I think it's even simpler than Ben is saying. I was stuck on 1200 for months on end after relatively fast growth, and I couldn't figure out how to improve. I watched videos on openings and did endless tactics every day but they never seemed to come up in games. Then I realised that when I played, I never actually thought about my moves or spent any time calculating. I simply played moves based on intuition and did a quick check to see if I lose a piece on the next move. Almost all of my wins came either from opponents blundering or by accidentally getting a winning endgame. I only had to start thinking two or three moves ahead on each move and not only did my game improve, but tactics started to become increasingly obvious. Five months later and my rating is 1650.
But what time limit were you playing when your rating went from 1200 to 1650? When you started "thinking two or three moves ahead?" were you playing blitz, rapid or classical? It's hard to think that far ahead in blitz/rapid and classical has tons of cheating.
@@DavidEmerling79 I've always played rapid -- blitz is too fast for me and I end up getting very angry at myself for playing below my level, and I've never played classical. I don't think it's difficult to think a few movees ahead in rapid. I'm not saying you should calculate 20 move variations, just thinking 3-4 moves ahead makes a big difference.
This is very helpful I think. I spent all summer climbing up to 1400 only to suddenly collapse back to the high 1200s over the last week, and am soul searching now.
I think a LOT of us low intermediate players play WAY too much blitz because it is more exciting. But blitz isn't really suited for carefully evaluating positions - certainly not for low intermediates. I do this myself constantly. I basically only play 5 min blitz, but I really should be playing at least 10 min rapid instead.
I often find chess to be filled with great analogies for life. A lot of the elements that go into improving at chess apply just as well to improving in all aspects of life.
@@harithahariffin6274 I almost always play on after blundering the Q -- mainly to improve my play. I'm amazed at how often I get their queen. If they blunder first, I'm extra careful with my Q (tho I should be that careful to begin with).
I was "coaching" a guy who's like 1000 on lichess. He played about 10 games of 5+0 every single day for months and months and never got any better. He asked me why he wasn't getting any better and I told him exactly what Ben says. You blunder 5 times every game and it's just a coin flip if you or your 1000 rated opponent makes the blunder that gives checkmate. I told him he'd have better results if he only played 1 or 2 games a day and spent the time he took playing 8 more games to analyze the games he did play and understand what his blunders were and not to repeat those mistakes (and punish his opponents blunders). Instead of listening to me he insisted that I show him how to "crush the QGA with 3.e4" and kept doing the exact same pattern of just playing 5 minute game after 5 minute game. I shook my head and rolled my eyes and that's the story of how I fully came to understand why Ben quit coaching chess.
Yeah i was a 1100 on lichess before and all i did was keep on playing hundreds of games and hoping to improve, i never got any result. So i changed my habit and started watching more recaps, opening thoeries, analyze my games, practice puzzles, corrected my blunders and kaboom i got to 1700 in no time
@@anthonyrobert1376 damn dood that is very inspirational, for someone who is also stuck in the 1ks, what time control should I usually play to get better?
@@SFCFiz doesnt it all depends on which time control you want to get better at? If you are aiming to get better in bullet then playing slow games will not give you a big advantage right? The tactics and ways to get better also depends on the time control, for example: one advice for rapid or classical is dont just play hundreds of games a day cuz it wont really help that much, spend more time analyzing your games and studying theories is probably the fastest way. But again, it depends on which time control you want to get better at, if you are aiming to get better in bullet then its a completely different story because theory moves are not really helpful, cuz nasty tricky moves are usually used
@@anthonyrobert1376 right, I usually play 10 mins of rapid but I feel like I overcalculate things, sometimes I ended up in a winning position but frustratingly it always ends up with my time 2 to 3 times lower than my opponents and yeah blunders and mistakes always comes in such situations bcuz i stop asking and analysing, its pressuring so I just followed my instincts and hope my quick tactics or strategy works but in most case if im unlucky, I will tend to go from absolutely winning to just holy shiz how did it go so wrong
@@SFCFiz i was the opposite of you, i often dont even calculate anything, like once i saw a good move i will play it immediately and always ends up being up a lot of time but a trrible position, but yet i often manage to flag them and win the game somehow xD
There is something I've noticed that's deeply engrained in chess, this weird thing where everyone is a little bit of an asshole. Not nessasarily in a bad way, it's like a lot of people who are good at chess just don't quite understand pandering, or maybe consciously have a distaste for it, I don't know. Seems like the better they are the more this tends to pop up. Obviously there are nice guys in chess that's not what I mean, it's like chess players just give a little less of a shit what people think than say the average golfer or whatever.
@@merlin4real I don't think so. I saw an interview with Magnus Carlsen (Lex Freedman). He seemed like a perfectly normal, nice guy. I had expected him to be conceited but he didn't seem that way at all. The International Master that runs Gotham Chess, Levy Rozman, is a nice guy, I think. Hikaru Nakamura is so nice he doesn't even have an asshole. If you're looking for advice, you have to accept that some things you do will be criticized. You want honesty, not humiliation, but you need the truth. It's up to the teacher whether he or she says, that "was totally stupid," or that "was a mistake," or "you could have made a better move." As a student, I try to take the meaning to heart, not the words. But I don't like to listen to crude people if I have a choice.
I went up 200 rating points just from recognizing the fact that myself and all my opponents are considered beginner level by the pros. It means there are tons of mistakes being made, and you just have to find them, and you have to stop making them - which requires you to analyze your games after. This video only reminds me of that further. He put 500 to 1500 in the same group. That had better teach you something, and not insult you if you're in this rating range.
It really comes down to not considering your opponent's moves. That's why we often see a mistake instantly after playing it. We play the move, THEN we start thinking of our opponent's move and see the mistake. You have to force yourself to consider your opponent's response to every move until it becomes automatic. I would suggest playing longer time controls until it becomes engrained.
I really like Ben's beginner lectures, with stuff like "Okay kids, in the opening don't move too many pawns, but instead develop your pieces." Then the kids continue to make all pawn moves, and Ben askes them why they're not developing their pieces like he told them to, to which they answer either "Yeah, yeah, I'll do that later." or "Yeah, yeah, but this is what _I_ do." The truth hurts.
"Yeah, yeah, but this is what I do." I teach beginners and I hear this all the time. The ones that continue to say that are beginners forever. No point taking their money; they are telling you that they don't want to listen.
I've heard my friends tell me this when I tried to teach them some chess and go through what moves were best and why. That "this is what I do" line is frustrating. I even went through a game with someone who claimed they knew what the best move was every time an error was pointed out, but was claiming to just have a more interesting game. Suuuuure bud, you are definitely at that level.
Stubborn students like that aren't hopeless. I think it might be an issue with Knowing vs Understanding, for some people. Lots of kids have trouble learning math for the same reason. There's a reluctance to simply do what you have been told is correct when you don't understand why it is correct.
"You're not thinking about your opponent's moves, you're thinking about your own." This is an exceptionally valuable point, thanks Ben. I know if I started doing this more I would definitely get better.
Is that really a thing? I didn't do that particular mistake even as a complete beginner. I mean, how is it possible to calculate a single line without taking into account the opponent's move? I think it sounds like a bullshit analysis.
I noticed my rating hadn't increased after several months of play. I thought I was better but not on the rating. Eventually I got it to my peak and my next win would finally be a new milestone for me. In the next game I won Q for R then a few pawns. He was about to lose on time. I started counting my new rating points while draining his clock, annoyed he hadn't resigned when he mated me with 7 seconds left on his clock. I wasn't paying any attention to his moves or the game. I had moves available, it wasn't forced. Lol.
This is a point that is absolutely fundamental, even on the 2000+ level. I am close to 2200 ELO, and what I can say is that the main difference between master players (> 2300) and players below is that masters always try to understand your plan and prevent it. A 2000 player may be equally good tactically, and also know his share about openings and endgames, but very often only follow their own plan and get crushed because they overlooked the plans of the opponent. Trying to understand the plan of the opponent is vital in avoiding blunders.
