indirectly accountable to my parents and the college admissions process.
If coaches were able to send letter grades to their students parents that the students cared about they would probably have a lot more productive students. Just having a coach to at least be partially accountable to compared to just yourself is probably a huge coaching benefit to most students.
Random but I actually took a chess class in college. It was taught by an eccentric professor rated 1200 and the entire evaluation for the class was 3 annotated games. My friend still got a bad grade in the class because he could only manage to turn in 2 annotated games of the 3.
Great discussion as always. The question of 'should you use an engine' is always engaging although I've felt in the past like I've disagreed with the cast (as a superior 1400 rated player), I felt like the nuance was really picked at here and now I have a much better appreciation of why Jesse and David hold the views they do.
Specifically, David's point is that the more lower-rated you are, the lower chance you have of actually understanding why the computer is telling you what to do. I used to find this point kind of annoying (don't have a better word for it) because I always felt that at a lower rating and if playing a decent time control if I was unable to find a tactic that leads to a 3-5 swing in eval during the live game, I also wouldn't be able to find such a move in post-game evaluation. After all, at this rating level it feels like every move made past move 7 or 10 has the chance to hold some 3-5 move sequence to win material and I'm unable to see it. In other words, I feel that an 800 player will never be able to solve a 1900 rated puzzle in a reasonable amount of time, and in this case they KNOW there's a tactic in the position! All of this is to say I still feel like there's value to be had in using an engine to evaluate a game to know when big opportunities (clear piece) are missed. When it comes to more subtle positional advantages, I'm totally in the dojo camp now. Thanks!
25:00 David brings something up that is also important in learning other skills like languages. You must be comfortable with ambiguity. You have to accept that you don't understand everything, that you CAN'T understand everything, that you misunderstood things you thought you understood! It's OK not to know and to not understand. Be confident in the learning process, put your head down and try to learn a bit more and test your ideas and eventually you will look up and you'll see all the improvement you've made in your wake.
These are good, looking forward to more
Great talk there, guys! Very inspiring for coaches, like me, who want to improve as a coach. Looking forward to seeing the Part II.
I am a coach myself and I have a question that I find no answers to anywhere: How do I create a profile of a player? What questions should the coach ask the student and what do we have to pay attention to when seeing thei students' games in order to work out their strenghts and weaknesses and create a training plan accordingly?
Thanks!
Great stuff 👌🏼
Hey do you guys know any good books on the Caro kann and playing against the french?
BTW great video!
GM Jesse Kraai has a video in this channel on a simple line on how to play against the French defense. He doesn't mention the line name but I think it's called advanced French Wade variation.
For the Caro Kan - I would check GothamChess course
Nice!
Was this recorded on "Aloha Friday?" (referring to Jesse's shirt)
As a boomer who grew up reading Al Horowitz, I disagree with your take on engines. Wandering in the wilderness through trial and error is a tough way to improve. Especially if you don't have access to a better player. In my day the two best players I knew were 2100 and 1800 USCF. I would watch them analyze Fischer's road to the WC. I also think your goal matters. If your goal is understanding and chess culture, you might prefer a different path than someone just worried about improving their rating. But overall I think it's an empirical question.
How did the new Indian generation get so strong so fast? Did they use engines? I know they had coaching and Anand played a role. But at the beginning?
I miss the board with the topics listed and the Finger. And the timer. Ten minutes, which was already too much time. Did Kostya nix it? "Don't constrain me, bro!" Seems like a lot more rambling between dudes on the internet going on in Dojo Talks now.
Why blame Kostya 😂
@@ChessDojo Did Kostya nix it?
Nope 😊
hi guys, why don't you have a Facebook group ??
We have a Discord!
@@ChessDojo i see that , Facebook is a huge platform you need to use it to grow your channel
@@Chess_Improvement I don't speak for the whole channel here, but I, David, personally boycott facebook. So huge or not, I will not use it.
@@chesscomdpruess i respect your option, from an objective and business point of view , it is better for the growth of the channel
Boomers are OK!
Kasparov is a boomer!
If I'm 600 do I understand how the computer beats down my idea! I'm pretty sure you are overestimating lower rated players having ideas! I know I didn't have ideas back then!