Відео

Thanks. I am not 100% sure what you mean by a live analysis board. As I explain in some videos and answer to comments, I often don't "move the pieces" or "draw lines" when I want the viewer to practice visualization (they can often pause the video if they need to). But then there are other videos where I do those things, like my one on the geometry of tactics or maybe some of the videos on practicing visualization, so it's not always one way or the other.

Thanks, much appreciated. If you have only seen a few there are 360+ more to help! :)

Thanks Greg; glad it was helpful :)

You are most welcome; we aims to please :)

Thanks! Glad to hear from you. Pass the word! :)

Interesting. As someone not very good at foreign languages, my analogies with them would be less accurate :)

Thanks, much appreciated. Well, everyone has to "think" to calculate. Too much verbablization component can slow you down, as you state. Of course, you want to practice good thought process in time controls that facilitate this. If you are playing chess at say, 30 0, that's probably too fast to really get good habits. But if you are having this trouble at G/90 increment 30 that's another issue...

Gordon, good to hear from you. Hopefully the format of the video was similar to the past (I did not change much except the content) :)

Thanks, very gracious of you to say :) Glad to be of service.

Bill, good to hear from you. Glad you found 1.c4 - most U1800 don't. The 2nd is harder despite it's easy appearance but at the least you want to see that 1.Qxd2 f6 2.Ng4 h5 traps the N so you can't just quickly play that...

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I only do that occasionally (highlight/move pieces) because I encourage viewers to visualize without "aids". Viewers also have the ability to pause so they can visualize more slowly. But yes, sometimes the lines are helpful. I believe in the video on The Tactics of Geometry ua-cam.com/video/UADk-omrXB8/v-deo.html I use a lot of arrows because the subject matter lends itself to that :)

@@danheismanchess Understood. 😊

Thanks! Much appreciated. If you get a chance, pass the word about ua-cam.com/users/danheismanchess to your chess friends :)

Did you read my note to the video which explains that apparently my software Camtasia, when I pause the recording, continues to record the camera, so at the end there is more camera footage than screen shot video? This seems to be the cause of the "dead air" at the end of some of my recent videos which contain the inserted camera shots. The only thing I might be able to do about this is edit the video after it is finished to delete those parts; I am not very good at that but I might have to give it a try.

Yup, it took me a while to arrive in the 2nd puzzle at 1.Kxd2 Qa5+ 2.c3 f6 3.b4 Qa3 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Nxg6 Qb2+ and even then I was very surprised when the engine later told me that was the PV (principle variation = best moves for both sides).

Thanks, much appreciated. And we thank Dr. Can for providing the instructive puzzles via Twitter :)

Thanks, much appreciated! If you can, pass the word about my channel ua-cam.com/users/danheismanchess :)

I know that some primarily online players have trouble when first playing OTB because they are used to playing 2D, and vice versa as some OTB players have more trouble trying to play online because they are used to visualizing in 3D. However, your question about visualizing in general I have not considered; I guess everyone is different. When I visualize in blindfold play it's somewhat 2D but when i play online it's more 2D and when I play OTB it's more 3D (in other words I just duplicate what I "see"), and I never thought about it because it's a moot point if you can see the board clearly either way.

​@@danheismanchess I wasn't thinking about a different board view depends on if OTB or online. Thank you for your thoughts

No, I never said or wrote anywhere that "Gambits are by definition unsound". Clearly some are and some are not. The gambit (I use the term loosely here because it is not a serious attempt at a gambit, but just a blunder) 1.e4 e5 2.Qf3 Nc6 3.Qxf7+ to prevent White from castling is ridiculously unsound. However, the engine finds many gambits "sound" (meaning they the amount of material given up is equally or more than compensated by other factors such as activity, king safety, central control, pawn structure, etc). That is also the definition of a gambit: you purposely sacrifice material in the opening (usually a pawn but not always) with the goal of getting equal or preferably more compensation from those other factors. Yes, King's Gambit players try to win their pawn back, but with perfect play by Black, White cannot equalize, hence the engine's strong preference for Black after 2...exf4. If you want to chat about this further, feel free to call my landline via my website.

@@danheismanchess My (phone) engine says 3. Nf3 Be6 4. e4 c6 5. Ng5 Qd7 6. Nc3 b5 7. Be2 Nf6 8. e5 Nd5 9. Nxe6 Qxe6 10. a4 Nxc3 11. bxc3 and Black seems to hold onto the pawn by force, but it’s +2.1. More practical is 3. e3 Be6 4. Nc3 c6 5. Nf3 b5 at which point the best move is 6. Be2 and Black seems to hold onto the pawn with +0.7. White need not play into these lines, but perhaps if Black is willing to go Saving Private Ryan he can sometimes keep the pawn.