They should introduce "blunder brilliancies", blunders that so deeply retarded that they deserve some form of tactical recognition! Like... "the game was equal but then i found this amazing blunder and it gave me +14! (i was playing as black)"
A great way to improve is to play moderate amount of chess. Play chess only when you are relaxed and focused. Make sure are feeling great, slept well and eaten enough food. Play only like 2-5 games a day. This way you are much less likely to make mistakes.
When I started I was750 rated, I learned openings and played around 20 games a day for a few months, got to 1200, and there I stayed for quite awhile. Now I’m doing exactly what you said in the original comment, and I’m improving again every day, thinking more, being careful, only playing when I feel good. Analysing my games properly, it’s a huge difference.
Play blitz bullet and lightning games and I gaurantee you'll never play anything but patzer chess for the rest of your life. By getting adrenalized, playing sub par compared to how well you would play in a relaxed 30 minute game. You ingrain your bad chess habits into your nervous system. This is why it took me over 20 years to finally admit that Bishops are better than Knights in most positions. If you're a young whippersnapper, you'll go a long way . Because you've got a long way to go. After playing 57 years I still study and learn the game. Stagnation is why people quit the game. I was hooked at age 5. I've got no choice. I will play chess til the day I die.
People just don't calculate much. If you try to calculate at least two moves ahead on every move you make, saying the co-ordinates aloud in your head, and constantly thinking, "if I go there what can my opponent do to me?", then you'll avoid many blunders. Of course this requires patience and a good tactical awareness so you need to practice puzzles too and stop playing Blitz chess.
I think this mainly true, but not very efficient. It is not about the number of moves calculating ahead, it is about the ideas. Most tactics revolve about a few very simple concepts - checks, hanging pieces, double attacks. Always calculate all checks, all moves that take a piece (even if they look ridiculous on first sight), all moves that set up a threat (like mate or taking a hanging piece), both from you and from the opponent. If none of them is critical, you probably already avoided all blunders. Make that a basic rule to all your moves in a classical game (in Blitz, the time is probably insufficient for that, but still at least think for a moment about all checks and takings).
The truth is hard. What Ben is saying is the real reason why we don't improve, not only at chess, but at anything. Humility, hard work with intent and focus are the only ways to improve. I improved 500 points by thinking carefully about what my opponent is trying to do at the same time as trying to find short-term plans.
The key questions of famous trainer Jacob aagaard are: 1. What is my and my opponents worst and best piece? 2. What are the tactical targets? 3. What is my opponents idea? Your own plans will naturally emerge from these questions
Yeah pretty much. But it’s far fetched to compare someone that understands pool to someone that is truly very good at it. I understand pool and am far above average comparing myself to the average human being. You would be able to tell that from how I approach my shot. But at the same time I am not even close to being as skilled as truly talented pool players. Just sayin
"If you're a class player and you play someone over 2000, you're going to blunder" ... and they call Daniel Naroditsky The Prophet because he predicted 1 bad move??? Ben knows my entire life without ever seeing any of my games :D
In my first game as a 2000 player, I was paired with a Class A player. I had White and got a good position out of the opening, but I think I was as nervous as he was. The wall chart had 2008 or something like that as my rating, but I felt like an imposter. This was in the early 90s. At some point in the middle game, I saw a "brilliant" queen sacrifice that exploited Black's weak back rank. I could put my queen on c7 where it could be taken by his queen, but my doubled rooks on the open e-file would then deliver mate in 2. Boom! I made the move confidently, and then just as I pressed the clock, I saw that my king was on h2, the diagonal from my queen to my king was wide open, and he could take my queen with check, never giving me time to mate him. I pushed the button, stood up, and tried to act nonchalant. Then I started walking around, pretending interest in the other games, but constantly sneaking glances back at my board to see what my opponent was doing. He was just staring at the board, looking lost and dejected. I suspect he was sitting there silently cursing the chess gods who had paired him with an "Expert" in the first round and not thinking about the game at all. I've done that myself. Finally, after about 5 minutes or so, I saw him reach over and stop the clock. I went back to the board while he was putting away his pieces, shook his hand and said, "Good game." I was too embarrassed to tell him what had happened, but I imagine he discovered it himself if he ever looked at the game again. So, Ben was right. My Class A opponent, playing someone over 2000, made the biggest blunder you can make in chess. He resigned in a winning position. What Ben left out was that the over 2000 player can make blunders, too. Try not to be intimidated by that rating that starts with a 2. That's easier said than done, but it's a psychological barrier you have to get past if you ever want to join the over 2000 club. And then, of course, once you're there you have to stop feeling self-conscious and unworthy of your over 2000 rating. That one's a lot easier, though.
It's so true. Sometimes you look at blunders very briefly because you think "That's such an odd, unique position, it will never happen again anyways..." No. From today on I swear - I will try to make sense of the blunders, try to understand the moves leading up to the blunder deeply, actually work so it won't happen again - not just assume it probably won't happen again... cuz "it" will. Inspirational video.
Yeah I also get that mindset from time to time, like why study a very specific unusual position that probably won't happen again? I feel this when studying endgames, I feel there is no use because the position is so extremely specific that it basically won't happen in my games, I can use my time more wisely. But maybe studying this stuff is good anyways because even if it doesn't happen in your game, you train your brain to think critically in endgames for example or in games in general. It teaches you a careful approach and a right chess mindset I'd say. Like sometimes when I study something, pretty irrelevant, I play better chess in another opening/position after just the act of studying some type of chess.
I agree. In chess as in life. I hate going back right after a painful loss and looking at it, but it’s necessary if I want to get better. My ego needs to shrink lol
After first watching this video, and some self reflection, I've come to realize that HOW you study makes a difference. Watching chess videos on TH-cam isn't helping me. It's fun, but it doesn't help me stop making mistakes.
@@Foxisfortraitors VERY TRUE. They can end up being more entertainment than actual learning. I guess the trick is to try and find a nugget of useful information and hold onto it. I'm finding principles more helpful than sigular examples.
It feels like Ben just looked at every game that I’ve ever played. Then he tore out my soul and fed it back to me in bite sized pieces. Everything he said is true though.
Well im bad at chess 1000 rating Im not considtant at all One time i would play like a fucking gm 96% acuracy vs 80% And the other i would lose in the fifth move I hate this its bullshit so frastirating
@@scoutbane1651 no i had games where neither me or my opoment had any blunders and i still managed to get insane acuracys above 90% playing like 500-1000 elo above my actual elo sometimes i have insane games like that i literally have games where i play almost perfectly down to the last move whithout the need for my oponent to blunder or make big mistakes (im a 1200)
Happens to me. I am rated 950. I have played many many games with an estimated ElO north of 1600. Not traps, games 25 moves or more. No blunders no mistakes. Two or three inaccuracies and a miss or two.
I went from 1600 to 2000+ by: Playing only a few openings. Analyzing every game I play. Practice tactics by doing at least 10 a day everyday. I have a problem with stubbornness and want to be right. Getting positive input from other players who critique without malice is a big plus. I've learned this one rule that helped greatly. NEVER HAVE HANGING, LOOSE, UNDEFENDED PIECES! And I tell myself JUST DO IT, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT I THINK DURING THE GAME! I also follow time tested theory and principles, no matter what I think during a game. When I err, its usually my headstrong inner patzer that just has to prove how right I am when I am dead wrong! The way to stay below 2000 for me was to play blitz much of the time. I've seen very few examples of artistic mind blowing combinations in blitz, bullet or lightening games. I play 960 because it makes you learn to assess each different setup.
All correct except the undefended pieces. Some undefended pieces are perfectly fine, as long as you see everything thats going to happen and dont actually hang them.
Another way to think about blunders: When you don't take advantage of your opponents blunders, it's also a blunder. Chess is like a boxing match: You have to defend your opponents punches, but you also have to land punches yourself. If you don't do that, you're in trouble. Many weaker players will only think about defending when their opponent is playing very aggressively. And they miss a lot of blunders from their opponent because of that. So now when I play chess and my opponent makes a move, the first thing I ask to myself: Do I like this move? (from his perspective)
Based on what he's saying, a tip is to do a "blunder check" before every move, ask yourself, does my move leave a piece en prise and is all of my pieces safe from tactics, in order to do the latter correctly, a serious study of tactics is needed, keep that in mind as well.
