When you’re 1300-1400 and get caught up in a fad that’s been dead for a solid year, then yes, you are touting his garbage. Garbage because everybody knows that Eric Rosen does not play that stuff in his classical games.
Ya, at that point(1300-1400) I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt of being naive
other than danya, eric rosen, gotham, hikaru, agamator (those are the only ones I know lol)
“agamator”
other than danya, eric rosen, gotham, hikaru, agamator (those are the only ones I know lol)
Chess Network is so underrated. His Chess Beginner to Master series is the most instructive chess videos I've found so far. The only other instructional videos you see on youtube are someone playing against someone and giving educational commentary(Chess Network does that in every one his games while he streams. Great commentary) or a rating climb. Although those are still educational they don't have nearly as much instructional value as Chess Network teaching a concept in great depth using multiple example games. For example, his video on Pawn Holes is around 2 hours and I've watched it three times because I get way more out of it than anything else. But alas, that isn't what makes the big bucks.
uhh botez, samay, sl chess club, coffee chess the ones i think of off the top of my head
Particular group - d4 openings like london, Catalan.
Just play whatever you want unless it's otb
I guess you can use the london as a defensive opening but when I play with it, I usually attack just like in the colle zuck. It's fairly easy using the london as an attacking system.
These openings are neither defensive nor offensive, they are severely passive and can be refuted.
I don't think you understand the word "Refuted" as a chess term.
I don't think you do. The accelerated London is 100% refuted, I'm going to make a blog exactly on how to do it + theory soon.
All you can do against the london is equalize easily. In this day and age as black you can equalize against any opening it might just take a decent amount more of theory to do so.
I think everyone here can agree with me that "equalizing" is not the same as "refuting"
Then, you'll see most beginners going around talking about how they’re are DEFINITELY a tactical player only to realize a month later that they enjoy positional chess more because they saw a video on ChessNetwork talking about the positional concepts of chess.
this is factually incorrect, because anybody who constantly touts eric rosen's garbage won't ever learn positional chess, because they would be too busy studying the latest opening theory and wondering why they can't break 1200 when they have a 2000 online rating.
god how do you read that green text
other than danya, eric rosen, gotham, hikaru, agamator (those are the only ones I know lol)
Hanging Pawns, John bartholomew, Botez, Saint Louis Chess Club, those are the only ones i can think of.
other than danya, eric rosen, gotham, hikaru, agamator (those are the only ones I know lol)
Hanging pawns
thechesswebsite
So tell me how black "equalizes"? I doubt even know the scary refutation, black wins in mainline 50% more games than white in the masters database. The lines I give guarantee you an 8% (usually more) advantage for black over white.
With your logic, the queens gambit declined is completely refuted.
So tell me how black "equalizes"? I doubt even know the scary refutation, black wins in mainline 50% more games than white in the masters database. The lines I give guarantee you an 8% (usually more) advantage for black over white.
a main line is not the same thing as a refutation
That’s not how refuting works
It does. White will always win more games than black.
A refutation is objective, and not based on the results of a database. I’ve said this before. Look at maroczy bind positions- white scores terribly well, but it’s objectively equal. It does not refute anything.
there is a reufutation, it's not the mainline, it's the mainline of the sidelines
if anything, a mainline of a sideline would be worse than the main mainline. you can't tell just from a database that an opening is refuted
how "well does white score"?
pretty good
To further prove my point, let me show a position in the closed catalan.
This is just pathetic. After 8.Nc3, the mainline, 8...Re8, has NO WINS AT ALL for black. 85% win, 15% draw. Sitting here and letting the engine run after
So, refuted? Technically, no.
Refuted? OF course! Maybe not the Maroczy, but the Catalan yes. that specific line.
If it's refuted, then you could win playing against stockfish 14.2, because that is the definition of refuted.
Refuted? OF course! Maybe not the Maroczy, but the Catalan yes. that specific line.
If it's refuted, then you could win playing against stockfish 14.2, because that is the definition of refuted.
*Viznik variation intensifies*
Refuted? OF course! Maybe not the Maroczy, but the Catalan yes. that specific line.
If it's refuted, then you could win playing against stockfish 14.2, because that is the definition of refuted.
*Viznik variation intensifies*
I'm pretty sure that is borderline refuted.
For example, it is generally accepted that the modern benoni isn't very sound. However, if you look at all the different ways people play against it-
it isn't refuted. If it was, everyone would play the same way against it at grandmaster level. But they don't.
Refuted? OF course! Maybe not the Maroczy, but the Catalan yes. that specific line.
If it's refuted, then you could win playing against stockfish 14.2, because that is the definition of refuted.
Even if an opening is refuted, you cannot win against a maxed out engine.
Yes you can... If you're up like a piece for no compensation, that's not very difficult to win. Even if it's difficult, if you can win after a few tries, that's basically enough.
Refuted? OF course! Maybe not the Maroczy, but the Catalan yes. that specific line.
If it's refuted, then you could win playing against stockfish 14.2, because that is the definition of refuted.
*Viznik variation intensifies*
I'm pretty sure that is borderline refuted.
For example, it is generally accepted that the modern benoni isn't very sound. However, if you look at all the different ways people play against it-
it isn't refuted. If it was, everyone would play the same way against it at grandmaster level. But they don't.
That was only one line you showed. GMs who do tons of opening prep avoid these lines.
I don't even know what you're talking about.
What I said is that the modern benoni isn't refuted because grandmasters play many different choices against it. I'm also not talking about black fudging around his move order to get into a gheorgi benoni.
He has these clickbait titles too and you see it’s just damn two hour long unedited twitch stream with him acting all “low energy” all the time