- Follow Daniel on Twitter at / gmnaroditsky - Daniel streams regularly on Twitch at / gmnaroditsky - Daniels Discord / discord #speedrun #grandmaster #naroditsky
The rating system is designed so that if a player is rated 100 over another player, he will win 9 out of 10 games. The system is transitive, so if you are rated 200 higher, you will be expected to win 99 out of 100 games, and so forth. Danya is rated like 1300 over the people he plays right now.
I respect Daniel for being able to take criticism so graciously, but I feel like the criticism is a bit unfair in this case. First of all, was the goal of this series to imitate the 'growing pains' of lower rated chess players? It's named 'Chess Speedrun'. I was under the impression that the point was to teach good practices and principles, as well as showing how to deal with the typical kinds of moves you find at the various elos. Personally, I find it really helpful and interesting that Daniel shows the theory and explains the thought and principles behind it. Secondly, I think it's unfair to say that this series doesn't show how to play from bad positions, or show realistic gameplay for these elos, because the players that Daniel is playing against don't always play theory, and Daniel takes the time to point out their mistakes, explain why they are mistakes, and show alternative moves that would be better responses. Daniel doesn't have to intentionally blunder to be instructional, because his opponents are already indicative of typical play at those elos. Daniel is already showing the optimal ways to play against such players.
I remember there was an episode during his first speedrun where he just gave away his bishop on move 2 intentionally and proceeds to give instructional value on how to win the game while being down material. So yeah, I don't get what those criticism is all about
Totally agree. This is a Speedrun and should be played exactly as it is: best possible way and with explanation WHY certain moves where played. Recovering from blunders would be less practical approach as it would be done at GMs level of thinking probably with lots of tactics and forward planning. Who at beginners/intermediate level is going to workout even remotely similar solutions to unique positions? I am Lichess 1700 level player and find this series very good for my improvement in the openings and middle games as it is. If Daniel finds a will to do "blunders" videos it should possibly be done in a new series. Otherwise have a look at Eric's Rosen "Oh no my Queen/Rook/whatever" streams ;). Cheers!
@@2010ceder Slight inaccuracy there, when Eric Rosen shouts "Oh No, my Queen !", it's not a blunder but a sacrifice which allows him to get an advantage or a very sharp position. He's not really worse after losing his piece. Eric is very entertaining tho, and he's a great streamer, so this is no reason not to have a look at his stream x)
I agree, the whole point of winning is to see the typical mistakes at your level, to know how to punish them and to not do them yourself. Danya is doing everything right and is really helpful to me personally, its just stupid people who hang five pieces by move six and dont even listen to what hes saying.
I don't think Daniel could imitate the growing pains of beginners even if he tried because of the "curse of knowledge." If you've ever seen secret GM's pretend to be beginners you know what I'm talking about.
I think the whole theory aspect of the reddit comment is completely untrue. Never does Danya say "so we are going to play Nd4 because it is theory". When Danya plays theory moves he explains WHY THEY ARE THEORY. He explains why they are the best moves and what they accomplish. Rarely does he ever play a move and not explain why he is doing so. And also this encourages players to go learn theory as well as it is shown how much of an impact it can make
I fully agree that this is something he does, but it isn't something that he does all the time. Which, mind, is fine. He can't spend 8 minutes explaining the first 4 moves every match, nor should he - it'd be repetitive and boring. I think the complaint may comes from the brevity in which the early game is discussed in depth. At lower ELO ratings opponents typically make blunders early and often and so much of the, for lack of a better term, late-early game is missed because the opponents don't make it that far. By the time the opponents are able to survive let's say 10 moves (to use a round numbers) the first ten moves are sort of powered through with "theory" sometimes being given as the reason. Which, again, makes sense. I think the problem, to use the term loosely, is that it can feel like the audience is assumed to be at the same level as the opponent, and that's obviously not the case. But this is where I differ with the poster from reddit: I think that's how it should be. If you are a 900 player trying to get to 1000, you're probably not going to get a ton from watching a speed run between a GM and a 1400. That's a bit like me trying to learn how to QB by watching Tom Brady. Sure, I might know what plays to call and which receiver is open, but knowing that isn't going to magically make me able to throw the ball 60 yards. The speedrun is a wonderful idea and I think it's a fantastic way to show a cornucopia of concepts across the entire range of skill levels while still being entertaining as well as educational. What it isn't, and what people need to stop treating the series as, is a guide or lesson on how to get from one ELO to another or how to be an expert for a specific opening or line. There are plenty of videos out there for that, some of which are on this channel. But this series, in my personal opinion, isn't that. And I'm glad for that.
