How it Feels to Play a Strong Grandmaster | | Biel Chess Round 2 

Especially the line where Eric thought the rook gets trapped. The engine makes it work!

@Dukerdjerrbs I don't understand the hostility, I was not trying to criticize Eric's analysis or complaining in any way. Very often Eric's analysis is spot on even compared to the engine! I was just pointing out that, for this particular game, the positions where Eric thinks he has gone wrong are not the same as the engine suggests. That is not meant as criticism. But e.g. looking at the line where Eric thinks the rook gets trapped and then seeing the engine holding on to it, is just a beautiful sequence of moves. I don't know if any human would have found that line, but that is besides the point. I wrote this comment to encourage people to look at the engine analysis and see some great lines of chess. Some of these lines are very instructive and beautiful. Eric does Link to the Lichess study for a reason, there are people like me who enjoy to analyze some of the move sequences after the video with an engine.

I’d love to know the elo of the guy giving Eric instructions 😆

Good catch and nice quote too. So, Yeah you are mainly right about that, but, there's still beauty in the game, isn't there? And Fischer got a bit twisted, didn't he? I wonder if that quote came after he lost a game after some ridiculous prep was unleashed on him. All these super GM's are bitter in loss. It's the bitterness that takes the fun out of the game. It's a game, have fun even GM's have to remember that. No, actually, especially GMs

@@TimJapan Sorry, the quote was from Eric (with timestamp). Fischer was definitely twisted, but he was right about the opening-prep problem. That's why his "Fischer random chess" got traction.

This is true for any competitive game though. It's literally impossible for this to not happen in a competitive game. If you see a situation that wasn't good for you, you won't do it again. If you see someone else in a situation that wasn't good, you will avoid it yourself. You will watch other players when you aren't playing yourself to find all these bad situations without experiencing them yourself. You will seek advice from others on how to best avoid situations. This isn't anything special. It's learning to play a game. The thing that makes a good competitive game is how far that situational learning can carry you. The best players will be able to act in a situation they have never seen before, because if they can't, they are exploitable by weaker players who just do slightly sub-optimal plays that still carry reasonable equity. If you only rely on situational learning you will get demolished by these sub-optimal plays because they don't give away a lot of equity and will gain more equity back by creating a situation the opponent can't deal with. The absolute best players are the ones who are able to intentionally give up this small amount of equity to create unique situations and win through understanding of how the game works. EDIT: I noticed you replied and mentioned Fischer random. This is still subject to the same issues. If a player really wanted to be hyper competitive they could just as easily gain prep for all of the starting positions. The reason it's not got any prep is because people don't care enough to create prep for it. You could literally create a variant of chess where you swap the bishops and knights and use that exact starting position for every game and that would have basically no good prep until there is enough incentive for people to put effort into it. If Fischer Random had tournaments with good prize money I can assure you it would gain as much prep as classical chess. The prep wouldn't be as deep, but it would still massively favor people who learn as many opening lines as they can, as deep as they can. And I can assure you some players would take that prep VERY deep.

Not really, white wasn’t prepared at all for the game line and he just outplayed Eric move by move. Are you trying to say that white only won because of his better memory?

Opening prep or 'theory' is a part of chess. There's a reason also why familiarity with structures, patterns, and the ideas of different chess positions matters. You're essentially describing what makes someone good at any game imo. What @thekilla1234 talks about. I'm sympathetic to the idea that some opening theory is bad especially as it relates maybe to more drawing positions but the idea that chess 960 fixes this has always been odd. Those good in regular chess are still essentially the best in the alternative format. Theory in the traditional sense may not exist, sure. But theory in the sense of patterns and shapes definitely does.

I play those clever moves all the time! They're just all the wrong times.

@@TimJapan Rf1-f2-e2-e3-e4-h4

lol. In my peak, I was 2500….minus 1500.

Minus another 500

Neither funny nor clever. Do better

@@gw6667LMAOOO my bad lil buddy i’ll try to be a better clown for you next time

@@gw6667 lol. How lame. You poor sad miserable thing.

I had the same thought during the recap. A pity he didn't considered (or commented) this move

Yes! He sacrifices the ROOOOOK for a pawn and goes home a little earlier.

It goes both directions. On the one hand it is the opening where he has a lot of knowledge and is familiar with the position. On the other hand it makes it easier to prepare against him. You can survive even on GM level with a limited opening repertoire (see MVL) if it goes deep enough.

Just don’t look at it?

Who cares

Why?

@@VeganCheeseburger because it’s hard not to spoil yourself. Also due to the number of moves you can somewhat guess the style of game.

rather rude criticism. I don't think you can make that sort of statement unless you are at least 2200 OTB, it takes serious intuition and inventiveness to reach master level at all

@@DeathEaterLink magnus said that he sees the move he wants to play instantly but thinks for an hour to absolutely ensure its the best move and stuff.😃

oh no