THE WORST CHESS ADVICE?! GM REACTS!

GM Daniel Naroditsky is BACK to react to YOUR WORST chess advice! We asked you to send us your WORST chess advice and you didn’t let us down!

Follow us here 😀:
✅ Join the world’s largest chess community:
💜 Check us out on Twitch:
📸 Follow us on Instagram:
📱 Like us on Facebook:
🎶 Follow us on TikTok:
💙 Follow us on Twitter:

#chess #chesscom #chessvideos

29 Comments

  1. For the next episode we want YOUR bad chess advice! Reply with your worst and we'll see what Danya thinks!

  2. I came here for horrible chess advice and got utterly disappointed. Most of the advice is actually quite good.

  3. I don't agree that chess principles are violated to a certain extent. I think they might seemingly be violated but the moves that might be accused of violating them, given that it is actually a good move, are usually only violating them on the surface but are actually just following them on a deeper level. Maybe they are violated but I like to try and fit such moves into a deeper understanding of chess principles rather than considering them something that only stronger players can do. At the end of the day, a good move is a good move with strong logic behind it.

    Edit: I also think Rosen's advice is aimed at one's own blunders rather than the opponent's.

  4. Regarding GMs being human and making mistakes: one of the first popular chess channels on Twitch and YouTube is @ChessNetwork. He's a US National Master. His most popular video is him legitimately falling for scholar's mate and then laughing at it. If an NM can fall for it and laugh it off, it's okay that we sometimes do.

  5. The advice about the queen is something I live by myself there is time and place to attack with the queen just because you do queens gambit doesn’t mean the second move you need to move the queen you need to set the gambit up. Just like also good advice should be you also shouldn’t be dependent on winning because you have a queen sometimes queen trades benefit your tactical position sometimes the queen trade may benefit your opponent but you should be able to win games without your queen

  6. I think Danya misinterpreted Eric Rosen's "Treat every blunder as a gambit." He means this as one of your own blunders, try and see the benefits (open files etc) rather than assume an opponents blunder is a trick, although this can also be good advice.

  7. If Nemo or Anna told me to play f3 I would.

  8. smirnov's rule is to take is a mistake. You stopped the video to soon

  9. 4:12 "It's like being stuck in the ocean and you're trying to find little pieces of flotsam and jetsam and debris to grab onto … eventually you build yourself a little island in the middle of an ocean."

    That's not chess, Danya, that's Raft. You're describing Raft.

  10. Rules reviewed by the Sensei Himself! ❤

  11. I think you missed the point on Erics advice.

    Treat YOUR OWN blumders as gambits.

    As in, ok, you blumdered, dont get hung up on it, try to make the best of the resultimg position. Try to get some compensation. Even if its positional

  12. Yeah – chess principles – don't like to follow them – and i learned recently – i am right with it – only problem – i am just 3500 elo to low and no supercomputer

  13. I thought that Rosen's advice was related to your own blunders? Like if you hang a piece or blunder a pawn, don't give up or feel down on yourself, but go on with an offensive mentality and look for counterplay and resources.

  14. This was respectfully done. I was fearing more meme-ing of content creators. It's all uncharted waters.

  15. I spent literally months finding the best move through trial and error (Gucci piano line for example), not learning theory at all. Just make the most logical sense out of the position and playing, and then I get to a point where a child that has studied theory can whoop out 20 moves out of memory. Play every single best move in 1 minute time, not use their brain whatsoever, and get a decent position against you.

    The evan's gambit for example, I never ever ever studied the evan's gambit. I lost hundreds of games on the evan's gambit, I end up playing the stonewall variation (without studying) and I start winning more and more. You know how many games I've lost in the evans gambit trying to find a semi decent line, where someone can literally look up a 3 minute course and dry up the game.

    What's my benefit?
    I can literally play tens of different lines, without any theory and get a decent position, I can play the vienna, find the best move in seconds, with just my brain.

    What's the drawback?
    The fucking time. The time usage, is horrible for me. The time usage kills me.

    So it's fun, but than again it's not so fun.

  16. "Treat every blunder like it's a gambit" is about not tilting, isn't it?

  17. I actually had a couple of interesting games where the only way the position made sense was to play F3, but you have to check a lot of boxes before you can even consider that move in the middlegame. For example: if the opponent's dark squared squared bishop is traded off and the queen has no immediate way to take advantage of that diagonal or your king is tucked in the corner, and you have a center pawn you want to chain so you can move your knight to do other things. I checked Stockfish the couple times I played games in those scenarios and it said that it was one of the better moves. I was actually proud of that because usually Stockfish will call you a dumbass for such moves.

    This is an example of where you can't just use chess principles as dogma. I think the better way to look at the principles is to get yourself in positions where following them is the best continuation. It's extremely powerful if you can play moves that control the center, develop your pieces, castle early, good piece activity and the like, but in order to get to these good positions you have to respect your opponent's threats first, and it's not always going to be so easy and simple.

  18. Another thing: I think what Eric Rosen is saying is if you blunder a piece, the best way to play is aggressively to complicate the position to muddy the waters, because if you blunder a piece and just try to defend yourself and be solid, you're going to lose, but if you use the time the opponent takes to capture your piece to create counterplay, you'll have a much better chance of causing them to make a mistake. I have the same mindset. If I blunder very early on in the game, I'm immediately going on the attack to either go for some checkmate or trying to grab as much space on the board as I can or something to make it harder to find the best moves.

    Of course nothing is an absolute here because there are times when you can force mistakes just by being extremely solid with what you have as well, if you can get a better board position and better placed pieces. That can usually make up for at least a point in material in itself.

  19. No bro, it's the other way around with Eric, he means when you blunder a piece treat it as a gambit

  20. This is a really good video. Well done Danya.

  21. Gingergm be like f4 first move (the birds)

  22. 5:00 "control the center" – closed position you open it up because u want to "control the center" and lose material
    "bring your pieces up" can mean anything including Ke2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *