Good observations! For the 5 or so minutes I was able to watch, I especially noticed the Chess Brahs spitting out deep possible moves, variations and possibilities from those moves, etc. It was hard for me to keep up with as well!
Maybe it will be worth my time to go back and watch the replay on Twitch. 
I don't know who won. Who wants to be the first to spoil me? 
I know game 1 was drawn, and the Brahs seemed to have the upper hand in game 2.
That is instructive and a bit funny too. I especially like the professional lingo "that's annoying." I can comically add a few more common phrases. For example, after a line is shown to be winning: "the rest is just technique." It is said confidently as if the opponent or you never messes up won positions Another one is the term "prophylaxis" especially for pawn moves to a3,a6,h3, or h6. This is doubly funny when it is just a wasted tempo, but still called this. xD
That is instructive and a bit funny too. I especially like the professional lingo "that's annoying." I can comically add a few more common phrases. For example, after a line is shown to be winning: "the rest is just technique." It is said confidently as if the opponent or you never messes up won positions Another one is the term "prophylaxis" especially for pawn moves to a3,a6,h3, or h6. This is doubly funny when it is just a wasted tempo, but still called this. xD
Yes. Reminds me.
I will spoil it for you. So don't read below if you don't want to know.
Danny Rensch spoiled a winning position in game 3. He admitted afterwards he forgot his opening prep. The chess brahs were even joking about it. Being a piece down after 10 moves. And so with that escape the Brahs went on to win game 3 handily
Senior Patzer, check out David Bronstein!
In the 1951 WC match, Bronstein loses a rook in the opening....against Botvinnik....and draws!
So, Botvinnik failed to win this game, after being a rook up after move 18!
Seirawan tells the story of this game in this video....
That is instructive and a bit funny too. I especially like the professional lingo "that's annoying." I can comically add a few more common phrases. For example, after a line is shown to be winning: "the rest is just technique." It is said confidently as if the opponent or you never messes up won positions Another one is the term "prophylaxis" especially for pawn moves to a3,a6,h3, or h6. This is doubly funny when it is just a wasted tempo, but still called this. xD
Yes. Reminds me.
https://www.chess.com/blog/hellokostya/the-most-common-phrases-in-chess-commentary-and-what-they-mean
What does it mean to tickle something? Sometimes I hear, " tickle the bishop" or "tickle the queen"?
Yes. Rensch and Hess would have won the match if they had won the 3rd rapid game. They all agreed that it was a success.
Senior Patzer, check out David Bronstein!
In the 1951 WC match, Bronstein loses a rook in the opening....against Botvinnik....and draws!
So, Botvinnik failed to win this game, after being a rook up after move 18!
Seirawan tells the story of this game in this video....
Not crazy about Botvinnik playing 20. Rxa6. Why sac the exchange? Should have still won though.
I will watch the Yasser video later.
I was watching a lot of the 2-Man Team Chess Match between Chess.com's IM Danny Rensch/GM Robert Hess versus the ChessBrah's GM Eric Hansen/GM Aman Hambleton today. It was a best of 3 Rapids with 25/10 increment. And the rule was that you can only talk with your teammate when it's your team's turn to move.
It was fun to watch. And also very instructive for low and middle-level patzers. Here are some of the big lessons that I learned while watching GM streamers play each other on both sides of a game.
1. They don't do a systematic sequence of blunder checking. I.e., They don't discuss all the possible checks, captures, and threats in a position. Just too time consuming.
Once you're at that level it's ingrained. That doesn't mean they don't see all three while analyzing. Then again, perhaps Rensch wouldn't have been a piece down after move 10 had he been more systematic. Depending on home prep to get you through can be dangerous when you're just memorizing.
2. They strike a balance between concrete play and positional evaluations and considerations. I'd say at least 60-65% of the time the discussion leans towards positional concerns.
3. They all calculate really fast. Especially Machine Gun Danny Rensch! He just rattles off concrete lines super fast. He sometimes closes his eyes, and says the lines he's seeing. And his GM teammate Robert Hess is processing everything being told him at equally fast speed.
Quick is not the same as accurate. I'm not impressed with such parlor tricks unless the variation is creative or accurate; preferably both. Besides, I would expect Rensch to calculate quickly because what he really cares about is short time controls, almost to the exclusion of all other forms. Then again, as time controls become quicker and quicker, the more it's about board vision and feel rather than visualization and calculation.