My reaction to the Reddit post, being a beginner & watching this series... GM Danya has always maintained that, contrary to common advice, even beginners around 1000-1200 should learn some openings. Imo this “speed run” is slow enough to allow GM Danya time to explain opening moves - why a move is weakening or why a seemingly sus move is good... in short, the thought process behind the moves. He also explains how he’s taking advantage of his opponent’s weakening moves, not simply crushing with theory. Yes sir, I think I like it.
GM Naro, pls don't change *ANYTHING* at all! 🙏 The Speedrun is fantastic as it is! While I appreciate the criticism was well - intended, I must say it's completely baseless. If we are to progress, we must learn theory. If anyone is too lazy/unwilling to learn theory, then this series is not for him/her. Chess without learning the theory is just playing for entertainment and to kill time. If someone wishes to play that way, that's fine by me. But in that case, a GM's time is simply wasted. They could find a lot of other people who could teach them some of the basic principles. It's like getting a 3* Michelin chef to teach you how to boil an egg. It's ludicrous.
Personally, I enjoy the theory because you do a great job of explaining the logic of each move even early on in the opening. I started playing Caro Kann since beginning this series and have already had great success because I feel that I understand the goal of each move, and how to exploit inaccuracies. I do think “coming back from bad positions” could be an interesting concept for a separate video series.
In regards to the Reddit post, it seems like there's an assumption that "if you study opening theory, it's only useful if your opponent also plays the theory moves." My addition to the discourse would be that the whole point of studying openings is to know how to punish mistakes when people deviate from theory. If we're talking about someone trying to climb out of the 1200-1500 ELO range, saying it's unrealistic for them to play theory is kind of like saying it's unrealistic for them to get a higher rating? Most higher rated players have learned opening theory to a certain extent. I do want to say, I believe I understand the overall point that it's difficult for a player who frequently makes mistakes to learn from a player who essentially doesn't make any, but I'm very much in the camp that Daniel is doing a great job explaining the reasoning behind the moves when they seem confusing. Another commenter mentioned that reviewing their own games seemed more useful, and I don't necessarily disagree. If you only have half an hour a day to try to learn/improve chess, IMO your priority should be actually playing chess and then reviewing your mistakes most days, doing Puzzles when you're in a short rut or making the same mistake frequently, and then watching instructional content or taking lessons when it seems like you're stagnating (since this is the most likely time to need a new perspective from a higher rated player). Not that you shouldn't watch Chess videos, but there's no substitute for experience and actually studying. No speed-run video is going to boost your ELO 500 points without the additional effort on your part. I hope this doesn't come off as overly critical of the Reddit post because I think it's a totally valid concept to discuss and consider since I imagine it is somewhat difficult for Daniel to remember the exact thought patterns for beginners when certain things seem obvious to him now, and not everyone learns the same way.
Interesting Reddit post. Glad the poster was respectful and well spoken. You've got a ton of class for addressing it on Twitch and for graciously considering the criticism. I greatly enjoy your speed runs and try my best to catch you live on Twitch but often have to settle for YT. You're with a doubt the best instructor I've found and the fact this content is essentially free is crazy. I do think that the Reddit poster has a point worth considering. Aman, in his Building Habits speed run, intentionally played as if he was at whatever level he was in the run, making blunders, etc. and showing how to recover. It'd be highly valuable to us mere 800-1500 mortals if you could figure out a way to have a "recovering from typical mistakes" series. Granted, I'm not sure of the best way to do that and you do analyze your opponents' mistakes now which is very useful but man, you're such a great instructor such a series would be invaluable for the masses of us relative chess noobs. Thanks for what you do. Cheers!
