Great insight that, when Black plays white-square defences, the play tends to be directed to extracting positional edges on the Queenside. Putting black pawns on dark squares against 1. d4, especially with a B on g7, automatically steers Black's play to the Kingside and makes play more combative.
Re 12.00 You propose to study thematic games, perhaps in depth similar to how your own games are studied. And especially the emerging and mature middlegame plans. Presumably (?) you'll be aided by the player's annotations and by good older-style openings books that focus on explanations, patterns, and concepts. I wonder whether scrolling through lots of Kasparov's games first to sense what the flow looks like would be better for you (me, and us) than starting with a deep dive into a single game... I gather that you are focussing on specific motifs identified after an initial sweep that indicates that Kasparov's treatment of the KID overall suits your style. So in Episode15 you focus on ...Nd4 sacrifces by Kasparov, which I've found illuminating.
Your Flamingo (14.15) is a good way for positionally-oriented players, or time-poor ones, to move to a manageable dark-square opening. However, Roman Dzindzichashvili beat you to the punch, last century. 🙂 (I've just remembered that someone on the Flamingo page has beaten me to pointing this out.) There are a couple of fat books including this system, but no doubt one can play the opening reasonably well without deep study. One tome is Antic and Maksimovic The Modern Bogo, 2014. The other is on the Nimzo and is hiding somewhere. Edit: Sielecki, _Nimzo and Bogo Indian_ (2015)
I wonder whether you have provided us a formal list of the 3 or 5 things you've learned from analysis your games in episodes 1-14. Evidently, 'better openings' is one of them. Are you really 'weak' or simply overspecialised though? It appears that you want to move away from the French and towards openings that give you more opportunity to show your other strengths relative to those pesky 2300-ish players whom you have found so difficult to beat. And this leads to understanding Kasparov, especially pre Team Kasparov and before the computer-based improvements in the Sicilian and so on (which I could reasonably understand when shown and explained in books). I'm reminded of Spielmann's lament that he could make combinations as fine as Alekhine's but that his openings did not lead to enough opportunities to reveal this.
Astute observations about the de5 line in the KID! Approx. 40 minutes. By the way, I do a lot of redrafting, and I sincerely apologise now that I realise you might be getting dozens of notifications.
As of Episode 15 (e.g. 24.30ff), you are right that computers will too often look at a pawn advantage as +1.0 whereas an experienced human would realise how difficult it will be a) to make use of the extra pawn later and b) to find the string of best moves required to win. Absolutely. Although I admire your independent spirit, there's still a tendency to deprecate a computer's early move selection simply because the move is not instantly obvious to you. Computers in 2022 are tracking both Korchnoi's and Kasparov's moves pretty closely! So are computers becoming more human, or are the great players more like machines? Besides, if the computer prefers one move to another, why does this necessarily blinker the human and dull their spirit of exploration? A curious human, one who wanted to learn, would wonder what the computer had found and only then whether the line was practical. OK, one line (h3) suggested to you by the computer does look strange and the point is rather elusive, so don't play moves you don't understand. Yes, good advice. And yes, if neither Korchnoi nor Kasparov nor subsequent players have seen the computer's occasionally strange selections, your opponent won't be likely to over the board. However, what if your opponent uses computers to prepare and you don't? You'll be at risk that he or she will be gifted a tactic or rearrangement of pieces that has eluded humans hitherto. Once you allow the time to a computer to show you something, it often ceases to be weird. The smothered mate or the Greek gift was once a weird idea, but once seen they are added to the human toolbox. Sorry to lecture you, but I'm retired university lecturer and it's my default setting.
I wonder whether you have a list of the 3 or 5 things you've learned from analysis your games in episodes 1-14. Evidently, better 'openings' is one of them. Are you really 'weak' or simply overspecialised? It appears that you want to move away from the French-NID-QID and towards openings that give you more opportunity to show your other strengths relative to those pesky 2300-ish players whom you have found so difficult to beat. PS: You partly answer my question around 13 minutes. However at 41 minutes, you express a desire to invest more deeply in the French as though your combative intentions are confined to diversifying by meeting 1. d4 with the KID. No more Hanhams against 1 e4...? And at 42 minutes you plan to play more adventurous ...Ba6 against the QID: please keep us posted.
Hi Jim, the Road to 2500 is a series that GM Kraai was working on, detailing his efforts to reach 2500 FIDE. Part of the series is Jesse just reviewing what he's been working on lately. Hope that makes sense!
This is high level content :) Chessdojo never fails to deliver quality 😁
Thanks for watching!
Great insight that, when Black plays white-square defences, the play tends to be directed to extracting positional edges on the Queenside. Putting black pawns on dark squares against 1. d4, especially with a B on g7, automatically steers Black's play to the Kingside and makes play more combative.
