Good quality. Tired of "Nakamura's top 5 blitz moves" or "IM Rozman gets OWNED by GM Naroditsky" trashy content. Wish there were more lessons like these
I think what Jesse was trying to illustrate is a principle of game theory (as in it applies to basically all strategical games) and it’s most simply called “flexibility.” For example, a game I used to play years ago was Magic the Gathering. To the total initiate they might be shocked how frequently top players would play seemingly inferior cards in their decks or make the plays they do, but it almost always boiled down to having more options to meet the next threat or create their own. Here’s an extreme example in chess to drive home the point: Would you rather have a position that is say +.2 in your favor but you have to find 10 only moves in a row to not lose just to get that tiny edge that still ends up in a draw with best play, or a position where basically any move you make is playable? Also, this applies to many aspects of chess. Frequently move order issues in chess tactics come down to options and even simple things like why you typically develop knights before bishops are all because of flexibility/having more options. In fact, even things like why you often play c4 before Nc3 (if possible) or only castle when you must or it’s advantageous to all come down to options. It’s even why space/prophylaxis is so important! Having more options than your opponent will likely lead to better practical chances.
Hey, Jesse, very nice lecture! You didn't coin the term "Capablanca's Rule" as it's been used for a long, long time: "The well-known Capablanca's rule says: When you have one bishop left on the board, place your pawns on the opposite colored squares to your bishop." But you explain the "whys and wherefores: so clearly that maybe we should call it the "Capablanca-Kraai Rule"
I was gonna say the bishop on f8 was better but i got confused since i saw a winning plan for white and then i changed my mind. Turns out both moves lose according to the engine :p
GM Jesse, you're just the right kind of chess teacher for me, you don't rush, you're a bit philosophical too which I like a lot :D The question I was asking myself during this lesson was why isn't black taking on d4 and making the pawn isolated for white. And I guess the answer is because the dark-square bishop would get free and it fully compensates for the isolated d4 pawn, yes? Would the plan still be to exchange this dark square bishop for black's so that we weaken the dark squares around the king? Great lesson, cheers :)
Hey Jesse, I always enjoy your great lectures, especially due to your almost philiosophical approach, thank you very much! I have a question here though to your explanations around 33:00. When I listen to you elaborating on pawn majorities/minorities, I always hear you saying that we should play on the side where we are stronger, mostly due to the obvious reason that a passed pawn will emerge for the player with more pawns on that side. On the other hand, I cannot recall a single occasion where you even mentioned the term "minority attack" in order to create a weakness, whereas someone like Yasser Seirawan would do so whenever he can it feels. Is this just a different approach to the game? To take an extreme example, I saw you quoting the book "Simple Chess" by Stean several times. In the chapter on semi-open files, this guy states at some point that the main advantage of a central pawn majority is the fact that you inevitably will have a minority on one wing and, hence, you can start a minority attack there...to me this sounds like a huge exaggeration, but Stean is also a GM after all, so I guess he cannot be completely wrong. I am aware of the fact that this argumentation does take into account the existence of our "golden" light-squared bishop at all, but in such positions (possibly assuming that this bishop is a knight so as to have equal pieces for both sides), would the b4-b5 plan be sensible as well here? As a recent (certainly not ideal) example in the Dojo, in your Endgame Sensei Pt 1, David played on his weaker side against Kostya and you sharply critizised him for doing so, but judging by the arising position it did not turn out to be that bad for him (even though this is not what I think of when having the minority attack in mind, as there was clearly no weakness for Kostya in sight, his pawns were just too far advanced/supported).
Hey I just wanted to say after watching this video I started playing Backgammon on backgammon galaxy and bought 2 books on backgammon and so far I'm really enjoying picking up a new game. I didn't realize backgammon required so much strategy.
Yeap... The backgammon example was weird-(coz i don't understand the game 🥴) but the point was made. Someone mentioned backgammon galaxy in the comments...i am signing up, just out of curiosity. Thanks.
Hi, which book by Capablanca taught this rule? This lesson is fascinating. I follow your sessionss almost exclusively as you bring chess alive and make it exciting. Thanks Jesse
Love Jesse's lessons BTW, very endgame focused which I like. For example, Alekhine's incredible endgame skills are very underrated and I love that jess focused on that
I wish I could watch Jesse Kraai’s lectures every day! The best!
finally we got to see Jesse play backgammon! I have been asking for this since Capablanca beat Lasker!
Good quality. Tired of "Nakamura's top 5 blitz moves" or "IM Rozman gets OWNED by GM Naroditsky" trashy content. Wish there were more lessons like these
I think what Jesse was trying to illustrate is a principle of game theory (as in it applies to basically all strategical games) and it’s most simply called “flexibility.” For example, a game I used to play years ago was Magic the Gathering. To the total initiate they might be shocked how frequently top players would play seemingly inferior cards in their decks or make the plays they do, but it almost always boiled down to having more options to meet the next threat or create their own.
