If any of Ms. Krush's students happen to read these comments, thank you for agreeing to have your games analyzed for us. It's probably unnerving to see your own inaccuracies put under a microscope, but it's a valuable learning experience for many viewers.
I remember what Josh Waitzkin said in the Chessmaster academy: Generally you should trade pieces when, first, you're ahead in material, second, you have spatial disadvantage, third, an exchange will make one your surviving pieces more powerful, and fourth, you'll be getting rid of a very powerful piece of the opponent. What I gathered from this video and Irina's explanation has re-enforced this general guide still more; although, as a lower rated player I can certainly see why peeps do this. It's hard to do nothing or just improve the position. You either think attacking is just going forward or keeping tension and improving position is too nerve-racking.
Honestly below 1500 I feel like knights might actually be better than bishops because they're harder to predict and forks are going to happen. Bishops are fantastic, but learning how to coordinate them effectively takes a little bit of time. Whereas you can destroy a low-rated player by just hopping one knight about randomly :) Obviously this would not be good for your chess long term, but it is definitely a thing. I lost a lot of games early on trying to preserve my two bishops before being forked to death.
@RaniaIsAwesomeIt's not blasphemy, it's just wrong something like 75-80 percent of the time. As everything, it depends upon the position. But knights usually aren't as good.
@@Aldric524 While it may be technically wrong, I think the point being made is that for practicality's sake, many players won't realize why that is wrong anyway, so despite the technique being technically wrong, it is still effective considering that many players are unaware of why bishops would be better in most positions. It's the idea that even if something isn't the most ideal way of doing something, it can still be fine to do something a certain way if you know your opponent won't likely catch on anyway. For example with openings, if you want to determine if the King's Gambit is a good opening to use in your play, this can depend on who you're playing. At the club level, it can be a quite effective opening to throw people off and get some good wins in. At the GM level, it's not so good because Black doesn't generally have a tough time equalizing White according to analysis for the King's Gambit. But since most people don't play at the GM level, for practicality's sake, it's fine to play this opening despite it not being one of the most theoretically solid openings one could play.
This talk about appreciating the bishops and being aware of the change of the nature of the game when exchanging queens and entering an endgame... much appreciated for chess but also for life! Thanks again😊
In the last example though, the position is closed, and the general rule of thumb was that in closed positions, knights are better than bishops, right?
Great lesson! Lately, I've been over-protective of my bishops, leading sometimes to worse positions. Would love to understand when giving up the bishop pair in the early opening is actually recommended.
You're an icon for American chess and women especially, so thank you for that. We have been watching your videos and my young girls are enjoying their own chess journey because of people like you, so keep it coming, Queen.
Finally able to sit a watch your channel Irina. Bishop vs Knight. Knight are hardest to spot until it’s too late. But, I understand evaluate the position before taking pieces. Queen taking Queen is a good example. Always enjoyable to watch.
It's understandable people getting confused about B v N value, when so many openings have B taking N on f3 and c3. Maybe you could talk of the merits of those decisions. Cheers
You make a great point. For example, the Nimzo-Indian Defense is an excellent opening, but Black often trades his bishop for the knight on c3 quite early. Another opening where a bishop-for-knight trade occurs is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bxf6 Bxf6, which was played by Karpov and Kasparov (each from both sides) in multiple games in their world championship matches. I realize this video is about principles for lower-rated players, but we can still try to understand why great players make certain decisions.
@@Jim_Henderson Thanks for that opening .Put it into Chessify and it led me to a video on ChessNetwork where Jerry gives an excellent analysis of a Karpov, Kasparov 1984 championship game. Maybe you've already seen it . Well worth a look if you haven't already. All the best, Greg Auert aka Peace_in1move
But you have to remember that the opponent is also U1500... You are analysing it from the wrong perspective. When their king is under attack, they are far more likely to make costly mistakes. The U1000 that pushed the pawn would not have thought 'the trade is not beneficial in the long run', they probably didn't even notice it... As you can see by their 2nd move, having no idea about the follow up...
I like your explanations. And I would say computer evaluation is important if somebody can play the next 10-15 moves as a chess engine. As humans I think we need plans and our moves have to be intuitive according to our plans and chess principles.
I love my knights! They are like the ninjas of the chess board. They can attack without being attacked. You never know where they're going to turn up next! Bishops are powerful but predictable and work best only in tandem. Yes knights are short-range weapons and a single pawn can block them from advancing. In a cramped constipated static game like the last one, to break the position open you may have to trade. I try to pick up a pawn as by-catch. The lesson I took from this video is not to trade for the sake of trading but to improve the position. Thank you.
Excellent stuff. Love this kind of content. There's not much in the way of middlegame analysis for U1500 on TH-cam. A great way to stand out from all the other content out there. Would love to see lessons on how to determine where to make pawn breaks and pawn structures.