At 11:25 - "Psychologically, you don't want to know that you're not good and that you could do things to improve yourself. You just want to be told you're great and you were unlucky." No greater truth has even been spoken!
Man ranted 13 minutes and 44 seconds, without even playing one single game, and still educated us with more knowledge than tons and tons of videos of how to improve in chess. Now thats quality content! Forget those "and he sacrificed the roooooOOOOK" videos or "takes takes takes, takes takes, takes, here here, here here there there ,nah ill just castle" videos.
@Ben i spent 15 years sitting at a screen everyday ,you be surprised how unfit one can get in that time and did not know how unfit i was till i tried to get fitter ,even a walk for 45 min had me in bits and i like computers,glad to say I'm a lot fitter now and happier just don't leave it too long 🕦
I love watching this video. Ben at his best. Especially when he's eating and drinking and doesn't care about the audience. 1983 was the year I learned chess.
I went from 1900 to 2000 by not playing chess for over a year, when I came back I wasn't burned out and my mind was ready to UNLEARN what I was doing wrong.
I hired a chess coach a little over a year ago. I'm extremely happy with his training method. He tells it like it is with each of my game's. He will not sugar-coat anything. Granted he tries to preclude me from being down on myself, while approaching a huge tournament. While at the same time he reminds me not to let my progress swell my head too much. Of course as I improve, my opponents will get tougher.
This is such good advice, particularly the part where you shouldn’t say you were unlucky or that you were distracted by something, you should very objectively look at the game, see what you missed and put in a plan so you don’t do that kind of blunder again. No excuses!
I think that part of this problem is due to the popularity of fast time controls. Playing quick games is like eating tic tacs, it's hard to give it much thought. I'm 1200, checking for opposing tactics every move and playing careful takes time. I know how to do it, and I know I need to do it, but I'm simply not experienced enough to do it quickly and properly when I need to do 50+ moves in 3 minutes. The solution is not just to know not to blunder, that's the easy part, what's rough is developing a good process that is fast enough for efficient play, making it automatic. I'm probably still getting smoked by a 1400 in slow chess, but that can be improved more methodically than in fast chess.
I agree with this. Slower time controls is so much more valuable, helps people so much more. And the majority of the time should be spent on slower time control games and studying them for best improvement from my experience. I also see very few people play this. I try to get a 30+20 game on lichess and it takes so long to get a game, sometimes I think 5 minutes of wait. Few people play what most people should play to improve, so bad. That being said, there could be a small value to blitz and that is to practise your openings. You can play many more blitz games than classical and there you get a chance to practise your theory and analyse after when you went out of theory and what you should've played instead and why.
You get better at Chess when you beat and guy and he says: "Good game", and you answer to him: "No, it wasn't. We both played badly". The idea is not to hate "losing", losing is the only way to start getting better, the idea is to despise making a mistake and to never hook up on the idea that winning makes you better. Winning is a distraction on the road to perfection. The real sign of progress is making less mistakes per game. A lot of players feel that if they win, their ego is restore and they are what they think they are. In Chess, you are never good. You can feel good about being a 2000, hell, you can even feel good about being a 1000 if you like it, but the reality of the situation is that you are never good. And as long as you know that, you will do everything to stop being bad by trying to prove that your thesis of being "good" is real. And how you prove that? By finding the flaws, by investigating, doing research on your own games. Most of the times, you will find more evidence that you are not good but, little by little, you will find less and less evidence until, without even realizing, you become a better player.
What you said in the beginning is what I think when I hang a queen and my opponent doesn't take it, none of us seeing my queen is hanging. These moments I feel: we're so bad at this game and we both actually believe we're decent.
I think this is the mindset Hikaru has, I think he beat some 3000 rated player and he was pretty discouraged and disturbed after the game. Chat went: " Lol Hikaru being sad winning against a 3000 lol why?" And he said: it's not about winning though it's about my technique not being good. I think this mindset is good for improving, but I feel like it's gonna make you less happy when you win, meaning you'll maybe not like yourself so much when you finally do blunder. Always knowing you're bad is not very fun when you invest so much time to be good. I've heard depression is pretty common among chess players and this could be one reason.
@@cheesiechess3656 That's why feeling good about your particular achievements in Chess is important. You can feel good about your actual level and know you are still bad, which, don't get me wrong, is very hard to achieve, most of the time the knowledge is heavier than the feeling. Although, you will feel very happy, not always winning, but when yo do actually play really great -and sometimes even when you lose because you learn something or because you play at your best even though it wasn't enough. The hardest thing is to see your rivals as the person who will teach you the most.
@@cheesiechess3656 Its very difficult to not make mistakes. But it is the goal. I don't worry about the winning or losing so much, I worry about finding the best move for me, the best move for my opponent, and not placing my pieces where they can be taken or are not defended. I find that when I do puzzles it increases my chess vision, so I do them. And I find knowing a few openings, even if I don't know all the crazy variations helps tremendously. If, like me, you analyze all your games for making things better, you will naturally learn more about the openings you play, since it will be highly apparent when you mess up. You just can't be scared of looking for where you could do better. The post game analysis is the real test of honesty. With all this, I find I'm winning a lot more and defeating better opponents. But that ELO isn't important. It is the process of how you approach learning that gets you better in ANYTHING. My wife is trying to learn and I keep telling her one thing for her level.. check the square you are sending your piece to BEFORE you move it. And look to see if there is either 1) an obvious way; or 2) a sneaky way that your piece can be captured. If there is, don't do it. People blunder because they just don't sweat the details. But guess what, being good at chess is sweating the details.
GMs blunder too, only their 'blunders' are things like conceding a bishop pair, getting stuck with an inactive piece, running into an opponent's prep, allowing a passed pawn, ending up in a -0.5 position instead of settling for a -0.2 position, getting stuck with a tough-to-hold endgame... that sort of thing. They are the masters of nursing miniscule advantages.
SUMMARY 1. BLUNDERS See board well Check out possible opponent response with threat before moving -------------------------------------------- Hence avoid blunders. If you DO blunder: Review the game and study the nature of the mistake (what you didn't see). Try remembering the pattern (e.g. fork) and try do it to an opponent in the future 2. INSANITY Be patient and do not commit to a crazy sacrifice plan that you came up with at the beginning of the game no matter what. Play sane every move. IN ANY CASE, REVIEW YOUR GAMES AND STUDY EACH OF YOUR MISTAKES LIKE PUZZLES. ANALYTICAL THINKING + TRIAL & ERROR = ONLY RECIPE FOR IMPROVEMENT
I'm not a chess guy and don't follow anyone but I have to say, you've helped me to do much better at chess, and to enjoy the game far more than I used to, Mr. Finegold. Love your work.
I made it all the way through. Hoping to hear some valuable content. Instead I got almost 15 minutes of “if you don’t analyze every single game you play then you’ll never be as good as me.” Rawr!
Ben is right about analysing your defeats and learning from them. All of the great world champions did this. It helps to have stronger players who can explain why your move was a blunder. Positional blunders are not always obvious because sometimes dynamics might seem to matter more at the time.
thats not correct at all. i can refute that both logically and according to my experience. a lot of times you need to break your ego inorder to want to learn more. that's why losing games can be incredibly instructive. you realize you are bad, you look for why you are bad then you improve. being told you suck is that first step. otherwise you are perfect (in your imagination) and you never improve.
this is almost true, but learning about positional chess or openings can put you in positions where you are less likely to blunder. a 1000 who has most of pieces defended and a well guarded pawn center will have to work harder to throw the game than the 1000 who just develops his peices and then hopes for the best.
The problem with this at the 1000 level is that you won't blunder at move 6, but you will blunder at move 10. That increases the probability that your 1000 opponent will blunder before you, so you might get to 1100 or 1200 with it, but it does not remove the underlying problem. Most blunders come from not thinking about the opponent's checks or threats. A 1000 is like "I move my bishop and take the pawn b5 because it is hanging" and overlooks the queen coming to a5, giving check and picking up the bishop. Why? Because he never thought about the possible checks and threats. Even in Ben's example, White simply didn't think about the possible checks of Black. If he had thought about the queen checks for a moment, he would never have played axb4, as Qe5+ is obviously winning, but he didn't.