OK, White's pretty much winning if he's up 2.1, but even that's not the point. As I pointed out in the video, even the poor 3.Qa4+ wins back the pawn. The Queen's Gambit is a gambit in name only because White is not really offering to sacrifice a pawn with 2.c4. In a real gambit you give up material and can't get it back by force (as he can here), but are willing to part with material voluntarily to achieve some other aim (as mentioned/listed in my previous reply). We call sacrifices where you get it all back by force "pseudo-sacrifices" or "sham-sacrifices", but an opening gambit would not be one of those. Some of this is semantics, of course; there is no official dictionary of chess, so what one author says/defines it not always agreed by all authors.

Good question. It depends on which exercise, time available, difficulty of the analysis, etc. Normally you don't write things down because in a game you can't anyway, so you want to practice "keeping track" of what you have seen without the aid of notes. But then there's something like the Stoyko Exercise (see #3.1 at www.danheisman.com/chess-exercises.html) where you write down everything you can possibly see, with no time limit. But if you are doing repetitious basic tactics (one of the best set of puzzles to do), you are not going to be writing your analysis.

Gary, thanks! Hope others can benefit from your comment.

@@danheismanchess During the pause the video moment, I also analyzed and then evaluated Bxc5, Bxe1 sequence going into the pawn up connected passed pawn endgame as much better for white. But then it was great practical training playing this position out against stockfish level 6 on Lichess.

Thanks, much appreciated. I try to break things down and elaborate, greatly helped by my students explanations of what caused their errors. Whenever there is an error, I try not to just say "That's a mistake; you should have done X" but instead ask "What was your thinking that caused that error?" - and I see the same, or very similar, explanations that occur frequently and I have tried to categorize them (ABC error, quiescence error, Hope Chess, Hand-waving, not asking "What are ALL the things that move does?", etc)

​ @danheismanchess Too many titled chess players, UA-cam or elsewhere, are either too vague, ambiguous, incomplete, or way too fast with their instruction. I'm literally playing chess with a disability. A neurological disorder with a trivial name that nobody takes seriously. Same as what GM Eric Hansen has. But he doesn't have problems with working memory. His symptoms present in other areas. Otherwise, I'd probably be a lot higher rated than in the low 1400s to 1500s. That's why I like your methodology and original terminology so much. I've watched a lot of your videos and to familiarize myself with your original terminology and thought process. I was so impressed that I bought your Improving Chess Player book.

4 min of dead air. That is very strange. I made the video as normal, stopped recording, and uploaded. I wonder how that happened. I could edit the video and reload; not sure that is worth it. Yes, technically it is one more interposition to mate :)

Capa has a very high-pitched bark. :) He's named after my favorite chess player. If you get a female dog, you should name her Blanca.

Capa is a female. Our male dog is Harry, named after the kids' book "Harry the Dirty Dog"

@@danheismanchess I incorectly assumed male because the puppy is named after Capablanca. Capablanca was male so I wrongly deduced that the puppy was male also. Capo would be the masuline in Italian. Like in the Italian mafia.

Thanks. Yes, unfortunately the original Novice Nooks are behind a paywall now. But you can purchase from Everyman my book A Guide to Chess Improvement: the best of Novice Nook as well as find videos here on UA-cam covering most of the key Novice Nook concepts. :)

@danheismanchess I got it Mr. Dan! I really love the work you put into that book. Very good stuff 👏 Your videos are hidden gems too! Huge Thanks!

Hopefully in rating, not age! :)

If you know something is 100% always so (let's say K & 2 P vs K where the pawns are safe and not doubled) always wins, then sure, if you have a line that can force such a position, it is strategically safe to head to that line without a ton of calculation. But be careful when you do that; I often see lower rated players make that kind of mistake because they "didn't see something..." :)

Thanks, much appreciated. I hope to "fill the space" of improvement with videos to cover all, or at least almost all, aspects of improvement :)

I think LiChess is currently using Stockfish 16 (they might not tell you if it's 16.1); I am pretty sure Stockfish 16.1 does this already but I assume Stockfish 16 does as well (you can check Stockfish' web pages). So my guess is that they already are. Remember, probability-based evaluations are expressed in exactly the same "centipawn" values as the older evaluations; Larry's table shows how to convert to probability. So you can't tell just by looking at the format of the evaluation; the material-based and probability based evaluations look the same.

