That "Lionel Messi" position at around Minute 8 was super tough. I was thinking for like 10 minutes. My ideas included: - f5 with the idea to be able to push the e pawn, open up the bishop and line the queen up with the bishop on e5. But I discarded it because I found it too weakening for the king - a4 bxa4 Bxc4 to weaken the White pawn structure or, if White pushes the b pawn, trade off our bad c pawns. Then I remembered the knight can take on a4 and it all went out the window. Plus, I already felt uneasy about giving White a passer before that. - the rook sac Rd4 that was the correct solution. First I was thinking only about making a passer, then I had the idea of exd4 followed by Qe5. You could also undouble the c pawns but I don't think that passer + undoubled c pawns is enough compensation for the exchange, especially since our bishops are still very bad despite the undoubling
So true. Perfect scientific approach! As Carlsen says, he doesn't calculate; the moves are somewhat 'natural' in many positions. Of course, sometimes it is necessary to calculate some variations, but the first moves are often guided by the pattern recognition, very similar to the concept of strategy. BTW, could we consider that the concepts of chunk and pattern recognition are more or less similar in he context of this course?
Thank you! Indeed, chunks stored in long-term memory allow a master to rapidly recognize those recurrent patterns on the chess board, leading to good intuitive judgements and selecting promising candidate moves to further analyse.
Dr Can - absolutely wonderful video (as always). I solve most of the problems you set in your videos but frequently overlook exchange sacrifices. It’s like a bug in my mental programming; I don’t even consider sacking the exchange. However the second you show the exchange sacrifice solution, it makes perfect sense to me and even looks very obvious in retrospect. Any advice on how to help someone like me who has a real blind spot when it comes to exchange sacrifices? Love your content!
Thank you so much for your inspiring comment! Seeing such model games AND understanding why those exchange sacs are powerful will surely help you consider them as candidates. In my rating climb series, I also noticed 1800 ELO has hard time making such long-term positional sacrifices. I guess it is resolved around 2000 ELO. I will soon publish a video about it ☺️
The word "genius" in English tends to mean "polymath" or "Renaissance man" or "extremely high IQ" but another important use of "genius" is logical ability in philosophical thinking, which I can assure you probably less than 1 in 100,000 do at all throughout history and I see little or no evidence of it among today's super GM''s.
Genius relies on intelligence. And intelligence relies on...highly contentious ideas. The most problematic being the kind of 'general' (mostly academic related) intelligence ascribed to so-called polymaths. In fact, intelligence exists well beyond the limited academic kind. Einstein only had but a narrow, special kind of intelligence. His intelligence appears to have been very middle of the road with respect to emotional intelligence. And I'll bet he was below average in terms of bodily-kinesthetic intelligence (as well as several other kinds of intelligences, too). Unfortunately, whenever a person is accomplished in something and is then labeled a genius, the tendency by most is to believe that must surely apply in all human activities (intelligent behavior). That kind of genius is a fiction. I'm fine calling MC a chess genius. But I think the better label is 'supreme talent.' And I believe this mostly comes about for him as a result of his high motivation. And that nearly all his motivation comes about because of his eidetic memory. With chess being a memory game, it's the perfect backdrop for leveraging a talent afforded by his genes.
@jaybingham3711 Memory is involved in chess, but so are the speed of learning, the speed of thinking, understanding, creativity, visualization, calculation, evaluation, discipline, and perseverance.
if it is so that chunks help a lot in understanding key moves, i would like to make a request to you to make a dedicated series about these chunks or name a book that speaks abouts these
Number of chunks are estimations based on computer modelling and eye tracking studies. There is no definite list. It is good to study recurring patterns (tactical and positional) that has high chance of occurrence in your games/your openings.
I've heard it said by chess trainers that a distinguishing feature of GMs is their ability to evaluate a position (before and after all the calculations) quickly and accurately. I get this sense whenever I have the opportunity to see footage of Magnus talking about his process, how his intuition is very strong, which allows him to play speed chess so well too. I suppose that "intuition" is not all magic, but must have a significant experiential component - pattern storage and recognition and such. But it still seems mysterious to us on the outside! Added: I commented too early. After watching more, I can see my comment is pretty redundant. But it was an honest first reaction. Thanks for the thought provoking and educational content!
Thank you! There is a 2023 article that also found exactly that. Chess skill correlated with evaluations within 5 seconds! Strong players had better evaluations only after looking at the position for 5 seconds! I made a video about this as well.
I'm fascinated by the concept of the chunks in chess. Is there a way to more specifically define them, or does one have to discover them as part of study of all stages and elements of the game, recognising them instinctively and internalising them? Sorry if this doesnt make sense, hard to express what I mean!
I think Gobet's book is great to explore this further (The Psychology of Chess). A chess chunk basically means a group of pieces that are organized/grouped together (e.g. good knight on d5 vs. a bad bishop middlegame). This chunk is a meaningful whole and can be linked to information e.g. action. Example: when you have an outpost on d5, exchange pieces and establish a knight on d5. This is an action that is connected to the above chunk. As you grow stronger, you can store larger chunks in your long-term memory.
@@Dr.CansClinic Thanks for this explanation, Can! So in theory (can't see anyone ever actually attempting this!) could someone produce a list of the 200,000 chunks which you said GMs internalise? Is it literally a discrete set in that sense?
Thank you! It is just an estimate, Prof. Gobet talks a little bit about it in this talk: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bG6aIeyu4E4.html@@newstatejim
Really excellent stuff. During this fine breakdown however, another recurring myth (#6) raised its head: that chess players are athletes engaging in a "sport." I have some ideas about why people are so proned to assert such a thing. And it certainly doesn't take a genius...nor a degree in psychology...to list several valid possible reasons why people are inclined to engage in such overreach. A fascinating study would be to poll general populations on which board games people believe qualify as sport. Then take a poll of people who are highly-skilled in a particular board game and aggregate the results of that group and compare it against the general population. My hypothesis would be that the highly-skilled board game population will skew significantly higher in terms of believng board games involve athletes. I'd particularly be interested in seeing the breakdown of which games do/don't pass mustard in that regard and the reasons used to support such participant believes. Don't get me wrong...clearly chess can be grueling. And while it doesn't come close to burning calories like one would playing football, it does burn calories well above basal rates. But so does poker. And Scrabble. And Backgammon. And... That said, in the end, athlete likely just aligns with porn--while a true definition is forever elusive and debatable, there's often little doubt as to one knowing it when they see (or don't see) it.
🤩wow for this video,this has done wonders for my chess self esteem 🎉as I usually always banging my head thinking that every move must accomplish something great,an must cause the opponent distress, thinking my play is terrible,the fact that I beat ppl fide rated indicate mabey am not grandmaster but not so bad🎉😂
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 are the theoretical moves that define Rudy Lopez opening. The play can go many ways from here and the best variations are also theory.