I’m trying to get better at Go, this has still really helped me. Go is a game about who makes fewer mistakes, not who makes the more brilliant moves, I am a low ranked player so I make lots of mistakes but I’m trying to learn. Thanks for the video to keep me on the right track even though I am trying to get better at Go, not Chess! It also helps to detach your game performance from your perception of yourself or your intelligence. Being better or worse at a game doesn’t increase or decrease your worth as a person. Use a growth mindset, “Yes, I am bad at the game right now. The game is hard and losing is part of the game. But I can improve eventually with hard work and using my mistakes as a guide on where and how to improve, I am the one who moves my pieces.” (in a game with no luck element like Chess or Go)
Aside from the fact that Ben is obviously very funny, I sincerely believe he is the best chess teacher i've watched online. He is veeery right about what he is stating. I can even feel him reprimanding me, telling me that I am terrible. Which I am, truth hurts.
Lower levels has lots of blundering because you don’t have an overview of the board. You don’t know/ recognize what’s going on, what your opponent tries to do, or know what it is you yourself try to do. With enough games you get the experience to recognize where you made mistakes in the past and recognize when an opponent makes a mistake to capitalize on it.
He is answering a question by describing a symptom rather than giving the cause. And the better question is why do essentially all players if they worked as hard as possible at it, still would a limit as to how high of a rating they could achieve. The answer is they are limited by their brainpower (which includes memory) to surpass that level. The answer is the same as the question "Why can't Magnus beat Alpha Zero" and the reason is that Alpha Zero has more brainpower (which includes memory).
Its actually hard to know If you're really improving, but It also depends on what timer you play, at 15m I dont make blunders and Win often, at 5m I Very often make blunders because the clock is also against me, so I struggle with "fast games"
Most people are unhappy with their progress because they are unrealistic or dishonest with themselves about their commitment to their pursuits. Most of us don't have the time, drive or skill to be as good as we want to be. Further it is good to decide whether winning or having fun are more important because a commitment to winning usually requires things that are not fun and may leech the fun out of it.
True - in my own play I focus way too much on what I want to play and not on what my opponent might play. And if an opening doesn't go according to plan I just get fed up and play recklessly.
i still rember watching your old videos from like 4 years ago, you look alot older now ^^ i hope youre healthy & happy and wish you many years more to come to teach the world about chess
This is why I'm not a big fan of those "opening trap" videos. Learning one trap , and even getting it to happen in a game, doesn't mean anything if you can't play precisely and keep an advantage without blundering.
What I heard Ben tell me is that I'm great and I'm just unlucky
I think it's even simpler than Ben is saying. I was stuck on 1200 for months on end after relatively fast growth, and I couldn't figure out how to improve. I watched videos on openings and did endless tactics every day but they never seemed to come up in games. Then I realised that when I played, I never actually thought about my moves or spent any time calculating. I simply played moves based on intuition and did a quick check to see if I lose a piece on the next move. Almost all of my wins came either from opponents blundering or by accidentally getting a winning endgame. I only had to start thinking two or three moves ahead on each move and not only did my game improve, but tactics started to become increasingly obvious. Five months later and my rating is 1650.
But what time limit were you playing when your rating went from 1200 to 1650? When you started "thinking two or three moves ahead?" were you playing blitz, rapid or classical? It's hard to think that far ahead in blitz/rapid and classical has tons of cheating.
@@DavidEmerling79 I've always played rapid -- blitz is too fast for me and I end up getting very angry at myself for playing below my level, and I've never played classical. I don't think it's difficult to think a few movees ahead in rapid. I'm not saying you should calculate 20 move variations, just thinking 3-4 moves ahead makes a big difference.
This is very helpful I think. I spent all summer climbing up to 1400 only to suddenly collapse back to the high 1200s over the last week, and am soul searching now.
@@MrAtlfan21 Don't get too upset over it. Big elo fluctuations are common in online games, since you get to play so many games daily.
I think a LOT of us low intermediate players play WAY too much blitz because it is more exciting. But blitz isn't really suited for carefully evaluating positions - certainly not for low intermediates. I do this myself constantly. I basically only play 5 min blitz, but I really should be playing at least 10 min rapid instead.
Ben really just described how people don't get better in general. Not just some competition or sport.
Wow, really good point. Obvious, in retrospect. But good.
the art of deliberate practice
It is true to JiuJitsu too
@@jitsufilms I couldn't agree more!!
I often find chess to be filled with great analogies for life. A lot of the elements that go into improving at chess apply just as well to improving in all aspects of life.
I've been at 1200 level for the longest time, and finally after listening, I am now around 1100 levels. Definitely changed me!
If I don't blunder then my opponent will be forced to. I would hate for my opponent to have a bad game. After all, chess is for gentlemen.
Thank you for your queen, again.
If I'm too predictable my opponent will mate me
Good thing Magnus wouldn't see my queen blunder on move 3 coming
:) Chess is not just about blunders, it's about the times you have leading up to the blunder
Me: Oh you blunder a queen? Here, take my queen after 3 moves.
Them: what a good sportsmanship this gentleman shows.
@@harithahariffin6274 I almost always play on after blundering the Q -- mainly to improve my play. I'm amazed at how often I get their queen. If they blunder first, I'm extra careful with my Q (tho I should be that careful to begin with).
I was "coaching" a guy who's like 1000 on lichess. He played about 10 games of 5+0 every single day for months and months and never got any better. He asked me why he wasn't getting any better and I told him exactly what Ben says. You blunder 5 times every game and it's just a coin flip if you or your 1000 rated opponent makes the blunder that gives checkmate. I told him he'd have better results if he only played 1 or 2 games a day and spent the time he took playing 8 more games to analyze the games he did play and understand what his blunders were and not to repeat those mistakes (and punish his opponents blunders).
Instead of listening to me he insisted that I show him how to "crush the QGA with 3.e4" and kept doing the exact same pattern of just playing 5 minute game after 5 minute game. I shook my head and rolled my eyes and that's the story of how I fully came to understand why Ben quit coaching chess.
Yeah i was a 1100 on lichess before and all i did was keep on playing hundreds of games and hoping to improve, i never got any result. So i changed my habit and started watching more recaps, opening thoeries, analyze my games, practice puzzles, corrected my blunders and kaboom i got to 1700 in no time
@@anthonyrobert1376 damn dood that is very inspirational, for someone who is also stuck in the 1ks, what time control should I usually play to get better?
@@SFCFiz doesnt it all depends on which time control you want to get better at? If you are aiming to get better in bullet then playing slow games will not give you a big advantage right? The tactics and ways to get better also depends on the time control, for example: one advice for rapid or classical is dont just play hundreds of games a day cuz it wont really help that much, spend more time analyzing your games and studying theories is probably the fastest way. But again, it depends on which time control you want to get better at, if you are aiming to get better in bullet then its a completely different story because theory moves are not really helpful, cuz nasty tricky moves are usually used
@@anthonyrobert1376 right, I usually play 10 mins of rapid but I feel like I overcalculate things, sometimes I ended up in a winning position but frustratingly it always ends up with my time 2 to 3 times lower than my opponents and yeah blunders and mistakes always comes in such situations bcuz i stop asking and analysing, its pressuring so I just followed my instincts and hope my quick tactics or strategy works but in most case if im unlucky, I will tend to go from absolutely winning to just holy shiz how did it go so wrong
@@SFCFiz i was the opposite of you, i often dont even calculate anything, like once i saw a good move i will play it immediately and always ends up being up a lot of time but a trrible position, but yet i often manage to flag them and win the game somehow xD
In short: Don’t make excuses and analyze why you messed up so you don’t mess up in the future. Edit: Also, the truth hurts.
Better to face the pain than remain in igorance forever.
Why does Ben suck relative to super GMs?
@@jwatson181 He didnt do his tactics.
To my dentist I say, the tooth hurts.
@@jwatson181 Because he’s not a super GM
When grishuk was asked how to be good at chess he simply said "don't blunder"
When you are homeless, buy a house.
don’t wanna die, simply say NO!
you cannot legally die without your consent!
