Ben is not wrong about modern GMs. Opening theory is definitely superior today, because of the use of engines. The “cushion” of computer prep gives today’s GMs the comfort of near certainty in the opening. However, when things get complicated in the middle game, no amount of preparation with a computer can get you to remember all possible variations and make the perfect move each time. This is why most modern GMs immediately look to draw as soon as uncertainty and chaos are imminent. This fear of having to fight for your life on the spot in uncertainty, is what causes modern GMs to immediately look for a draw, instead of firing the first shot and causing a crazy end game. Just because the computer says a certain position is a draw, it doesn’t mean that it is a draw when HUMANS play though it. It is a draw only IF both players play only the perfect computer moves to the end, even through time trouble. Though I have to say this happens more frequently on these repetitive invite only tournaments, where the same 10 super GMs keep playing each other. This is why the world open, or other open tournaments tend to have the most exciting games in them. Lower rated GMs no one’s ever heard of, and the hordes of masters who play only for the love of the game WILL fight to the death. This forces super GMs to play more risky strategies. You can usually see some huge upsets and legendary games against the top rated super GMs in open tournaments because of it. The top players from the past were more at home in chaos and uncertainty. They had to be on their toes from the first move. Since one guy’s research took him in a different direction from the other guy... when they sat down to test their theories, the resulting games were much more exciting. Aside from actual playing ability, I feel that the top players of the past had a giant charisma and very entertaining personalities. Interviews with Tal, Korchnoi, Karpov, Spassky, Kasparov, Fischer, were always filled with deep passion and love for chess. They made players stop and ponder on the beauty of the game. They inspired non-players to buy a set and learn to play some chess. If my introduction to the game of chess had been a Magnus Carlsen style interview in the 80’s, I would not have been interested in learning more about the game at all. Today, most super GMs have the charisma of a bland, boiled potato.
Have you seen Fisher interviews? That guy was a serious mess. No need to shit on current super GMs. Carlsen has some brilliant sacrificial and positional games that aren't that hard to find.
Not sure if joking so. . . . . Any move giving a "winning position" means the engine gives advantage and if two chess engines were playing, chances are the one with that position would win. The human clearly did not play perfect lol
@@dangercat5000 interesting, but, firstly, he said "any" move. But fair enough, might be an exaggeration. Secondly, if Ben is aware that this is a winning position and moves from here could allow him to win then he should he able to play it? How can we not play the winning moves if he knows it's a winning position. It means he doesnt know if it's a winning position or not then, otherwise he would have played the winning move.
Haha. Feels like Ben is throwing him self out there and she leaves him hanging. Lovely yet awkward dynamic. She could throw out a "yes and..." for him now and then.
I mean, Fischer is one of the best players in history. Bxh3 is not an obvious blunder by any means. I would also be surprised if you could tell what move FIscher missed.
@@Ben-xj2rf lol fact that these hordes of 1400s exist who think they could possibly understand a decent player's blunder is more depressing than funny, I promise you m8 the miscalculation that causes you to take in h2 is not g3 XD
i recently discovered Grand Master Ben Finegold, a Grand Master, from going down a Bobby Fischer rabbit hole that led me to a Paul Morphy rabbit hole....I'm firmly Paul Morphy goat....but Ben is great. Hope he's still making videos
re: the story circa 20:41 in a rapid game online my opponent moved his queen to a5, attacking my hanging bishop on c5 and giving check, so I thought I was forced to play b4, except my knight was on c3 so qa5 wasn't check: suspicious
It doesn't matter if Carlsen is better or worse than Kasparov, because they all have done something superhuman. They can be extremely proud of themselves, just like McEnroe's 3 Wimbledon victories are not diminished by a certain Federer that won 8.
To say Fischer was the greatest because he won x amount of games and carlsen has had draws > therefore hes the better player and would beat carlsen... is like saying Chamberlain is the best basketball player because he scored 100 in a game. Competition today is harder... no one can score 100 in a game today past or present... the same way nobody past or present can go on a 21 game win streak in chess. Carlsen still scores 8.5/9... 9/10's in today's tops tournaments so in my opinion this should be taken into consideration Ben also says today's top GM's play terrible yet cannot compete against any of them 🤷♂️ not saying he's bad at chess by any means but I dont see how he can consider knowing more "theory" makes you worse
Ben, I don't mind listening to your asides and jokes and funny stories, in fact it's what makes your lectures great, but you could edit out all the reading the chat. I guess it makes sense on Twitch, but on RU-vid it just slows down the pace of the video.
Chess is fundamentally a game of calculation. Computers do that better, so it makes sense that they would be used so extensively for preparing openings, where it's hard to calculate the many different variations from scratch. The tendency is then to rely on your knowledge of what the computer has already calculated for you, so you forget that during games you need to do the calculation yourself.
I like how Ben hates players from current era and praises the players from the past :D then he shows a game where one of the best players from that era doesn't even know his opening theory and blunders quite a lot against a 16 year old Fischer :D One may wonder why the best players used to win the tournaments by 3 or more points.
Fischer would make super gms now adays cry.. A Fischer in his 60s absolutely destroyed Nigel Short in 2001 in blitz games with the worst openings possible. People can't play chess like they use to, they rely on computers to analyze for them and they lose their sense of chess because of it.