Yup. Good advice. Comparing the activity or potential activity of a piece to the targeted piece should always be considered if one has a choice. (I talk too much smack for someone who can't make/keep 1800 on Lichess.)
The analogy that seems to have settled in my head is that looking to exchange pieces is a lot like looking to spend money, and you're trying to maximize your profit with every move. I spent a couple hours thinking about and pausing different parts of the video, and this is the general idea that's settled with me. There's only so far you can get if you're just looking to "spend, spend, spend".
Great video and examples as always! I've seen a couple of comments saying something like, "yes, but knights are better than bishops for lower-rated players." To me, this is false. There's no such concept as "better for lower-rated players" or "better for higher-rated players." If it's good for a GM like Irina Krush, then it's good for you. Chess is objective. It's important to get the fundamentals of chess correct from the beginning. Don't create bad habits. Learning chess isn't about getting good blitz results against 1200-rated players. If a lower-rated player drops pieces because of knight forks, then the solution is to play slower games and get in the habit of seeing your opponents' moves, not to start favoring knights over bishops. Try to understand why bishops are usually a little better than knights. Try to understand the power of the bishop pair. It's hard but keep studying.
irina krushing with the bishops, thanks for the lesson. always appreciated! (a tip, production wise: the audio seems quite low quality in this video, not sure why. investing in a microphone would probably be worth it)
It comes down to controlling squares. A knight can potentially control four squares which means your opponent can't use them. A bishop in the middle of the board could potentially control fourteen. So they can exert an influence over more of the chessboard. One example would be an endgame where one person has a knight and their opponent has a bishop. The knight has to take several hops to get from one side of the board to the other. A bishop can do that in one move. Imagine putting both bishops side by side. That cuts off an incredible chunk of the board that your opponent can't move pieces into. There are exceptions to the bishops being better rule. For example in a closed position where everything is locked up the knight's ability to hop over things becomes incredibly good. Your bishop might be stuck behind pawns. I do think knights are better than bishops at lower ratings though. They are hard to predict and a lot of games end badly because you missed the fact they could fork your pieces. Bishops can be tricky to coordinate. But if you learn how it will be better for your chess long term, once you learn to spot the tricks that knights are capable of. So if I was 900 and I was playing other 900 rated players I might keep my knights because a 900 player fears them more than any other piece. Every chess player has ptsd from mean horsies. Hope that helps.
I think it's probably better for players at that level to study tactics and fundamental endgames. Opening choice is a matter of taste, and probably any "mainstream" opening (e.g., any opening played in a world championship match in the last hundred years) would be a fine option.
If any of Ms. Krush's students happen to read these comments, thank you for agreeing to have your games analyzed for us. It's probably unnerving to see your own inaccuracies put under a microscope, but it's a valuable learning experience for many viewers.
Earlier today, I forgot that I've seen Irina B/4. These are very "welcome" vids. I like Her style!
I remember what Josh Waitzkin said in the Chessmaster academy:
Generally you should trade pieces when, first, you're ahead in material, second, you have spatial disadvantage, third, an exchange will make one your surviving pieces more powerful, and fourth, you'll be getting rid of a very powerful piece of the opponent.
What I gathered from this video and Irina's explanation has re-enforced this general guide still more; although, as a lower rated player I can certainly see why peeps do this. It's hard to do nothing or just improve the position. You either think attacking is just going forward or keeping tension and improving position is too nerve-racking.
You got 3/4 correct. When you have space advantage, don't trade pieces, that will make it easier for your opponent.
@@davidshosho1173 said spactial disadvantage not advantage
@@davidshosho1173 he said the same if you re-read
@@jimjohnson5291 2480
@@jimjohnson5291
2400 something. Higher than levy's. Lol.
Honestly below 1500 I feel like knights might actually be better than bishops because they're harder to predict and forks are going to happen. Bishops are fantastic, but learning how to coordinate them effectively takes a little bit of time. Whereas you can destroy a low-rated player by just hopping one knight about randomly :)
Obviously this would not be good for your chess long term, but it is definitely a thing. I lost a lot of games early on trying to preserve my two bishops before being forked to death.
@RaniaIsAwesomeIt's not blasphemy, it's just wrong something like 75-80 percent of the time. As everything, it depends upon the position. But knights usually aren't as good.
@@Aldric524
While it may be technically wrong, I think the point being made is that for practicality's sake, many players won't realize why that is wrong anyway, so despite the technique being technically wrong, it is still effective considering that many players are unaware of why bishops would be better in most positions.
It's the idea that even if something isn't the most ideal way of doing something, it can still be fine to do something a certain way if you know your opponent won't likely catch on anyway.