“Don’t blunder” at his level is very very different from “don’t blunder” at mine lol
@@Nobody-df4is that’s a trash analogy bro
@@PowerK1 When you don't understand a joke, don't laugh....
I love how Ben doesn’t give a single shit about offending chess players. Brutal honesty
He's the best kind of instructor.
The truth hur-
There is something I've noticed that's deeply engrained in chess, this weird thing where everyone is a little bit of an asshole. Not nessasarily in a bad way, it's like a lot of people who are good at chess just don't quite understand pandering, or maybe consciously have a distaste for it, I don't know. Seems like the better they are the more this tends to pop up. Obviously there are nice guys in chess that's not what I mean, it's like chess players just give a little less of a shit what people think than say the average golfer or whatever.
Or eating on a vid
@@merlin4real I don't think so. I saw an interview with Magnus Carlsen (Lex Freedman). He seemed like a perfectly normal, nice guy. I had expected him to be conceited but he didn't seem that way at all. The International Master that runs Gotham Chess, Levy Rozman, is a nice guy, I think. Hikaru Nakamura is so nice he doesn't even have an asshole.
If you're looking for advice, you have to accept that some things you do will be criticized. You want honesty, not humiliation, but you need the truth. It's up to the teacher whether he or she says, that "was totally stupid," or that "was a mistake," or "you could have made a better move." As a student, I try to take the meaning to heart, not the words. But I don't like to listen to crude people if I have a choice.
I went up 200 rating points just from recognizing the fact that myself and all my opponents are considered beginner level by the pros. It means there are tons of mistakes being made, and you just have to find them, and you have to stop making them - which requires you to analyze your games after.
This video only reminds me of that further. He put 500 to 1500 in the same group. That had better teach you something, and not insult you if you're in this rating range.
I'm 1800+ and I'm part of that group.
@@michaelmcgee335 I don't follow your logic. The group is defined as 500 to 1500, so if you're 1800, you are not a part of that group...?
Or do you just mean to call yourself 'still a beginner'?
@@acsmith1771 1800’s are literally beginner level compared to GMs 2600+
@@yeeehees2973 Yeah, yeah, it's all relative. How about compared to a bell curve average?
It really comes down to not considering your opponent's moves. That's why we often see a mistake instantly after playing it. We play the move, THEN we start thinking of our opponent's move and see the mistake. You have to force yourself to consider your opponent's response to every move until it becomes automatic. I would suggest playing longer time controls until it becomes engrained.
True
True affff
Yes. To do that, I think you have to keep playing opponents who are slightly stronger than you.
I really like Ben's beginner lectures, with stuff like "Okay kids, in the opening don't move too many pawns, but instead develop your pieces." Then the kids continue to make all pawn moves, and Ben askes them why they're not developing their pieces like he told them to, to which they answer either "Yeah, yeah, I'll do that later." or "Yeah, yeah, but this is what _I_ do." The truth hurts.
"Yeah, yeah, but this is what I do." I teach beginners and I hear this all the time. The ones that continue to say that are beginners forever. No point taking their money; they are telling you that they don't want to listen.
"Yeah, yeah, but this is what I do."
_Me, a school-trained driver hearing his father justify his driving...questionable old habits?_
I've heard my friends tell me this when I tried to teach them some chess and go through what moves were best and why. That "this is what I do" line is frustrating. I even went through a game with someone who claimed they knew what the best move was every time an error was pointed out, but was claiming to just have a more interesting game. Suuuuure bud, you are definitely at that level.
@@CromulentEmbiggening I know lol it’s so annoying. Much harder to teach stubborn people and usually not worth it
Stubborn students like that aren't hopeless. I think it might be an issue with Knowing vs Understanding, for some people. Lots of kids have trouble learning math for the same reason. There's a reluctance to simply do what you have been told is correct when you don't understand why it is correct.
"You're not thinking about your opponent's moves, you're thinking about your own." This is an exceptionally valuable point, thanks Ben. I know if I started doing this more I would definitely get better.
Even GM's make that mistake.
Is that really a thing? I didn't do that particular mistake even as a complete beginner. I mean, how is it possible to calculate a single line without taking into account the opponent's move? I think it sounds like a bullshit analysis.
@@xyhmo I know I can get on autopilot with my openings and not pay as much attention to my opponent’s moves as I should.
I noticed my rating hadn't increased after several months of play. I thought I was better but not on the rating. Eventually I got it to my peak and my next win would finally be a new milestone for me. In the next game I won Q for R then a few pawns. He was about to lose on time. I started counting my new rating points while draining his clock, annoyed he hadn't resigned when he mated me with 7 seconds left on his clock. I wasn't paying any attention to his moves or the game. I had moves available, it wasn't forced. Lol.
This is a point that is absolutely fundamental, even on the 2000+ level. I am close to 2200 ELO, and what I can say is that the main difference between master players (> 2300) and players below is that masters always try to understand your plan and prevent it. A 2000 player may be equally good tactically, and also know his share about openings and endgames, but very often only follow their own plan and get crushed because they overlooked the plans of the opponent. Trying to understand the plan of the opponent is vital in avoiding blunders.
So I am NOT supposed to blunder??? But that is my highest number on game reports!
They should introduce "blunder brilliancies", blunders that so deeply retarded that they deserve some form of tactical recognition! Like... "the game was equal but then i found this amazing blunder and it gave me +14! (i was playing as black)"
A great way to improve is to play moderate amount of chess. Play chess only when you are relaxed and focused. Make sure are feeling great, slept well and eaten enough food. Play only like 2-5 games a day. This way you are much less likely to make mistakes.
Also go out to play multiple hours irl, facing stronger people over the board will improve your chess a ton
Yeah i found this out the hard way
When I started I was750 rated, I learned openings and played around 20 games a day for a few months, got to 1200, and there I stayed for quite awhile. Now I’m doing exactly what you said in the original comment, and I’m improving again every day, thinking more, being careful, only playing when I feel good. Analysing my games properly, it’s a huge difference.
I never sleep well, maybe that's the problem
Ben with the cold hard facts. Hitting this below 1500 in the gut.
Time to go blunder a few 5-3 games.
Was thinking to go play 🤣🤣
Play blitz bullet and lightning games and I gaurantee you'll never play anything but patzer chess for the rest of your life. By getting adrenalized, playing
sub par compared to how well you would play in a relaxed 30 minute game. You ingrain your bad chess habits into your nervous system. This is why it took me over 20 years to finally admit that Bishops are better than Knights in most positions. If you're a young whippersnapper, you'll go a long way . Because you've got a long way to go. After playing 57 years I still study and learn the game.
Stagnation is why people quit the game. I was hooked at age 5. I've got no choice. I will play chess til the day I die.
@@daleleisenring4275 adrenalized.. that perfectly describes my play style. Thanks for the input 👍
@@wwcj0000 I like how you seem to give no shit about advices on how to get better. Keep enjoying the game, that's why it's just a game
5 min helped me a lot.
People just don't calculate much. If you try to calculate at least two moves ahead on every move you make, saying the co-ordinates aloud in your head, and constantly thinking, "if I go there what can my opponent do to me?", then you'll avoid many blunders. Of course this requires patience and a good tactical awareness so you need to practice puzzles too and stop playing Blitz chess.
That's true, however I don't think player deficiency is one size fits all.
I think this mainly true, but not very efficient. It is not about the number of moves calculating ahead, it is about the ideas. Most tactics revolve about a few very simple concepts - checks, hanging pieces, double attacks. Always calculate all checks, all moves that take a piece (even if they look ridiculous on first sight), all moves that set up a threat (like mate or taking a hanging piece), both from you and from the opponent. If none of them is critical, you probably already avoided all blunders. Make that a basic rule to all your moves in a classical game (in Blitz, the time is probably insufficient for that, but still at least think for a moment about all checks and takings).
Ben Finegold on being Insane: “It’s hard not to be insane, because that’s the way you were brought up. “
That’s insight
"It's hard not to be insane, 'cause that's the way you were brought up".
The truth is hard. What Ben is saying is the real reason why we don't improve, not only at chess, but at anything. Humility, hard work with intent and focus are the only ways to improve.
