By far the single greatest lecture I’ve seen, Jesse! I’ve been meaning to play more positionally and I’ve noticed the whole pawn break trend over and over again. I was wondering why they hadn’t been affective. Thank you 🙏🏻
I wish I could give this video 100 likes! I also chose the move Nd7 but was thinking instead about getting the knight to f4 (Nd7 Nf8 Ne6 Nf4). My mistake was not realizing that, while f4 is probably the most active square for the black knight, it would allow White to trade off its terrible knight. Your explanation of the plan Nd7 Nb6 Nc5 was excellent!
Excellent content! I often focused on pawn breaks as an end objective to achieve and did not think about it in the context of how it may actually improve my opponent's pieces and/or hurt my pieces. GM Krai, you are a terrific teacher!
i remember when you showed this during a recent stream and didn't tell us what the move was. i spent a lot of time paused on this video trying to figure it out, and really thought it was about the d5 break and figuring out how to orchestrate it so that it "liberates" our pieces. but it actually liberates the opponent's pieces. i think i also expected some pawn sac as the central idea of "pawns are not people" but really to understand what that means in this position is to stop obsessing over pawns/pawn breaks! learn the story of the pieces and what they want, and the pawns are just a way to help or hurt their narrative
What a powerful video! You've identified two widely-encountered ways to plan: 1) look at the pawn structure, especially the levers, to provide the character or logic of the position 2) compare the positive and negatives of the contributions of each of the pieces (including comparative K safety). It's true that we often see commentary that focuses on the first, and this is the first time I've encountered the idea that the two approaches may be in conflict and that piece placement takes priority. I've read a lot about chess over the last fifty years, and nobody I've encountered has made this point! Not thinking about piece placement often means attention is given to pawn grabs that have less than no strategic point--well observed around 14:45. I suppose that 'pawns aren't people' relates to middlegame strategy as distinct from mating attacks where, e.g. a pawn on e6 or f6 can have the value of a piece (citing Kasparov). And, in endings, the pawns are critical actors as their promotion is often central. I have viewed 23 episodes of your Road Back series, and I think that your thinking shows greater clarity and insight as time passes.
I watched this video when it came out and I credit it with a significant gain in understanding and rating. Thanks GM Kraai. Just focusing on what the pieces are doing and where they want to be helps so much.
watching a german chess video with auto-translate, I realized that pawn is bauer in german, meaning farmer. so the pawns ARE the people! the revolution is coming for you, Kraai.
Piece activity is one of the most important factors in any position. Could be another way to look at this. I think Ben Finegold says that a lot. Piece activity trumps pawn structure
The newly liberated piece again emerges very angry! I've mentioned this on other videos, but the phrase "pawns aren't people" has had enormous impact in improving my chess. Thank you.
My only problem is that in Jesse's accent, "aren't" and "are" sound kinda similar to me sometimes. So originally I misheard the mantra in some other video as "pawns are people" and got really confused 😅. Also in this video I misheard "students aren't people" at one point 😂
I am interested in how to heart you value 3 tempi for a pawn. Will you sac a pawn for 3 tempi without seeing concrete follow up variations? Same what gives you the feeling being greedy is ok and grabbing a pawn for 3 tempi in some positions simply because you can’t see any good way for them to exploit the time
Pawn breaks are good for changing the nature of the position, but it really needs to be considered whether or not the resulting position is better for you or your opponent. Sure, f5 as black is a standard pawn break, but being a standard pawn break does not mean that it is a good idea in EVERY given position.
I understand what you said about the position but I still don't get what the sentence means. Is it that pawns aren't people, they don't have feelings and they're just tools ? Or is it that pawns aren't people but pieces are ?
I interpreted it this way: People get things done. Pawns aren't people. Pawns don't get things done. Pieces get things done. Another way I interpreted "pawns aren't people". People deserve attention. Pawns aren't people. Don't pay so much of your attention to pawns. Pay attention to your pieces.
Thanks for this,but honestly I still do belive that ...a4 is the best move,and indeed,engine also agrees. but why? after 1...a4 2.Ba2,Q.c2 3.Rd2,Qc7 4.Qe3 now not Bc8?! and allowing Nb4, BUT 4....Rfc8!? And now Nb4 will be met by Qc5! Exchanging Qeens. And its up to white to prove he has compensation for the pawn.
