Chess channels recommendable for those who want to improve (See post #1)

I would also like to state that there is a great disparity that exists between the quality of videos on chess.com.  This demonstrates that even if one is a great chess player one is not of nesessity a great teacher.  IM David Pruess in my opinion has made some of the best chess.com videos, his introduction to the Caro Kann was awesome, well explained and articulated and pitched at a level that one could grasp, it was contrasted to a large extent by GM Sam Shanklands follow up videos on the same opening which were among the worst i have had the misfortune to encounter, his explanations amounted to, 'i dont believe in this variation therfore i dont recommend it', well gee thanks Sam, that explains everything.  Roman Dzindzichashvelli has also some gerat videos and his opening videos are extermely helpful because they not only cover the opening but middle game plans as well.  Its also fun to watch him come to grips with his hairdo.

you better stick with English.

Two things:

Can we please get back on track?

1. Sure, SeanGGodly's channel is still in question on whether it directly helps you improve (he gives a very nice explanation of what he covers) and there are other youtubers here that have advertised their channel in this thread, myself included. However, my point remains that even though my channel might be likable, it doesn't mean its a good channel to learn from. Where are the people saying their ratings have improved as a result from watching "__________'s" channel?

2. What are other channels, that have not been mentioned or advertised, that would be recommendable?

"His argument was based on a typical logical fallacy, i even provided examples of that fallacy, may i suggest you read this article."

Haha, of course, instead of reading my response to the suggested objections to this line of reasoning, just assume I don't know what you're referring to :)

Yes, I know why this is considered a fallacy. All a fallacy really means is that one thing does not logically follow from another necessarily. It doesn't mean that it can't suggest the truth of something, it just means that the info can't prove it 100% in the same way that, say, the truth of A can be used to prove the statement "A or B."

So I would say again: just spitting out "fallacy fallacy fallacy" from your school class isn't really addressing anything specifically :)

To simply decide to never use a popularity argument will limit your options; it's more about using it carefully. For example, if a large percentage of scientists believe something to be true, it can be reasonably asserted that this belief is causally related to it actually being true (in that the trueness of the statement causes the (true) belief of that statement), since whatever trueness the statement may have will likely be found by a scientist.

Even here of course I keep some scepticism -- scientists can have motives and can make mistakes too. But I'm certainly going to take the above into consideration.

On one hand it's easy to validate something because of popularity. On the other hand it's easy to dismiss 10000 subscribers if you really want to. I don't know it's kind of hard to get that many subscribers -- it seems a bit unfair to dismiss such a difficult achievement so quickly. After all it's not like the guy is showing his breasts for attention -- he is making instructional chess videos :)

i agree mostly, but one has to consider some famous cases, such as:

bustin jieber;

lots of scentists beleiving darwin's theory of evolution - when the weakness in his theory asserted himself by darwin has materialised;

and above all the Backyard Professor, most of the youtube comments are extremely positive.

I'm just saying popularity is a valid thing to consider. You just have to use it right. For example going by the popularity of an opinion among scientists is better than going by an opinion of the general public. And of course you have to make sure the causal link works -- for example, as has been mentioned, there are other factors besides instructiveness that can make a chess video popular, so popularity may or may not be caused by instructiveness. And of course the general public might believe something because that's the easiest thing for them to understand, rather than it being the most logical thing to believe. Still, it's not entirely unreasonable to suggest that, heaven forbid, the general public might be right sometimes as well :)

So popularity is not really something you can say is automatically irrelevant or automatically relevant. A lot depends on the specifics.

<Infinite Flash>

Rhetorical questions are questions that are asked in order to illustrate a point, and the asker usually does not expect an answer. Politicians and the like use them to get a crowd to sympathise with their standpoint. For example: "Can we afford to let the strength of terrorist groups continue to rise?"

I inferred that you do not like to discuss things purely because you did not respond to my post in the expected manner. But this is your decision, of course.