I improved 500 points by thinking carefully about what my opponent is trying to do at the same time as trying to find short-term plans.
The key questions of famous trainer Jacob aagaard are:
1. What is my and my opponents worst and best piece?
2. What are the tactical targets?
3. What is my opponents idea?
Your own plans will naturally emerge from these questions
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 f5 4. exf5 e4 5. Qe2 Qe7 6. Bxg8 Rxg8 7. Ng1 d5 8. d3
Nd4 9. f6 gxf6 10. Qh5+ Qf7 11. Qxf7+ Kxf7 12. Kd2 Bh6+ 13. Kc3 Bxc1 14. Kxd4
Bxb2+ 15. Nc3 Bxa1 16. Nh3 Bxc3+ 17. Kxc3 Bxh3 18. gxh3 Rg2 19. dxe4 dxe4 20.
Kd4 Rxf2 21. Kxe4 Re8+ 22. Kd3 Rd8+ 23. Kc3 Rf3+ 24. Kb2 Rxh3 25. a4 Rd4 26. Ra1
Rhh4 27. a5 a6 28. c3 Ra4 29. Ra3 Rxa3 30. Kxa3 Rxh2 31. Kb4 h5 32. c4 h4 33. c5
h3 34. c6 Rc2 35. cxb7 Rb2+ 36. Kc5 Rxb7 37. Kc6 Rb5 38. Kxc7 Rxa5 39. Kb7 Rc5
40. Kxa6 Ke7 41. Kb6 Kd6 42. Kb7 Rc6 43. Ka7 Kc7 44. Ka8 Ra6# 0-1
Agreed. The moment I started paying attention is the moment I went from 500 to 1300.
As a good pool player. He's right about the pool thing. Opponent doesn't even have to hit the ball and I know what I'm up against
I’m not even a good pool player and I could tell the moment someone approach a shot whether we’re in the same league or I’m up shit creek
This is spot on. I can watch someone hold a cue and tell how good they are.
Yep. Same thing with tennis, for example.
I feel like he could've used the way someone castles in OTB chess as a more relevant analogy, but it still worked. I got the picture.
Yeah pretty much. But it’s far fetched to compare someone that understands pool to someone that is truly very good at it. I understand pool and am far above average comparing myself to the average human being. You would be able to tell that from how I approach my shot. But at the same time I am not even close to being as skilled as truly talented pool players. Just sayin
Magnus blamed his opponent wearing a watch. In that moment he was just like the rest of us.
"If you're a class player and you play someone over 2000, you're going to blunder" ... and they call Daniel Naroditsky The Prophet because he predicted 1 bad move??? Ben knows my entire life without ever seeing any of my games :D
didn't ask 😃
@@spoppyboi6427 you're "that guy" huh
@@hyunchong02 don't care, didn't ask + ratio
In my first game as a 2000 player, I was paired with a Class A player. I had White and got a good position out of the opening, but I think I was as nervous as he was. The wall chart had 2008 or something like that as my rating, but I felt like an imposter. This was in the early 90s. At some point in the middle game, I saw a "brilliant" queen sacrifice that exploited Black's weak back rank. I could put my queen on c7 where it could be taken by his queen, but my doubled rooks on the open e-file would then deliver mate in 2. Boom! I made the move confidently, and then just as I pressed the clock, I saw that my king was on h2, the diagonal from my queen to my king was wide open, and he could take my queen with check, never giving me time to mate him. I pushed the button, stood up, and tried to act nonchalant. Then I started walking around, pretending interest in the other games, but constantly sneaking glances back at my board to see what my opponent was doing. He was just staring at the board, looking lost and dejected. I suspect he was sitting there silently cursing the chess gods who had paired him with an "Expert" in the first round and not thinking about the game at all. I've done that myself. Finally, after about 5 minutes or so, I saw him reach over and stop the clock. I went back to the board while he was putting away his pieces, shook his hand and said, "Good game." I was too embarrassed to tell him what had happened, but I imagine he discovered it himself if he ever looked at the game again.
So, Ben was right. My Class A opponent, playing someone over 2000, made the biggest blunder you can make in chess. He resigned in a winning position. What Ben left out was that the over 2000 player can make blunders, too. Try not to be intimidated by that rating that starts with a 2. That's easier said than done, but it's a psychological barrier you have to get past if you ever want to join the over 2000 club. And then, of course, once you're there you have to stop feeling self-conscious and unworthy of your over 2000 rating. That one's a lot easier, though.
@@weevil601 what r u rated now?
It's so true. Sometimes you look at blunders very briefly because you think "That's such an odd, unique position, it will never happen again anyways..."
No. From today on I swear - I will try to make sense of the blunders, try to understand the moves leading up to the blunder deeply, actually work so it won't happen again - not just assume it probably won't happen again... cuz "it" will.
Inspirational video.
Yeah I also get that mindset from time to time, like why study a very specific unusual position that probably won't happen again? I feel this when studying endgames, I feel there is no use because the position is so extremely specific that it basically won't happen in my games, I can use my time more wisely. But maybe studying this stuff is good anyways because even if it doesn't happen in your game, you train your brain to think critically in endgames for example or in games in general. It teaches you a careful approach and a right chess mindset I'd say. Like sometimes when I study something, pretty irrelevant, I play better chess in another opening/position after just the act of studying some type of chess.
The truth in this video is undeniable. Need to take this mindset with me everywhere! Thanks Ben.
I agree. In chess as in life. I hate going back right after a painful loss and looking at it, but it’s necessary if I want to get better. My ego needs to shrink lol
@@Sjolden98 Thats the tricky part. I make sure I post my wins and LOSSES to keep me in check.... they do sting though lol
After first watching this video, and some self reflection, I've come to realize that HOW you study makes a difference. Watching chess videos on TH-cam isn't helping me. It's fun, but it doesn't help me stop making mistakes.
@@Foxisfortraitors VERY TRUE. They can end up being more entertainment than actual learning. I guess the trick is to try and find a nugget of useful information and hold onto it. I'm finding principles more helpful than sigular examples.
It feels like Ben just looked at every game that I’ve ever played. Then he tore out my soul and fed it back to me in bite sized pieces.
Everything he said is true though.
😋
6:01 "You make blunders every game. You've never played a game without a blunder in your life"
This just leaves me rolling everytime
Well im bad at chess 1000 rating
Im not considtant at all
One time i would play like a fucking gm 96% acuracy vs 80%
And the other i would lose in the fifth move
I hate this its bullshit so frastirating
@@zisischartampilas6601When your opponent blundered a bishop on move 6 it isn't hard to get 96% 💀
@@scoutbane1651 no
i had games where neither me or my opoment had any blunders and i still managed to get insane acuracys above 90%
playing like 500-1000 elo above my actual elo sometimes i have insane games like that i literally have games where i play almost perfectly down to the last move whithout the need for my oponent to blunder or make big mistakes
(im a 1200)
Happens to me. I am rated 950. I have played many many games with an estimated ElO north of 1600. Not traps, games 25 moves or more. No blunders no mistakes. Two or three inaccuracies and a miss or two.
@@zisischartampilas6601 its just luck, not the result of calculation, so it doesnt really matter
I went from 1600 to 2000+ by:
Playing only a few openings.
Analyzing every game I play.
Practice tactics by doing at least 10 a day everyday.
I have a problem with stubbornness and want to be right. Getting positive input from other players who critique without malice
is a big plus.
I've learned this one rule that helped greatly. NEVER HAVE HANGING, LOOSE, UNDEFENDED PIECES! And I tell myself JUST DO IT, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT I THINK DURING THE GAME!
I also follow time tested theory and principles, no matter what I think during a game. When I err, its usually my headstrong inner patzer that just has to prove how right I am when I am dead wrong!
The way to stay below 2000 for me was to play blitz much of the time. I've seen very few examples of artistic mind blowing combinations in blitz, bullet or lightening games.
I play 960 because it makes you learn to assess each different setup.
All correct except the undefended pieces. Some undefended pieces are perfectly fine, as long as you see everything thats going to happen and dont actually hang them.
2000 is a brutal acomplishment for an amateur.
6:30 best advice of the whole entire video.
