Great video! As a fellow NY'er who started playing in the early 70s (I'm even older than Joel), I remember seeing this 12 year old prodigy playing some of the top players in NYC tournaments. And it's good to see that he's still playing now. Always instructive games that I've learned from.
After Joel won the 1982 US Junior Championship, he did a Simo tour. I had a board against him in Charlotte NC. I played an unusual fianchetto defense. I gave him a good game, but he beat all of us. Joel used my defense to beat Dzindzichashvili in the last round of the 1984 World Open to win the title.
For some reason Ben is a great teacher. You learn a lot with minimum effort. He doesn't overcomplicate everything and every line and understand how bad we are
Yes, I'm surprised he didn't mention the queen one, which is also the one I found, as he usually says: this is mate, if you don't like that, this is also mate.
It’s a whole world amid the chess clocks the desire to push up their ratings to boldly go where no person has gone before o brave new world to have such creatures in it. The rambling monologue o rare Ben.😊
"He was (the main GM) for the Deep Blue Team that beat Garry Kasparov in their famous match." For the longest time I'd assumed that the Deep Blue Team cheated against Garry, but now that I know Joel Benjamin was their main GM, I don't know what to think. Now I'm trying to remember if either Ben ever discussed the controversy 🤔
Nah. Garry played a line that everyone knew was bad, but refuting it involves a sacrifice that Garry didn't believe a computer could play. For earlier computers that was true, but Deep Blue had both further calculation and better positional heuristics
@@tolkienfan1972 IBM dismantling Deep Blue is compelling circumstantial evidence: at best it highlights the singular design of Deep Blue solely to defeat Kasparov (as opposed to being a universal chess engine capable of beating any human, the argument being that another player like Karpov or Kramnik could have easily defeated Deep Blue) and at worst it showed that IBM had something to hide.
Morphy played that Gufeld vs Joel opening for white mostly, and the way Morphy would counter it or just contradict it's idea for black was Bd7 before Nc6. Because, with Nc7 after Qxd4, Morphy plays Bb5, and takes that knight if black responds with Bd7. Then Morphy would trade that bishop for a knight, and claim that his queen is centralized, so what is black going to do about it? I would imagine that if black would wish to continue to harass that queen as a form of development, black would be easy to predict, and Morphy as white would find a way to create tempo based on being able to understand blacks motive. Fight tempo with tempo. Ofc in those days the players are all about rapid development, and tempo, only Morphy would do it better, cause he had that intention to mate all the time, with incredible accuracy. Yea, creating potentially incredible tempo, because the queen although is centralized early, can be a very powerful attacking piece. Mate threats, that may even include queen sacs. Now that is tempo. Some GM's would consider it risky, I think Morphy saw it as flawless. lol It wasn't risk for him it was about perfection. Mind us all, if we do compare the games in those days vs the games in these days. Their games would be ever lasting. No time control. Even Ben Franklyn would have chess matches against rivals that would last for years, simply by using letters, for they would be miles apart lol. They were not kidding around at all in chess in those days. Even though to the untrained eye it would seem as though they were.