Here’s an extreme example in chess to drive home the point: Would you rather have a position that is say +.2 in your favor but you have to find 10 only moves in a row to not lose just to get that tiny edge that still ends up in a draw with best play, or a position where basically any move you make is playable?
Also, this applies to many aspects of chess. Frequently move order issues in chess tactics come down to options and even simple things like why you typically develop knights before bishops are all because of flexibility/having more options.
In fact, even things like why you often play c4 before Nc3 (if possible) or only castle when you must or it’s advantageous to all come down to options.
It’s even why space/prophylaxis is so important! Having more options than your opponent will likely lead to better practical chances.
Hey, Jesse, very nice lecture! You didn't coin the term "Capablanca's Rule" as it's been used for a long, long time:
"The well-known Capablanca's rule says:
When you have one bishop left on the board, place your pawns on the opposite colored squares to your bishop."
But you explain the "whys and wherefores: so clearly that maybe we should call it the "Capablanca-Kraai Rule"
I was gonna say the bishop on f8 was better but i got confused since i saw a winning plan for white and then i changed my mind. Turns out both moves lose according to the engine :p
Excellent lecture. Thanks.
I enjoyed it!
GM Jesse, you're just the right kind of chess teacher for me, you don't rush, you're a bit philosophical too which I like a lot :D The question I was asking myself during this lesson was why isn't black taking on d4 and making the pawn isolated for white. And I guess the answer is because the dark-square bishop would get free and it fully compensates for the isolated d4 pawn, yes? Would the plan still be to exchange this dark square bishop for black's so that we weaken the dark squares around the king?
Great lesson, cheers :)
Hey Jesse, I always enjoy your great lectures, especially due to your almost philiosophical approach, thank you very much!
I have a question here though to your explanations around 33:00.
When I listen to you elaborating on pawn majorities/minorities, I always hear you saying that we should play on the side where we are stronger, mostly due to the obvious reason that a passed pawn will emerge for the player with more pawns on that side. On the other hand, I cannot recall a single occasion where you even mentioned the term "minority attack" in order to create a weakness, whereas someone like Yasser Seirawan would do so whenever he can it feels. Is this just a different approach to the game? To take an extreme example, I saw you quoting the book "Simple Chess" by Stean several times. In the chapter on semi-open files, this guy states at some point that the main advantage of a central pawn majority is the fact that you inevitably will have a minority on one wing and, hence, you can start a minority attack there...to me this sounds like a huge exaggeration, but Stean is also a GM after all, so I guess he cannot be completely wrong. I am aware of the fact that this argumentation does take into account the existence of our "golden" light-squared bishop at all, but in such positions (possibly assuming that this bishop is a knight so as to have equal pieces for both sides), would the b4-b5 plan be sensible as well here?
As a recent (certainly not ideal) example in the Dojo, in your Endgame Sensei Pt 1, David played on his weaker side against Kostya and you sharply critizised him for doing so, but judging by the arising position it did not turn out to be that bad for him (even though this is not what I think of when having the minority attack in mind, as there was clearly no weakness for Kostya in sight, his pawns were just too far advanced/supported).
Hey I just wanted to say after watching this video I started playing Backgammon on backgammon galaxy and bought 2 books on backgammon and so far I'm really enjoying picking up a new game. I didn't realize backgammon required so much strategy.
It is not surprising that some people are attracted by an Inferior game.
@@herberthuber8500 What a comment
Yeap... The backgammon example was weird-(coz i don't understand the game 🥴) but the point was made. Someone mentioned backgammon galaxy in the comments...i am signing up, just out of curiosity. Thanks.
Great video.
Game 2: Vereslav Eingorn- Kakageldyev Amanmurad
BTW Eingorn is Ukranian
Hi, which book by Capablanca taught this rule? This lesson is fascinating. I follow your sessionss almost exclusively as you bring chess alive and make it exciting. Thanks Jesse
It's called "Last Lectures" and he actually gave them shortly before he died.
Unfortunately for a new copy on Amazon it is over $2,480. Lol. Used copy is less. Guess I’ll pass on purchasing a copy.
Interesting 😃
Did Greg's cupcakes taste good?
Audio is really low.
So why don't turn it up?
Yayyyy
Love Jesse's lessons BTW, very endgame focused which I like. For example, Alekhine's incredible endgame skills are very underrated and I love that jess focused on that
On real 3D is would be much better
I think Jessi kraits is a chess philosopher and he doesn'tunderstand chess is a concrete game
Kraai's philosophical tendencies are why he could never be a super GM, but they are what make him a GM-strength player and an even better teacher.