So the fix is: dont blunder. Good, I went confidently into my next game and blundered a piece at move 7.
Ben also said: Analyze why you blundered and avoid the blunder next time.
Everybody blunders... just that at higher ratings, it takes ten or twenty moves for the opponent to capitalize on it.
Ben: Bad players will make bad moves.
Suspicious audience (frankly terrible): *intense moment of enlightenment*
Legit feel like I got roasted for 10 mins straight loved every second of it lmao
Another way to think about blunders: When you don't take advantage of your opponents blunders, it's also a blunder. Chess is like a boxing match: You have to defend your opponents punches, but you also have to land punches yourself. If you don't do that, you're in trouble. Many weaker players will only think about defending when their opponent is playing very aggressively. And they miss a lot of blunders from their opponent because of that. So now when I play chess and my opponent makes a move, the first thing I ask to myself: Do I like this move? (from his perspective)
This pretty much works in everything in life, it's a universal truth
How to get better:
1. Study tactics.
2. Analyze your blunders.
3. Don't blunder anymore.
I felt both hurt and inspired by this in the best way. I now have a new outlook on chess improvement and improvement in general. Thanks Ben.
0:55 wtf man that wasn't a bite, that was arnold yelling nom, but I suppose you're right about the chess part
Based on what he's saying, a tip is to do a "blunder check" before every move, ask yourself, does my move leave a piece en prise and is all of my pieces safe from tactics, in order to do the latter correctly, a serious study of tactics is needed, keep that in mind as well.
At 11:25 - "Psychologically, you don't want to know that you're not good and that you could do things to improve yourself. You just want to be told you're great and you were unlucky." No greater truth has even been spoken!
I like how high minded Ben gets and then goes "NNNNNUM!"
LMAOOOO
Man ranted 13 minutes and 44 seconds, without even playing one single game, and still educated us with more knowledge than tons and tons of videos of how to improve in chess. Now thats quality content!
Forget those "and he sacrificed the roooooOOOOK" videos or "takes takes takes, takes takes, takes, here here, here here there there ,nah ill just castle" videos.
you forget the continous chomping and the arrogance 🙂
This feels so weird, but I love how blunt he is for some reason. I'd definitely hire him as a coach if I could afford to do so.
@Ben i spent 15 years sitting at a screen everyday ,you be surprised how unfit one can get in that time and did not know how unfit i was till i tried to get fitter ,even a walk for 45 min had me in bits and i like computers,glad to say I'm a lot fitter now and happier just don't leave it too long 🕦
Good luck!
Thank you to Karen for taking longer than 5 minutes to return, so we could receive these these pearls of wisdom.
Good advice no matter what: learn from you mistakes, correct your mistakes, keep trying.
I love watching this video. Ben at his best. Especially when he's eating and drinking and doesn't care about the audience. 1983 was the year I learned chess.
I went from 1900 to 2000 by not playing chess for over a year, when I came back I wasn't burned out and my mind was ready to UNLEARN what I was doing wrong.
“Don’t be so hard to chew”. Why didn’t I think of that!?
I hired a chess coach a little over a year ago.
I'm extremely happy with his training method.
He tells it like it is with each of my game's. He will not sugar-coat anything.
Granted he tries to preclude me from being down on myself, while approaching a huge tournament.
While at the same time he reminds me not to let my progress swell my head too much. Of course as I improve, my opponents will get tougher.
Ben is so right. I am new to chess but I strive to raise my accuracy in every game. When I hit 70%, I am making progress.
"It's hard not to be insane, cause that's how you were brought up"
Damn, deep.
"You think this is abuse? If you think this is abuse, how can you take the abuse you get in a game?" -- Glengarry Glen Ross Grandmaster Speech
Then there's the opposite, when you make a great move and don't realize how great it was until a few moves later
"My best games are great, my terrible games are terrible, and my average games used to be okay and now they're suspicious." XD
After watching the first 1/2 of this video, I'm pretty sure I'm cured. I'm definitely going to stop hanging my queen every game.
Just hung my bishop.
That's a lot better
This is such good advice, particularly the part where you shouldn’t say you were unlucky or that you were distracted by something, you should very objectively look at the game, see what you missed and put in a plan so you don’t do that kind of blunder again. No excuses!
It's great advice because you later learnt that this applies to real life too, and not just chess, or poker, or any game for that matter.
@@danielyuan9862yeah it's literally just good mindset
I think that part of this problem is due to the popularity of fast time controls. Playing quick games is like eating tic tacs, it's hard to give it much thought.
I'm 1200, checking for opposing tactics every move and playing careful takes time. I know how to do it, and I know I need to do it, but I'm simply not experienced enough to do it quickly and properly when I need to do 50+ moves in 3 minutes. The solution is not just to know not to blunder, that's the easy part, what's rough is developing a good process that is fast enough for efficient play, making it automatic.
I'm probably still getting smoked by a 1400 in slow chess, but that can be improved more methodically than in fast chess.
The solution to your problem here is that you spend time to analyse the game after it's over, then remember what you did wrong.
I agree with this. Slower time controls is so much more valuable, helps people so much more. And the majority of the time should be spent on slower time control games and studying them for best improvement from my experience. I also see very few people play this. I try to get a 30+20 game on lichess and it takes so long to get a game, sometimes I think 5 minutes of wait. Few people play what most people should play to improve, so bad. That being said, there could be a small value to blitz and that is to practise your openings. You can play many more blitz games than classical and there you get a chance to practise your theory and analyse after when you went out of theory and what you should've played instead and why.
@@cheesiechess3656 lichess has 20+10 arenas every Friday. That's the best time to play slow games on there.
I love how straight to the crux of the problem this advice is, thanks, I'm a blunderer, exactly as you have portrayed.
People just don't have patience. You need to really love chess to get good.
I'm a bad player because I like chess more than I like playing chess, and I like playing chess more than I like learning chess.
You get better at Chess when you beat and guy and he says: "Good game", and you answer to him: "No, it wasn't. We both played badly". The idea is not to hate "losing", losing is the only way to start getting better, the idea is to despise making a mistake and to never hook up on the idea that winning makes you better. Winning is a distraction on the road to perfection. The real sign of progress is making less mistakes per game. A lot of players feel that if they win, their ego is restore and they are what they think they are. In Chess, you are never good. You can feel good about being a 2000, hell, you can even feel good about being a 1000 if you like it, but the reality of the situation is that you are never good. And as long as you know that, you will do everything to stop being bad by trying to prove that your thesis of being "good" is real. And how you prove that? By finding the flaws, by investigating, doing research on your own games. Most of the times, you will find more evidence that you are not good but, little by little, you will find less and less evidence until, without even realizing, you become a better player.
Sigma grindrillionaire chess gm grindset winning is only a distraction lmfao
What you said in the beginning is what I think when I hang a queen and my opponent doesn't take it, none of us seeing my queen is hanging. These moments I feel: we're so bad at this game and we both actually believe we're decent.
I think this is the mindset Hikaru has, I think he beat some 3000 rated player and he was pretty discouraged and disturbed after the game. Chat went: " Lol Hikaru being sad winning against a 3000 lol why?" And he said: it's not about winning though it's about my technique not being good.
I think this mindset is good for improving, but I feel like it's gonna make you less happy when you win, meaning you'll maybe not like yourself so much when you finally do blunder. Always knowing you're bad is not very fun when you invest so much time to be good. I've heard depression is pretty common among chess players and this could be one reason.
@@cheesiechess3656 That's why feeling good about your particular achievements in Chess is important. You can feel good about your actual level and know you are still bad, which, don't get me wrong, is very hard to achieve, most of the time the knowledge is heavier than the feeling. Although, you will feel very happy, not always winning, but when yo do actually play really great -and sometimes even when you lose because you learn something or because you play at your best even though it wasn't enough. The hardest thing is to see your rivals as the person who will teach you the most.
@@cheesiechess3656 Its very difficult to not make mistakes. But it is the goal. I don't worry about the winning or losing so much, I worry about finding the best move for me, the best move for my opponent, and not placing my pieces where they can be taken or are not defended.