4. Most of the variations are about 6-8 ply deep. But they blurt them out fast, and I can't keep up.
When I can't keep up with analysis, it's usually because algebraic notation is my second language. Being 65, I learned descriptive notation, it became ingrained. I still have trouble when algebraic squares are rattled off quickly, particularly when "takes" is left off. Intense practice on immediate square recognition would help, but I've never bothered.
5. You learn a lot of positional lingo just hearing them talk about a position. And hearing them evaluate a position helps me in evaluating a position. For example, I'll hear them saying, "That's annoying."
Calculation is here today, gone tomorrow, but positional evaluation is forever. This would be the only reason I would be interested in watching such a match because, in my opinion, it's the hardest aspect of chess to develop but never master unless you're a natural player. Of course, it's best to be adept at both positional evaluation and calculation like a Fischer or a Kasparov.
6. It's always fun to hear a team saying, "I wasn't expecting them to make that move." And they'll say, "What's the idea of that move? What are they trying to do?" These are questions that us mid-level patzers ask.
Ahhhhh, not just for patzers I'm afraid. Always pay attention to what your opponent does as well as his style of play, that is if he's good enough to have a style and he's not completely at the beck and call of the silicon monster. It helps to predicted his moves in non-analytic positions.
7. Opening choices are huge for GM's. They spend a lot of time trying to figure out what they want to play. Eg., 1. ... e5 or Sicilian?
Yes, they do, and that's partly due to style and, obviously, staying away from your opponent's strengths. For example, choosing the positional Queen's Gambit Declined of ...e6 versus the more tactical Slav Defense ...c6 on the second move because it greatly changes the positions you'll be required to play. At our level -- just speaking for myself, really -- it's not that subtle; more like an open game via e4 versus a closed game via d4.
Of course, their is the concept of playing into your opponent's strengths and if you beat him you undermine his confidence, at least in that opening, and perhaps the match. Spassky played into Fischer's Strengths in Game 4 and Game 11 of the 1972 World Chess Championship, almost winning Game 4, which may have turned the match in his favor, and winning Game 11. Fischer stayed away from the Sozin for white and Najdorf Poisoned Pawn for black after that.
What else do students get when watching titled players stream their thoughts?
Senior Patzer, check out David Bronstein!
In the 1951 WC match, Bronstein loses a rook in the opening....against Botvinnik....and draws!
So, Botvinnik failed to win this game, after being a rook up after move 18!
Seirawan tells the story of this game in this video....
That was well-worth watching! I learned some chess history to boot. Euwe was declared the WC after Alekhine died!
Yasser is a gifted storyteller. He really gives you the drama. Great learning. Thanks for posting it!
I was watching a lot of the 2-Man Team Chess Match between Chess.com's IM Danny Rensch/GM Robert Hess versus the ChessBrah's GM Eric Hansen/GM Aman Hambleton today. It was a best of 3 Rapids with 25/10 increment. And the rule was that you can only talk with your teammate when it's your team's turn to move.
It was fun to watch. And also very instructive for low and middle-level patzers. Here are some of the big lessons that I learned while watching GM streamers play each other on both sides of a game.
1. They don't do a systematic sequence of blunder checking. I.e., They don't discuss all the possible checks, captures, and threats in a position. Just too time consuming.
2. They strike a balance between concrete play and positional evaluations and considerations. I'd say at least 60-65% of the time the discussion leans towards positional concerns.
3. They all calculate really fast. Especially Machine Gun Danny Rensch! He just rattles off concrete lines super fast. He sometimes closes his eyes, and says the lines he's seeing. And his GM teammate Robert Hess is processing everything being told him at equally fast speed.
4. Most of the variations are about 6-8 ply deep. But they blurt them out fast, and I can't keep up.
5. You learn a lot of positional lingo just hearing them talk about a position. And hearing them evaluate a position helps me in evaluating a position. For example, I'll hear them saying, "That's annoying."
6. It's always fun to hear a team saying, "I wasn't expecting them to make that move." And they'll say, "What's the idea of that move? What are they trying to do?" These are questions that us mid-level patzers ask.
7. Opening choices are huge for GM's. They spend a lot of time trying to figure out what they want to play. Eg., 1. ... e5 or Sicilian?
What else do students get when watching titled players stream their thoughts?