I haven't checked with the engine, but on 4. ...Rfc8, 5.Nb4 seems very cooperative. 5. Rc1 seems annoying, After 5. ...Qe7 (maybe Qb8 is a thought as well) 6.Rd1 and the pressure on d4 plus the knight coming to b4 gives white nice compensation to my eyes, as the extra d6 pawn is nothing but a weakness for now
Thank you. This is liberating. I was so baffled by this position that I was too embarrassed to comment. My plan would have been ...Bc6 and ...Qb7. If White did nothing, then also doubling rooks at e7 and e8. And after that, nothing. Maybe move the king from side to side. All I thought was: "There is not really a free pawn at c2 because he might get an improved Smith-Morra. My d pawn wants to advance to d5 but he mustn't. Advancing my b and a pawns looks bad too. Since I can't play my breaks I must stand badly. I will set up my pieces to make very sure he can't organize for f4 to be good, and I will wait. He might do something that might make ...d5 or ...b4 good, if I wait long enough." So I would have avoided immediate calamity, but I would have gone steadily downhill through inactivity. He would have had as many free tempi as he wanted to correct the position of his king, the position of his queen, and so on. Also, I might have gotten into time trouble, the way you do when you reach the point where you think, "I'm out of ideas but he might not be," so you need to think about everything an opponent might possibly plan, at every turn. I understood nothing, literally nothing, about the d3 knight and what was really going on. And I would never have thought about taking my knight away from a correct square like f6. I've been getting positions like this all the time. I look for my pawns and what they want to do, and if they can, great! And if they can't, I think, "I'd better make ready to resist whatever he's going to do, because I sure don't know what I want to do." It was possible for Black to play positively, but I would never have seen how, because I was looking at the wrong men.
Maybe people just can't play chess. Computer gives 1...a4 as best move. 1...Nd7 was around 12th best and finally slipped below 16--the number of lines I'm running. Sure they're all still within the "=" range according to the machine's reckoning. The computer seems to be saying "stop fretting, you can play anything in this position" . I loved the lesson and am annoyed at the computer for contradicting you. You're saying look at the big picture and keep that white knight hemmed in. Computer is saying there's an even bigger picture in which the knight's freedom is a negligible consideration. I guess we have to play within the picture that we can see.------------Update: 1...Nd7 has moved up to 8th best after 30 minutes. 1...a4 still no.1
Jesse absolutely cannot be concise, even if his life depended on it! He should have become a philosophy professor so he could force kids to listen to him take an hour to say what could be said in 5 minutes. The guy loves to hear himself talk!
By far the single greatest lecture I’ve seen, Jesse! I’ve been meaning to play more positionally and I’ve noticed the whole pawn break trend over and over again. I was wondering why they hadn’t been affective. Thank you 🙏🏻
I wish I could give this video 100 likes! I also chose the move Nd7 but was thinking instead about getting the knight to f4 (Nd7 Nf8 Ne6 Nf4). My mistake was not realizing that, while f4 is probably the most active square for the black knight, it would allow White to trade off its terrible knight. Your explanation of the plan Nd7 Nb6 Nc5 was excellent!
Very insightful and instructive video. Interesting that the engine says a4 is the best move, although maybe not so practical/logical
probably the engine can defend the position because it's an engjne, but white gets a ton of activity
Excellent content! I often focused on pawn breaks as an end objective to achieve and did not think about it in the context of how it may actually improve my opponent's pieces and/or hurt my pieces. GM Krai, you are a terrific teacher!
i remember when you showed this during a recent stream and didn't tell us what the move was. i spent a lot of time paused on this video trying to figure it out, and really thought it was about the d5 break and figuring out how to orchestrate it so that it "liberates" our pieces. but it actually liberates the opponent's pieces.
i think i also expected some pawn sac as the central idea of "pawns are not people" but really to understand what that means in this position is to stop obsessing over pawns/pawn breaks! learn the story of the pieces and what they want, and the pawns are just a way to help or hurt their narrative
In this light, maybe better to say Pawns aren't Protagonists. The story is the about the pieces!
@@jefftheless true but less catchy lol
@@jefftheless I hope you don't mind me stealing that phrase. Love it!
What a powerful video! You've identified two widely-encountered ways to plan: 1) look at the pawn structure, especially the levers, to provide the character or logic of the position 2) compare the positive and negatives of the contributions of each of the pieces (including comparative K safety). It's true that we often see commentary that focuses on the first, and this is the first time I've encountered the idea that the two approaches may be in conflict and that piece placement takes priority. I've read a lot about chess over the last fifty years, and nobody I've encountered has made this point! Not thinking about piece placement often means attention is given to pawn grabs that have less than no strategic point--well observed around 14:45. I suppose that 'pawns aren't people' relates to middlegame strategy as distinct from mating attacks where, e.g. a pawn on e6 or f6 can have the value of a piece (citing Kasparov). And, in endings, the pawns are critical actors as their promotion is often central.
I have viewed 23 episodes of your Road Back series, and I think that your thinking shows greater clarity and insight as time passes.
I watched this video when it came out and I credit it with a significant gain in understanding and rating. Thanks GM Kraai. Just focusing on what the pieces are doing and where they want to be helps so much.
watching a german chess video with auto-translate, I realized that pawn is bauer in german, meaning farmer. so the pawns ARE the people! the revolution is coming for you, Kraai.
This style of listing the plans and asking which is the right one reminds me of the book It's Your Move by Chris Ward.
This was such a timely video for me -- thanks for posting it!
"Pawn breaks are not there for the pawns, they're there for the pieces" I love it
Fantastic video, thanks for sharing Jesse.
very instructive and clear
Jesse: Pawns aren't people
Jesse: Harry the h pawn
You must have spent some days and nights meditating in that "cave of self-improvement". Because this video... is on another level. Wow.
Thank you for this video, awesome stuff!
great video, great explanation. Thanks Jesse!