Hi Daniel! My name is Juan. I'm an uruguayan enthusiastic that enjoy the game a lot. I started playing the game a few months ago just playing casually. But after finding your youtube channel and Gothamchess. I fall in love with the game. I began playing on February and by today I'm 1200 only by watching you and him. I strongly disagree with the redit post. I think is written by someone who doesn't want to improve by learn. He wanna magically get elo. Please don't change the way you approach how you teach! You are the best professor that i know! Keep teaching!. Now I actually fell that I'm getting really good at the game I buyed a book. All inspired by you two. Have a great day
In regards to the Reddit post about theory, screwing up and bad positions. You do address this in the following ways that are instructive: - You call out good/bad moves of your opponent - You've played openings such as the Smith-Mora Gambit that you didn't know well - When you analyze moves during the games, you talk about the mistakes / problems that non-principled Chess moves result in. I've been watching your speedrun videos for months and I've learned much more about how to play principled Chess than theory. As a 1200 or so hobbyist player, that has proven to be much more useful.
All I know is the first speed run series took me from 1150 to 1450 in a month. And that is all that should matter about this series. It does help players. It taught me about “why” moves get played in theory. What concepts to look for and thematic moves in opening lines. So thanks for these!
5:36 Nothing wrong with Nf3. As with Sicilians like the Bowdler Attack, the problem comes from playing Bc4 before black has moved his e-pawn. The best thing to do is to ignore the pin, and go after black's weaknesses on f7 and b7 with the queen. 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 d6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. Qb3 Now black has no good options. If he takes the knight, hoping to wreck white's pawn structure, white's queen threatens black's rook and forces the knight to d7 where it is misplaced. The ideal spot for the knight in the Smith-Morra is on c6, because black wants to grab control of the weak d4 square that white has left behind. Technically material is equal but black is extremely passive. 6. ... Bxf3 7. Qxb7 Nd7 8. gxf3 The other options, 6. ... Qc8 and 6. ... Qb7 are just as bad, because they allow white to swarm his pieces to extremely active squares. The best option for black is to just retreat the bishop, 5. ... d7, because that is the only way to get Nc6. TL;DR Knights before bishops - usually a good idea.
Thank you for the edutainment Naroditsky! Really enjoying the speedrun TL;DR: You intuit the moves. Beginners reason to find the moves. Even when you have the perfect reasoning for why you found/chose a move, the priority list will differ and beginners won’t know when the priority list differs and when it stays the same. That comes with experience. -------------------------- With regards to the reddit criticism at the end, I don’t agree that you playing theory necessarily is a problem with learning chess through the speedrun. The most helpful part of the speedrun is hearing your reasoning for why you’re choosing a certain move so we can apply the same reasoning in our own games. I believe you explain the theory moves enough for us to understand the reasoning. The more inherit problem is that we have a master, who have built an amazing intuition over years of practice, is trying to dissect his intuitive moves with reason. While for beginners, our intuition is often incorrect. Therefore we have to use reason to find good moves which will then build into our intuition later on. When the identification method of good moves differ it can then be hard to explain it in a way we can apply. A way to reason into a move systematically is to use a priority list to find out what move to make. A priority list when playing a solid opening might look like this: 1. Center space 2. Material 3. Development A priority list when playing a gambit might look like this: 1. Center space 2. Material 3. Development A priority list in the head of a super GM might look like this: 1. Flexibility 2. Development/Material 3. Center space The point is: the list is always changing. Beginners don’t know when the list has to change to fit the situation. Tbh at this point I don’t even know if this is a problem/fixable problem with the speedrun. But I think identifying this might be useful
regarding 22:41 i as a 1300 specificly learn from daniel playing the theoretical moves over and over again. seeing them played helps me memorizing them. also while playing them he invites me to join his thoughtproces so i start to understand why the theoretical moves are the good moves and therfor theoretical. i get the ideas behind them. for example: i learned soooo much about the caro-kann what would have otherwise had cost me ages to learn from normal books/videos/experiance. thank you so damn much for that! for white its more difficult for me because i am not really a gambit player and also the hyper-modern concept is maybe still a little bit to komplex for my state of knoledge. i would love to see more italian/spanisch games with white (they mostly accure at my level), but even asking for that sounds borderline greedy to me because my thankfullness for beeing tought by a GM even for "only" black is allmost unlimited. thank you so much daniel, i really appreciate what you are dooing and you are dooing it great! @Daniel Naroditsky