For example with openings, if you want to determine if the King's Gambit is a good opening to use in your play, this can depend on who you're playing. At the club level, it can be a quite effective opening to throw people off and get some good wins in. At the GM level, it's not so good because Black doesn't generally have a tough time equalizing White according to analysis for the King's Gambit. But since most people don't play at the GM level, for practicality's sake, it's fine to play this opening despite it not being one of the most theoretically solid openings one could play.
You speak well and are easy to listen to. Thanks for the lesson!
Please keep making instructional content. You’re the best!!
Thanks for the lesson, it's always a good idea to master the basics first and keep them in mind even afterwards.
thanks for continuing the beginner series!
You've really made me reevaluate my assumption of double pawn weakness, particularly with the value versus an active bishop
In the last position I would have played Bxf5 without much thought. Now I'll think twice about such things.
Same, I reach that position a lot in the French with white and almost always snap the knight off 😂 This gave me a lot of perspective
Great video. I really like the way you explain these concepts, very accessible. Also this thumbnail is such a great pic of you! Really cool photo.
I will definitely respect the Bishop pair. Thank you Irina
Thank you for good explanations. Many chess players don't know how to explain chess without starting to play instead
my favorite channel about chess, always good to listen to irina 😺
This talk about appreciating the bishops and being aware of the change of the nature of the game when exchanging queens and entering an endgame... much appreciated for chess but also for life!
Thanks again😊
That was a really instructive lesson. Thank you for sharing it.
In the last example though, the position is closed, and the general rule of thumb was that in closed positions, knights are better than bishops, right?
You r best teacher , very easy, simple approach to learn from you, thanks 🎉❤
I will be more careful with my bishops! Thank you.
Great lesson! Lately, I've been over-protective of my bishops, leading sometimes to worse positions. Would love to understand when giving up the bishop pair in the early opening is actually recommended.
Really helpful stuff for someone just learning (me) and wanting to get off in the right foot.
Very instructive. Thanks Mrs Krush!
Your channel is underrated af
❤
You're an icon for American chess and women especially, so thank you for that. We have been watching your videos and my young girls are enjoying their own chess journey because of people like you, so keep it coming, Queen.
Finally able to sit a watch your channel Irina. Bishop vs Knight. Knight are hardest to spot until it’s too late. But, I understand evaluate the position before taking pieces. Queen taking Queen is a good example. Always enjoyable to watch.
Conclusion: love bishops!
Need to get these videos liked and subscribed more. This content is excellent and needs to be encouraged. No bot!
Love your videos, some of the most insightful chess content rn
The Best teacher in the world is one who realizes the weaknesses of his students n converts it into his strength. Irin Krush falls in such category.
Can you analyze the game u played Magnus at the Pro Chess League?
Awesome explanation thanks alot
Plz can you make a full serie about improving at 1500 elo level
It's understandable people getting confused about B v N value, when so many openings have B taking N on f3 and c3.
Maybe you could talk of the merits of those decisions. Cheers
You make a great point. For example, the Nimzo-Indian Defense is an excellent opening, but Black often trades his bishop for the knight on c3 quite early. Another opening where a bishop-for-knight trade occurs is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bxf6 Bxf6, which was played by Karpov and Kasparov (each from both sides) in multiple games in their world championship matches. I realize this video is about principles for lower-rated players, but we can still try to understand why great players make certain decisions.
@@Jim_Henderson
Thanks for that opening .Put it into Chessify and it led me to a video on ChessNetwork where Jerry gives an excellent analysis of a Karpov, Kasparov 1984 championship game. Maybe you've already seen it . Well worth a look if you haven't already. All the best, Greg Auert aka Peace_in1move
But you have to remember that the opponent is also U1500... You are analysing it from the wrong perspective. When their king is under attack, they are far more likely to make costly mistakes. The U1000 that pushed the pawn would not have thought 'the trade is not beneficial in the long run', they probably didn't even notice it... As you can see by their 2nd move, having no idea about the follow up...
GreatVideosKeepEmComing.
Thank you for another gem
I like your explanations.
And I would say computer evaluation is important if somebody can play the next 10-15 moves as a chess engine. As humans I think we need plans and our moves have to be intuitive according to our plans and chess principles.
When and what to trade is an important strategy even at GM level
Amazing teacher thank you 🙏🏽
I’d love to be your student. Your smooth voice, beautiful smile and deep gaze would be very motivating, but I’m not sure if I could focus on chess…
I love my knights! They are like the ninjas of the chess board. They can attack without being attacked. You never know where they're going to turn up next! Bishops are powerful but predictable and work best only in tandem. Yes knights are short-range weapons and a single pawn can block them from advancing. In a cramped constipated static game like the last one, to break the position open you may have to trade. I try to pick up a pawn as by-catch. The lesson I took from this video is not to trade for the sake of trading but to improve the position. Thank you.
Great advice!
thank you for the valuable insights.