I can assure you "Winning Chess Exercises for Kids" by Coakley is not a beginner tactics book (like Bain's or Giannatos or even my Back to Basics: Tactics)! I am a master and I found most of the exercises in Coakley's "blue book" challenging. It's not a super-advanced book, but a superb intermediate book, best that I know.

@@danheismanchess thank you sir for taking the time to answer and make these videos , sounds like tge book will be loads of fun

@@danheismanchess thanks for the reccomendation i cant put the book down, i like how each page contains an endgame, stalemate, and material position(s) as well as the mates. Do you have a suggestion for which book i might progress to after this one?

Thanks, much appreciated. Yes, "bishop pair" is really short for "the advantage of the bishop pair" - where "advantage" means one side has it and the other does not. So you don't have to state "...when the opponent does not have it" - that's built into the definition. GM Kaufman measured having the bishop pair as being worth a bonus of about 0.5 pawns, on average. And you are correct; as you improve, you can use/feel the power you have when the bishops are strong, but when you first start out that same advantage is there but you don't feel it as much, just as a master would feel a pawn advantage to be much more powerful than a beginner would. Hope that helps.

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, what makes it better for some detracts from others so it's often hard to please everyone. It's sort of like the old schoolhouse in the West where you have to teach math to all the students K-12 at the same time :) But I will definitely try to remember to use arrows if I am making a video like this aimed specifically for a level where arrows work. For example, I believe Laura Smith and I use arrows in our Intro to capturing sequences course for Chessable: www.chessable.com/can-i-take-it-a-beginners-guide-to-capturing-pieces/course/174891/

​@@danheismanchessI'd also really appreciate arrows or at least a mouse cursor moving. Just a beginner looking to learn!

Yes, sometimes the "avoid stalemate" idea makes for an interesting puzzle :)

Thanks, much appreciated. Well, to be accurate, in my definition calculation is part of analysis; it's the part where one is analyzing forcing sequences to see if they get the desired result (win or save material or mate, some positional means). So all calculation is part of analysis but there are other parts of analysis that don't require calculation. That's just my definition; other authors and instructors are welcome to disagree and have their own definitions; there's no official dictionary of chess to decide "final" definitions.

Great, glad to be of service. I am almost your same age but reversed, 73. So when you write "being older..." :) Hope you also enjoy my chess tip of the day at twitter.com/danheisman and the free articles at www.danheisman.com.

Thanks. Yes, the camera is new so I've gotta watch that!

The camera insert is now fixed, thanks. ua-cam.com/video/IqlRpfLB58A/v-deo.html

Yes, unless you are a professional "having fun" has to be right up there with "trying to win" and "doing your best each move" as important goals. And yes, getting lots of sleep before a tournament so you are rested and eager to play is a very important (probably the most important) part of tournament preparation, much more than reviewing your openings, for instance.

Thanks! Great game by Howard! :)

Marcus, as soon as you told me he passed away (thank you again for letting me know), I immediately tweeted out my condolences/feelings to my ~7,000 Twitter followers. I have also mentioned it in a couple of videos: I gave Silman great credit for all he did, including having me write "The Thinking Cap" for his website (Chapter 10 in my book The Improving Chess Thinker, thanks to Silman's permission) or great ideas like when he stated that a plan has to be both feasible & effective to be seriously considered. So I am not sure why you think I have not acknowledged him just because I have not made an entire video dedicated to him.

Thank you, much appreciated. When certain concepts are important and often repeat, it makes sense to give them a name to make them more identifiable & memorable. I tend to do this with common thought process mistakes, since helping mitigate those is often part of my teaching job.

@@danheismanchess Absolutely, your experience shines through! Thanks again, Dan.

Thanks, much appreciated! Pass the word to your chess friends if you get a chance :)

It's all semantics. You always need to analyze but, by my definition of calculation, yes, you calculate whether forcing sequences are worthwhile: do they win/lose material, change the evaluation, etc. Even on moves when you don't play a forcing move, you might have to spend a bit of time calculating both sides' forcing moves to see what they could do.

@@danheismanchess Thanks alot

Thanks! Yes, I wish I could do this all the time. That was one of my best combos. Keep working at it; practice may not make perfect, but it does make "better". :)