From what I understand (andI'm an idiot about chess so that's not much), the main idea of the Smith-Morra - and why it's popular at club level and not popular at master level, is that opening the queen's side so massively gives you very quick attacks. So the primary move is not nf3, it's bc4, preparing for a very basic battery with qb3. You're also pressuring the b7 pawn, ready to take if the bishop ever moves. After that, assuming they don't leave themselves open to f7 shenanigans, you try and bring your rooks to the center and attack down the middle. The downside is that if black plays carefully and manages to get developed and castled without blundering a piece, you're poorly set up for a queen's side attack, down 2 pawns and with a light squared bishop that isn't positioned to support a push. AFAIK, black's best option is actually to take on d4 but not accept the gambit on c3. Either push to d3 or guard d4 with e5. It retards the development of the knight (because the pawn is in the way) and gives black a chance to get ahead on development as white is dealing with the pawn that's crammed down their throat.
Just started watching your videos. It’s by far the best out there, you are criminally underrated considering the content you provide us. Thank you so much and please keep it up. I appreciate it and I know many others do as well.
Don't listen to the critique. You're videos here on youtube have increased my rating from 900 to 1050 in 2 weeks, so there is plenty of stuff to learn for us who know how to play, but need some more principles. I think you've given me some solid theory for how to respond to different moves, so even though I don't know the theory behind openings, I still respond(mostly) in a good way so after a few moves I have the advantage. Now I just need to learn how to stop blundering every other move haha! I'll def keep watching this series till the end!
I hate that there' some many drama hunger people in the chats. Constantly trying to get Danya to comment on drama. Constantly trying to bait Hikaru into saying something that can be clipped. They recently did this with the Levy GM thing. They kept badgering Hikaru about it and finally he said "I think for him to have a realistic chance he'll have to step back from making content and focus really hard on improving and he has to do it soon or he'll miss the window." He also said that he shouldn't make recaps during his games. They immediately ran to Levy to claimed he was shit talking but it's like that it a very honest assessment of the situation. Both things take a ton of time. There's just physical not enough time and he wouldn't have the energy to do it. Levy confirmed this in his video. Not only does he only have like 2 hours a day to study while others would be doing it 10+ hours but he said himself that mentally he's drain and the last thing he wants to do is study for 2 hours. Also even HIkarus prep has suffered due to streaming and he's a freaking super GM. I've wished that he would cut back leading up to tournaments so why would it be insulting to say the same about Levy?
what i really appreciate about this speedrun is how danya doesn't play into bad positions. its not about teaching us how to play in bad positions it about teaching us how to not ever get into bad positions. this criticism isn't fair
The reddit post is stupid. Why would I, as a 1500 student want to learn how to play sub optimal chess? It's theory because it's best by test, if I'm going to learn chess from these videos I want to learn the best possible way to play. Keep doing what you're doing Danya, f the haters. Also... not that I play these openings or anything but... I'd like to see more Sicilian, QG and King's Indian games.
idk if the criticism is fair. yes, danya doesnt get bad positions because he plays good chess, but the point of the speedrun is showing that we can get good positions by playing logical, positional chess. it's not like he's opening with the sharpest lines in the catalan or blasting out theoretical lines of the accelerated dragon sicillian. at the lower levels, he's playing very sturdy, classical lines that might not be popular at the 2500+ player pool but are absolutely playable by a 1200-1500 rated player
Wait people want him to blunder on purpose just to learn how to come back from loosing positions? Why not watch his vids take notes and not get into bad positions in the first place. It's not like he just plays moves without explaining his thought process. Because you can follow his thought process you can apply it to new positions aswell.