Re 12.00 You propose to study thematic games, perhaps in depth similar to how your own games are studied. And especially the emerging and mature middlegame plans. Presumably (?) you'll be aided by the player's annotations and by good older-style openings books that focus on explanations, patterns, and concepts. I wonder whether scrolling through lots of Kasparov's games first to sense what the flow looks like would be better for you (me, and us) than starting with a deep dive into a single game... I gather that you are focussing on specific motifs identified after an initial sweep that indicates that Kasparov's treatment of the KID overall suits your style. So in Episode15 you focus on ...Nd4 sacrifces by Kasparov, which I've found illuminating.
Your Flamingo (14.15) is a good way for positionally-oriented players, or time-poor ones, to move to a manageable dark-square opening. However, Roman Dzindzichashvili beat you to the punch, last century. 🙂 (I've just remembered that someone on the Flamingo page has beaten me to pointing this out.) There are a couple of fat books including this system, but no doubt one can play the opening reasonably well without deep study. One tome is Antic and Maksimovic The Modern Bogo, 2014. The other is on the Nimzo and is hiding somewhere. Edit: Sielecki, _Nimzo and Bogo Indian_ (2015)
Sorry, yet another point. It's often wise to let engines such as Stockfish reach depth 30 before judging what they generate.
I wonder whether you have provided us a formal list of the 3 or 5 things you've learned from analysis your games in episodes 1-14. Evidently, 'better openings' is one of them. Are you really 'weak' or simply overspecialised though? It appears that you want to move away from the French and towards openings that give you more opportunity to show your other strengths relative to those pesky 2300-ish players whom you have found so difficult to beat. And this leads to understanding Kasparov, especially pre Team Kasparov and before the computer-based improvements in the Sicilian and so on (which I could reasonably understand when shown and explained in books). I'm reminded of Spielmann's lament that he could make combinations as fine as Alekhine's but that his openings did not lead to enough opportunities to reveal this.
Astute observations about the de5 line in the KID! Approx. 40 minutes. By the way, I do a lot of redrafting, and I sincerely apologise now that I realise you might be getting dozens of notifications.
My engine thinks that Black has full compensation for a pawn in that initial KID position Jesse, so your initial GM intuition was spot on!
As of Episode 15 (e.g. 24.30ff), you are right that computers will too often look at a pawn advantage as +1.0 whereas an experienced human would realise how difficult it will be a) to make use of the extra pawn later and b) to find the string of best moves required to win. Absolutely. Although I admire your independent spirit, there's still a tendency to deprecate a computer's early move selection simply because the move is not instantly obvious to you. Computers in 2022 are tracking both Korchnoi's and Kasparov's moves pretty closely! So are computers becoming more human, or are the great players more like machines? Besides, if the computer prefers one move to another, why does this necessarily blinker the human and dull their spirit of exploration? A curious human, one who wanted to learn, would wonder what the computer had found and only then whether the line was practical. OK, one line (h3) suggested to you by the computer does look strange and the point is rather elusive, so don't play moves you don't understand. Yes, good advice. And yes, if neither Korchnoi nor Kasparov nor subsequent players have seen the computer's occasionally strange selections, your opponent won't be likely to over the board. However, what if your opponent uses computers to prepare and you don't? You'll be at risk that he or she will be gifted a tactic or rearrangement of pieces that has eluded humans hitherto. Once you allow the time to a computer to show you something, it often ceases to be weird. The smothered mate or the Greek gift was once a weird idea, but once seen they are added to the human toolbox. Sorry to lecture you, but I'm retired university lecturer and it's my default setting.
Jesse, why do you think that White is even a tiny bit better in the Exchange KID with that gaping hole on d4.
I recommend everybody watch this at 2x speed.
I wonder whether you have a list of the 3 or 5 things you've learned from analysis your games in episodes 1-14. Evidently, better 'openings' is one of them. Are you really 'weak' or simply overspecialised? It appears that you want to move away from the French-NID-QID and towards openings that give you more opportunity to show your other strengths relative to those pesky 2300-ish players whom you have found so difficult to beat. PS: You partly answer my question around 13 minutes. However at 41 minutes, you express a desire to invest more deeply in the French as though your combative intentions are confined to diversifying by meeting 1. d4 with the KID. No more Hanhams against 1 e4...? And at 42 minutes you plan to play more adventurous ...Ba6 against the QID: please keep us posted.
Over 12 min in and he still hasn't talked about a single opening, just talking nonsence.
Hi Jim, the Road to 2500 is a series that GM Kraai was working on, detailing his efforts to reach 2500 FIDE. Part of the series is Jesse just reviewing what he's been working on lately. Hope that makes sense!