No problem about the misunderstanding, I accept your apology and I hope we can smooth things over.

To answer your question: many people have contacted me saying that my videos have helped their chess. Everyone from beginners to old hands who have returned to the game after many years away from it. The response to Nimzowitsch's My System was massive as it's a book that every GM alive has read and that one that is constantly mentioned in chess circles all over the world. This was also the case with the books of Fischer and, to a lesser degree, Capablanca. My tournament coverage has also been very popular, with people giving similar feedback regarding instruction and learning.

There are many comments on the wall of my account on this website that say the same things, as well.

<Robbie1969>

It's unfortunate that you cannot bear the 'monotone'. A lot of people have a different view. Your loss, buddy!

There are many benefits to having a Youtube annotator go through a book, rather than reading it yourself. For instance: you do not have to buy the book or the equipment (chess set and engine) that would be necessary otherwise. Also it is much easier from a practical point of view for the ideas and explanations to be carried out on a screen rather than on a board. If you are going through variations on a physical board then every time you go through a sideline etc you have to ensure that you have the correct game position when you return to it again, and so on. Moreover, I include many variations that are not featured in the books that I have analysed in depth using Fritz 12 - variations that I believe beginners/club players would be likely to consider. Also, many of these books, especially the old ones, feature mistakes that it is important to point out. A beginner/club player without an engine would not notice these mistakes. Finally: this is the modern world; people have iphones and tablets with them everywhere they go. Is it possible to bring a chess set and training manual with you on your way to work? (There's a rhetorical question to boot).

Also, a large proportion of my videos do not come from books but are studies of historical games, current tournaments, opening theory, traps and so on. Therefore your criticism that you don't see why people shouldn't just read the books themselves is only 'valid' for about 40% of my material.

I cannot agree with your claim that my earlier post was a logical fallacy. First of all, I was making a statement, and not proposing an argument, therefore the issue of whether it is a logical fallacy or not does not directly apply.

Secondly, the conclusion that my channel is good/popular (which I am not claiming) as a result of studying the premises that I have 10,000 subscribers and 3 million views is a sound one. This is a correct application of probability and causation. How else do you explain realistically the subscribers and views?

The problem with logical arguments/fallacies is that they depend on absolute truths that are not available in this situation. This is because there are, potentially, other ways that I could generate views and subscribers, if I was so inclined. Therefore the entire approach of using logic in this debate is incorrect because there are too many external factors at work. Try and come up with an argument that proves, logically, why a youtube chess channel is good - it's not an easy task because it depends on absolute truths, and youtube chess annotation is an inexact science in comparison to mathematics, for example.

It would be illogical and fallacious to claim:

"... because I have 10 zillion views and 50 squillion subscribers my channel is good..."

as you correctly pointed out. However, this is not what I said. My exact words were:

"... 10,000 subs and 3 million hits speak for themselves..."

which, as indicated, is a statement and not an argument. (It does not contain an "if X then Y" clause). I am not saying that subscribers and views mean I have a good channel. I am saying that subscribers and views means there is a lot of interest in my channel and, therefore, it is probable that I have a good channel.

There is another problem in that the definition of a good channel is a matter of opinion and not a matter of fact. Therefore, again, the notion of applying logical arguments is lacking in common sense.

Regarding your second comment: I am not sure how many of my videos you have watched, but I don't believe that the issue of being 'monotone' is either a legitimate observation or a legitimate criticism. We are talking about chess videos here! If you want excitement then go to the rodeo.

Secondly, I do not read verbatim from the books I use. I go to great lengths in preparation for my videos and I write out exactly what I am going to say before I begin, in order to ensure that the videos are seamless, well organised and well constructed. I'm sure you know yourself that if there are many sidelines etc it is not always easy to keep track of where you were, and so on, and this is one of the reasons why I do this. (I am also a professional writer and, therefore, it's important to me that the presentation of English is correct, which is another reason why I write everything out before I begin. Please view any of my videos from tournament games if you would like evidence of this as, of course, there is no possible way I could be reading from a book for these videos).