I find that when I do puzzles it increases my chess vision, so I do them. And I find knowing a few openings, even if I don't know all the crazy variations helps tremendously. If, like me, you analyze all your games for making things better, you will naturally learn more about the openings you play, since it will be highly apparent when you mess up. You just can't be scared of looking for where you could do better. The post game analysis is the real test of honesty.
With all this, I find I'm winning a lot more and defeating better opponents. But that ELO isn't important. It is the process of how you approach learning that gets you better in ANYTHING. My wife is trying to learn and I keep telling her one thing for her level.. check the square you are sending your piece to BEFORE you move it. And look to see if there is either 1) an obvious way; or 2) a sneaky way that your piece can be captured. If there is, don't do it. People blunder because they just don't sweat the details. But guess what, being good at chess is sweating the details.
11:21 “my dog ate my chessboard”, I swear twitch chat is fucking hilarious
"Stop being so, you know, hard to chew"
How to get better at chess according to grandmasters
The takeaway message is: "good players always do the same thing and bad players just randomly random". So wise.😅
@@josephpchajek2685 He literally said what I posted.
I made it 1:15 before the smacking of the lips drove me away.
GMs blunder too, only their 'blunders' are things like conceding a bishop pair, getting stuck with an inactive piece, running into an opponent's prep, allowing a passed pawn, ending up in a -0.5 position instead of settling for a -0.2 position, getting stuck with a tough-to-hold endgame... that sort of thing. They are the masters of nursing miniscule advantages.
SUMMARY
1. BLUNDERS
See board well
Check out possible opponent response with threat before moving
--------------------------------------------
Hence avoid blunders. If you DO blunder:
Review the game and study the nature of the mistake (what you didn't see). Try remembering the pattern (e.g. fork) and try do it to an opponent in the future
2. INSANITY
Be patient and do not commit to a crazy sacrifice plan that you came up with at the beginning of the game no matter what. Play sane every move.
IN ANY CASE, REVIEW YOUR GAMES AND STUDY EACH OF YOUR MISTAKES LIKE PUZZLES.
ANALYTICAL THINKING + TRIAL & ERROR = ONLY RECIPE FOR IMPROVEMENT
I'm not a chess guy and don't follow anyone but I have to say, you've helped me to do much better at chess, and to enjoy the game far more than I used to, Mr. Finegold. Love your work.
Marginally watchable. Marginally.
Very suspicious.
I agree, might have something to do with how he's stuffing his face the first 3 minutes or so.
I made it all the way through. Hoping to hear some valuable content. Instead I got almost 15 minutes of “if you don’t analyze every single game you play then you’ll never be as good as me.” Rawr!
Nothing substantial here. “Analyze your games”… gawrsh, why didn’t I didn’t think of that?
im seeing this years later thank you daddy it helped me a lot
I know this is chess advice but this seems applicable to many things.
It is
Ben is right about analysing your defeats and learning from them.
All of the great world champions did this.
It helps to have stronger players who can explain why your move was a blunder.
Positional blunders are not always obvious because sometimes dynamics might seem to matter more at the time.
Fact: Nobody ever got better by being put down. Telling people they suck will never help them to do anything but suck.
thats not correct at all. i can refute that both logically and according to my experience. a lot of times you need to break your ego inorder to want to learn more. that's why losing games can be incredibly instructive. you realize you are bad, you look for why you are bad then you improve. being told you suck is that first step. otherwise you are perfect (in your imagination) and you never improve.
this is almost true, but learning about positional chess or openings can put you in positions where you are less likely to blunder. a 1000 who has most of pieces defended and a well guarded pawn center will have to work harder to throw the game than the 1000 who just develops his peices and then hopes for the best.
At 1000 rapid openings go out the window very quicky
@@tylermccann6187 but opening principles don’t. Tamro mentioned principles not openings
The problem with this at the 1000 level is that you won't blunder at move 6, but you will blunder at move 10. That increases the probability that your 1000 opponent will blunder before you, so you might get to 1100 or 1200 with it, but it does not remove the underlying problem. Most blunders come from not thinking about the opponent's checks or threats. A 1000 is like "I move my bishop and take the pawn b5 because it is hanging" and overlooks the queen coming to a5, giving check and picking up the bishop. Why? Because he never thought about the possible checks and threats. Even in Ben's example, White simply didn't think about the possible checks of Black. If he had thought about the queen checks for a moment, he would never have played axb4, as Qe5+ is obviously winning, but he didn't.
Who ever advocated for "hoping for the best"? What a lazy strawman
I love the realness. 100% Correct
A good joke when you lose a chess game is to say, 'There is too much luck in chess'.
I’m trying to get better at Go, this has still really helped me. Go is a game about who makes fewer mistakes, not who makes the more brilliant moves, I am a low ranked player so I make lots of mistakes but I’m trying to learn. Thanks for the video to keep me on the right track even though I am trying to get better at Go, not Chess!
It also helps to detach your game performance from your perception of yourself or your intelligence. Being better or worse at a game doesn’t increase or decrease your worth as a person. Use a growth mindset, “Yes, I am bad at the game right now. The game is hard and losing is part of the game. But I can improve eventually with hard work and using my mistakes as a guide on where and how to improve, I am the one who moves my pieces.” (in a game with no luck element like Chess or Go)
0:56 I didn't know 7-11 sold Big Gulps of Pepto Bismol.
Aside from the fact that Ben is obviously very funny, I sincerely believe he is the best chess teacher i've watched online. He is veeery right about what he is stating. I can even feel him reprimanding me, telling me that I am terrible. Which I am, truth hurts.
Lower levels has lots of blundering because you don’t have an overview of the board. You don’t know/ recognize what’s going on, what your opponent tries to do, or know what it is you yourself try to do. With enough games you get the experience to recognize where you made mistakes in the past and recognize when an opponent makes a mistake to capitalize on it.
He is answering a question by describing a symptom rather than giving the cause. And the better question is why do essentially all players if they worked as hard as possible at it, still would a limit as to how high of a rating they could achieve. The answer is they are limited by their brainpower (which includes memory) to surpass that level. The answer is the same as the question "Why can't Magnus beat Alpha Zero" and the reason is that Alpha Zero has more brainpower (which includes memory).
Its actually hard to know If you're really improving, but It also depends on what timer you play, at 15m I dont make blunders and Win often, at 5m I Very often make blunders because the clock is also against me, so I struggle with "fast games"
In summary, you need a feedback loop.
Ben, you are a treasure of the chess world.
I love how in this serious discussion of why I’m ass at chess every once in a while Ben takes a drink and goes “NOM”
Bummer. A serious dose of reality.
Great. A serious dose of reality.
Actually, this truth goes for life, too.
I have watched 3 minutes, and so far he has said "People don't get better at chess because they stay bad at chess"
"Eat like a grandmaster"
And drink like a GM
Most people are unhappy with their progress because they are unrealistic or dishonest with themselves about their commitment to their pursuits. Most of us don't have the time, drive or skill to be as good as we want to be. Further it is good to decide whether winning or having fun are more important because a commitment to winning usually requires things that are not fun and may leech the fun out of it.
Gm Ben, I believe your answer might always be pie.
Unless the answer is fries.
True - in my own play I focus way too much on what I want to play and not on what my opponent might play. And if an opening doesn't go according to plan I just get fed up and play recklessly.
At least you're not like the "want to get better at chess? just buy my course for 500$" type of youtuber
This is the best chess advice I've ever received
thanks for the honesty Big Ben! You got me back on my puzzle grind.
yo, year later. I went from 1300 to 1600. This video was a great reality check. 1700 here we come.
cant believe someone asked "is it ok to sac a piece if you've calculated everything out and it definitely wins?".. u have to ask a grandmaster this?
Ben is hilarious the annunciated eating sound he made at 0:55 had me rolling 😭😂😂
This applies to every game too not just chess
I don’t know how I’m a fan of someone who is so damn pretentious but I am
i still rember watching your old videos from like 4 years ago, you look alot older now ^^ i hope youre healthy & happy and wish you many years more to come to teach the world about chess
This is why I'm not a big fan of those "opening trap" videos. Learning one trap , and even getting it to happen in a game, doesn't mean anything if you can't play precisely and keep an advantage without blundering.