Great video thanks so much for sharing your experience
Great instructive video
I think this lesson is very helpful, a bit of a game changer (literally!), thank you.
Piece activity is one of the most important factors in any position. Could be another way to look at this. I think Ben Finegold says that a lot. Piece activity trumps pawn structure
Fantastic lesson!
Finally! Ive been waiting for this video title for months!
The newly liberated piece again emerges very angry! I've mentioned this on other videos, but the phrase "pawns aren't people" has had enormous impact in improving my chess. Thank you.
Very instructive sensei! Domo arigatou!
Great lesson. Thank you.
great lecture
My only problem is that in Jesse's accent, "aren't" and "are" sound kinda similar to me sometimes. So originally I misheard the mantra in some other video as "pawns are people" and got really confused 😅. Also in this video I misheard "students aren't people" at one point 😂
Great stuff! Thanks! Ever considered writing a chess book?
I am interested in how to heart you value 3 tempi for a pawn. Will you sac a pawn for 3 tempi without seeing concrete follow up variations? Same what gives you the feeling being greedy is ok and grabbing a pawn for 3 tempi in some positions simply because you can’t see any good way for them to exploit the time
Genious
Hey Jesse, if pawns aren't people why do you call your f pawn Fredericko?
Pawn breaks are good for changing the nature of the position, but it really needs to be considered whether or not the resulting position is better for you or your opponent. Sure, f5 as black is a standard pawn break, but being a standard pawn break does not mean that it is a good idea in EVERY given position.
Oh yeah… finally!
Your name is absolutely epic, is it actually your name?
@@kappablanca5192 yes
I understand what you said about the position but I still don't get what the sentence means. Is it that pawns aren't people, they don't have feelings and they're just tools ? Or is it that pawns aren't people but pieces are ?
I interpreted it this way: People get things done. Pawns aren't people. Pawns don't get things done. Pieces get things done.
Another way I interpreted "pawns aren't people". People deserve attention. Pawns aren't people. Don't pay so much of your attention to pawns. Pay attention to your pieces.
Pawns are the structures Pieces live in.
If pawns aren't people, are pawns still the soul of chess?
Thanks for this,but honestly I still do belive that ...a4 is the best move,and indeed,engine also agrees. but why?
after 1...a4 2.Ba2,Q.c2 3.Rd2,Qc7 4.Qe3
now not Bc8?! and allowing Nb4,
BUT 4....Rfc8!? And now Nb4 will be met by Qc5! Exchanging Qeens.
And its up to white to prove he has compensation for the pawn.
I haven't checked with the engine, but on 4. ...Rfc8, 5.Nb4 seems very cooperative. 5. Rc1 seems annoying, After 5. ...Qe7 (maybe Qb8 is a thought as well) 6.Rd1 and the pressure on d4 plus the knight coming to b4 gives white nice compensation to my eyes, as the extra d6 pawn is nothing but a weakness for now
Thank you. This is liberating.
I was so baffled by this position that I was too embarrassed to comment.
My plan would have been ...Bc6 and ...Qb7. If White did nothing, then also doubling rooks at e7 and e8. And after that, nothing. Maybe move the king from side to side.
All I thought was: "There is not really a free pawn at c2 because he might get an improved Smith-Morra. My d pawn wants to advance to d5 but he mustn't. Advancing my b and a pawns looks bad too. Since I can't play my breaks I must stand badly. I will set up my pieces to make very sure he can't organize for f4 to be good, and I will wait. He might do something that might make ...d5 or ...b4 good, if I wait long enough."
So I would have avoided immediate calamity, but I would have gone steadily downhill through inactivity. He would have had as many free tempi as he wanted to correct the position of his king, the position of his queen, and so on. Also, I might have gotten into time trouble, the way you do when you reach the point where you think, "I'm out of ideas but he might not be," so you need to think about everything an opponent might possibly plan, at every turn.
I understood nothing, literally nothing, about the d3 knight and what was really going on. And I would never have thought about taking my knight away from a correct square like f6.
I've been getting positions like this all the time. I look for my pawns and what they want to do, and if they can, great! And if they can't, I think, "I'd better make ready to resist whatever he's going to do, because I sure don't know what I want to do."
It was possible for Black to play positively, but I would never have seen how, because I was looking at the wrong men.
Maybe people just can't play chess. Computer gives 1...a4 as best move. 1...Nd7 was around 12th best and finally slipped below 16--the number of lines I'm running. Sure they're all still within the "=" range according to the machine's reckoning. The computer seems to be saying "stop fretting, you can play anything in this position" . I loved the lesson and am annoyed at the computer for contradicting you. You're saying look at the big picture and keep that white knight hemmed in. Computer is saying there's an even bigger picture in which the knight's freedom is a negligible consideration. I guess we have to play within the picture that we can see.------------Update: 1...Nd7 has moved up to 8th best after 30 minutes. 1...a4 still no.1
Jesse absolutely cannot be concise, even if his life depended on it! He should have become a philosophy professor so he could force kids to listen to him take an hour to say what could be said in 5 minutes. The guy loves to hear himself talk!