It's because blunders are inevitable at all levels, and moreso at lower levels. Just like how Danya plays differently when he's down material, down a pawn, behind in development, or with a space disadvantage, there's value in knowing how to play in a [theoretically] losing position. An inevitable position, because chess is complicated.
So I'm now 1250 and these videos are what got me there. The more I watch them, the more I understand the game so its certainly working. Daniel is also the best teacher I've seen making every move understandable and applicable.
Really appreciate how you address criticism so thoughtfully and with humility. Especially in this age where so many reactions are defensive and take critical statements as personally attacks. Very classy.
I´ve been watching this masterseries since last week and I´ll continue doing because I find it amazing. I don´t know any other sport that we have the opportunity to be so close of a top player like Daniel. This (unhappy) comment that he read at the end of the video DOES NOT represent the great majority (probably less than 0.1% as we can see at the ratio like/dislike). As he always says during his games.."don´t overthink that too much".
That criticism was bullocks frankly. I find that rather discussing specific positions these speed runs are meant to teach us how to think about how to play any given position in an optimal way without a tonne of theory, which is wholly appropriate for an improving player. Graciously handled but to have to defend giving of his knowledge so generously is a bit rich IMO
I have a question, sorry it's so long after this video was posted. At 16:18, what if his opponent played Bg5, threatening the Queen on d1? If hxg5, Qh5+, then after Kg1, Rh6, threatening mate. Did Daniel have an escape from this? Obv he could give up his Queen to take the Bishop out when it went g5 but then he's down a Queen, and White is suddenly looking pretty good. Thank you for your response, and sorry if this has already been talked about. I didn't read all 156 other comments. haha
Not sure what the difference is between the Smith Mora, Goring and Danish gambit. The key moves for white seem the same? Does the distinction have more to do with blacks response? Love the videos!
I don't get the reddit post tbh. it says "it doesnt teach you to play out of bad positions" as a TLDR However, Danya is trying to teach you how to find GOOD MOVES in a given position, which will PREVENT you from reaching those bad positions. And the only way to get out of bad positions is either: be tricky OR keep trying to play good moves and hold on, draw (or punish inaccuracies/blunders from the other player and win). So, the person in question is crying because he plays bad moves instead of taking a moment to try to identify which move is the good one. it's hard!, but thats the entire point, you need to grasp what every position demands to be played in order to get to a good position, and if you fail, you must understand why or what in your position's assessment was wrong, because it's that assessment of the position that LEAD you into playing a "normal" looking move which turned out to be innacurate or bad. A example would be: "I get into bad positions, but instead of trying to understand why something like Nc3 before playing c4 is an inaccuracy (as Danya explained multiple times), I will not ever look at that move just because chess dot com told me its a good looking (or normal) move and fail miserably to understand that my position was bad because of an innaccuracy I decided to ignore nor change my assessment on that move, so I will make the same mistake forever."
i think youve made enough vids where you could make a series where its like the philidor series and on that acct you only try to play philidor even in bad situations and show as many games with that opening as possible, and like on white always play a certain opening and thats it. but i guess labeling them is fine but its like ok you play it as 800 and then again as 1800. but we dont get to see action in between
The criticism completely baffles me, if you are watching the series what would possibly keep you from playing the theory and knowing it since Daniel is literally teaching it?!
I don't see a problem with playing theory either. I often out-theory my opponents but then don't understand the position when they deviate first, and end up making it worse. plus, Danya actually didn't play the smith-morra according to theory in this video, so the point is moot anyway. so all in all the speedrun is great and super instructive.