Above all you are definetnly world chair champion
Very helpful advice/instruction. Thanks
Please make videos for 200 level players.
Brain and beauty;Dangerous; love
Thank you...!
Nice!!!!
More beginner vids!
🎉
thank you very useful
The face I made at 5:50 😫
Hey Irina, I just want to tell that you are beautiful natural looking.
!!
!!! !!! !!!
I love Bishops ! Bishops are like the filet mignon of my life 😊
Excellent teacher
Appreciate the bishops!!
Excellent stuff. Love this kind of content. There's not much in the way of middlegame analysis for U1500 on TH-cam. A great way to stand out from all the other content out there. Would love to see lessons on how to determine where to make pawn breaks and pawn structures.
“rated definitely under 1000” oof
Marvelous. Another brick in the wall .Great fundamentals to play by. Thanks
Yup. Good advice. Comparing the activity or potential activity of a piece to the targeted piece should always be considered if one has a choice. (I talk too much smack for someone who can't make/keep 1800 on Lichess.)
After watching this video, my first thought was to pick up my bishops and apologize for the cheap way I’ve been treating them😂 Great video!
The analogy that seems to have settled in my head is that looking to exchange pieces is a lot like looking to spend money, and you're trying to maximize your profit with every move.
I spent a couple hours thinking about and pausing different parts of the video, and this is the general idea that's settled with me.
There's only so far you can get if you're just looking to "spend, spend, spend".
If you are beginner don't be a goldfish and follow stockfish. Got it. :)
I like what you intelligently say, but wish you would have shown the better moves in your example situations.
Great video and examples as always! I've seen a couple of comments saying something like, "yes, but knights are better than bishops for lower-rated players." To me, this is false. There's no such concept as "better for lower-rated players" or "better for higher-rated players." If it's good for a GM like Irina Krush, then it's good for you. Chess is objective. It's important to get the fundamentals of chess correct from the beginning. Don't create bad habits. Learning chess isn't about getting good blitz results against 1200-rated players. If a lower-rated player drops pieces because of knight forks, then the solution is to play slower games and get in the habit of seeing your opponents' moves, not to start favoring knights over bishops. Try to understand why bishops are usually a little better than knights. Try to understand the power of the bishop pair. It's hard but keep studying.
I assume they make these tradeoffs because they see that they are weakening the opponent's pawn structure and not seeing their own strengths
well, maybe Irina is too religious 🤷🏼♂️
shout out to jerry seinfeld for the game
irina krushing with the bishops, thanks for the lesson. always appreciated!
(a tip, production wise: the audio seems quite low quality in this video, not sure why. investing in a microphone would probably be worth it)
Doesnt the castle at 3:19 give black a free pawn?
Thank you! You should do a chessable course.
Very nice explanation of piece trades
Hey Irina, just want to thank you for opening youtube channel and making these super instructive videos! You deserve more subscribers and viewers!
I really like this videos where ideas aren't so clear going into the end game.
I love your advices!
Chess is waste of time !
Thank you
Dear Irina - This was a very clear and instructive video. Would it be possible to do a video on why bishops are superior to knights, with examples?
It comes down to controlling squares. A knight can potentially control four squares which means your opponent can't use them. A bishop in the middle of the board could potentially control fourteen. So they can exert an influence over more of the chessboard.
One example would be an endgame where one person has a knight and their opponent has a bishop. The knight has to take several hops to get from one side of the board to the other. A bishop can do that in one move.
Imagine putting both bishops side by side. That cuts off an incredible chunk of the board that your opponent can't move pieces into.
There are exceptions to the bishops being better rule. For example in a closed position where everything is locked up the knight's ability to hop over things becomes incredibly good. Your bishop might be stuck behind pawns.
I do think knights are better than bishops at lower ratings though. They are hard to predict and a lot of games end badly because you missed the fact they could fork your pieces. Bishops can be tricky to coordinate. But if you learn how it will be better for your chess long term, once you learn to spot the tricks that knights are capable of.
So if I was 900 and I was playing other 900 rated players I might keep my knights because a 900 player fears them more than any other piece. Every chess player has ptsd from mean horsies.
Hope that helps.
@@Thepuritan1 Thanks, this is helpful. But it would still be great if Irina had time to illustrate and explain
@@AH-gk6qs Of course. She's an expert player and I'm some guy rated 1500 with a bit of time on his hands. Good luck with the chess anyhoo!
Can you do a video on your recommendation for openings for players under 1500?
I think it's probably better for players at that level to study tactics and fundamental endgames. Opening choice is a matter of taste, and probably any "mainstream" opening (e.g., any opening played in a world championship match in the last hundred years) would be a fine option.
Nice video! What are your favorite openings for white and black?
Good reminder Irina about piece trades.
Excellent tutorial, thank you!