Please see my above comment regarding why "...people cannot read these publications for themselves ...". In response to your claim "...because there is no attempt at interpretation..." I can only suggest that you examine some of the books I have explored, where it will be abundantly clear how much I have expanded and interpreted the material therein.

Cheers,

Sean

How can you forget about Aww-Rats?! That is a dubious move ;-)

<Robbie1969>

My assertion is not a logical fallacy, as explained in detail in my previous post. If you are not willing to engage in proper debate then perhaps you should consider your arguments with greater scrutiny before you post them in a public forum, as it now appears you are not able to support them and, therefore, that they carried no weight in the first place - and that this is why you are no longer willing to continue the discussion.

It is not my aim to give a 'spontaneous delivery' with my chess videos, and I fail to see why this would be the case for anyone. My aim is to work hard on each video and produce professional material. I think a lack of planning shows only laziness and shallow values.

I go into several different variations and follow them in-depth in my analysis. Thus it is not possible to remember the reason for each and every move along the way and notes make this a much easier process. Moreover I often give background details about the players, the game itself, the opening, and so on. Therefore notes are the only practical and logical way forward.

I hardly think The Queen is a realistic comparion. How many news readers do you see without notes? How many televsions presenters without using the autocue? There are sound, logical reasons for this.

Also, when taking material from books, it does not make practical sense to try and read from the book, create the chess video, go through the game etc all at the same time, when I can write the notes down and read them off the screen.

I have been doing this for six years. I experimented in the beginning (working without notes, reading from books) and, eventually, came to the conclusion, through experience, that notes were the best way.

Regarding the rest of my points (which your failure to respond to again is very dubious and telling) and this supposed straw man argument: to whom exactly am I assinging false values? Perhaps it's just that you are unable to respond with a rational argument given the factual logic of my responses to your assumptions?

Sean

I do have to admit, SeanGGodley does have a big ego.

For example, "I'm kind of a big deal" he says 

I love the videos of WGM Camilla, her voice is kind of soothing, it has a sing song quality and her series on tempo moves was awesome, her husband Yermolensky (spelling?) is also an excellent commentator very expressive and tells it like it is.

"The problem with logical arguments/fallacies is that they depend on absolute truths that are not available in this situation. This is because there are, potentially, other ways that I could generate views and subscribers, if I was so inclined. Therefore the entire approach of using logic in this debate is incorrect because there are too many external factors at work. Try and come up with an argument that proves, logically, why a youtube chess channel is good - it's not an easy task because it depends on absolute truths, and youtube chess annotation is an inexact science in comparison to mathematics, for example."

Hehe, pretty interesting point :)

Although I would consider induction and abduction to be logic, just a different branch. It's one thing to say such inferences are inexact; it's quite another to say they make no sense :)

<Robbie1969>

Once again, it's clear that you are both allowing your emotions to get in the way of your reason and dubiously not responding to most of my response to your post. This, again, is very telling to the nature of your arguments which, I think it can be safely said, have been refuted.

I am completely open to constructive criticism. In the past, for example, subscribers advised me to post multi-part videos as video responses to one another, in order to make them easier to find (a function that Youtube has since removed). This was excellent criticism that I gladly took on board - and there have been other, similar examples. The issue with your 'criticism' is that it is not legitimate, in my opinion.

You don't appear to be able to grasp any of the ideas I have provided regarding the benefits of using notes. It has become clear that you enjoy giving your opinion but are unable to listen. Moreover, you have resorted to attacking me on a personal level (in a most immature and inappropriate manner) when I have done no such thing to you. Therefore I see little point in discussing anything further with you and I am ending our discussion here.

<Infinite Flash>

Ha! It's a quote from the film Anchorman  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKKtnSVeY9o

I would never say anything like that and mean it!

Sean