Hey, Daniel. I have a question and I would really appreciate if you share your opinion. As a GM do you think it is possible for a man to make chess his only profession for the lifetime? Or is it better to learn something other than chess as well?
i think the best times to make blunders are when you say, it seems like this is a great move but ill show you why it isnt after the game... blunder that bad boy and instead show the correct move after
not just 1500. id like to see come backs from 1800 and up too. you could probably play balanced odds and theyd remove a couple pawns or a main piece from you to make it fair anyway so blundering during those games would be cool too
The issue with Chess is that there is almost no way to decouple so many ideas from one another. Tactics, strategy, and position all inform your middle game candidate moves. These ideas come from plans laid by the openings and are carried into the endgame. This is how when a top level GM tournament is played and the two players play a certain opening, commentators and analyst know whether or not one of the sides really wants to attack or if they just want a quick draw to conserve energy for a different opponent. I don't think you can detach how good Danya is in one phase of the game - leading to significant miss matches. The reason why 1300s don't spend more time in opening theory is because they would just blunder away the game later (and their opponent would oblige and return the bunder...). They are better served at learning the mid game (and occasional end game) stuff that is taught in the video. It would be interesting to see a collab where Danya and other (much lower elo) streamer(s) alternate who plays moves while they try to climb to 2000. Instead of just alternating every other move, you could do it ever 5 moves or something. I think the main issue is that the communication between players would have to be limited, because Danya could just explain what he wants to do and even I could find the right moves! (I think...) Analyze the games afterwards.
Actually I think 1500 player do play quite a bit of theory in the opening that they are familiar with. However, what a 1500 player lacks is the knowledge for many different openings, they often get lost after 3 moves in an opening that they haven't seen before. So maybe Daniel could explain more what one should do when encountering something that the player hasn't seen before even if Daniel knows all the theory behind it.
Danya - why do GMs never seem to castle in classical games? It always seems like they put it off for insanely long periods of time, and I find myself thinking "oh, this is 100% the turn he's going to castle" like seven times in quite a few games.
I have been subscribed to this channel for a while. But how can I find out when the next instalment of this speedrun takes place, so I can stream it live? thanks
I think the idea is that you play the Bishop first so if they pin your knight you sac your Bishop checking the king, they take, you check with the pinned knight, and you take their Bishop with your queen. Equal exchange but you end up ahead positionally. Please someone let me know if I'm wrong.
3:40 Why not Qa4+, If Nc6 then Bb5 thread the bishop on g4 and attack the knight twice. If Qd7 then Bb5 thread the Queen and open the attack to the bishop on g4. If Ke7 then it will be the advantage.
I'm 1500 and I almost always play theory moves for the first 5~10 moves, depending on the opening. I play Sicilian versus e4 and most of my opponents with white also know the theory. Some openings like Caro-Kann or Scandi theory is gone pretty quickly but honestly.. learning the theory for the openings you like to play is part of getting better at chess. It's not out of the realm of 1500.. not even 1200 imo
Yes, I think it's reasonable to make "bad" (but not really bad) moves on purpose to get into a position someone at that rating might actually get into, which might let Danya show some ways to recover from worse positions. Obviously he shouldn't only do that, because it's useful to learn theory as well
@@Tulanir1 Interesting to contrast Chessbrah's "Building Habits" where Aman would fearlessly blunder.. partly for the purpose of strictly following a "works 95% of the time" set of rules, partly for the purpose of following through with "you would play this? that's a mistake".
Comment to reddit post: Personaly I do not want to put myself in bad position to rely on my opponent's mistakes to get out. Learn openings to climb to get better, do not learn to train or to have fun.
I don't completely agree with the reddit post, given that Daniel spends a lot of time walking through what his opponents can and can't play in their often VERY BAD positions. Therefore, we get to learn from both perspectives, from the side winning and the side that is struggling.
Ridiculous to expect you to play like a 1200 player yourself in these videos. Can you imagine John Bartholomew doing the same in his climbing the rating ladder series? 😂 Just keep doing what you keep doing 👍
I would love to see a series where he is down and plays himself back into the game. In this more recent video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JyTKdxfD8no.html he mouse slips a knight and it's super interesting to see his thought process for how to get back into the game.
def would like to see some vids when you blunder and have to get out of a bad position or down a piece. its not like you can play these guys without balanced odds anyway... it would just be cooler to see you play normal and then make a blatant bad move and get yourself out of the situation. this isnt your main account, we all know you are better than that, and we all know its for instructional purposes and purely academic. i appreciate you taking the idea into consideration for future episodes. it makes me excited to watch as there are not instructional content out like this from a very high level. there are some already... but cant learn from a 1200 xD
