I like videos by aww-rats and Dan Heisman.
Breaking 1200
Sort:
OMFG. A talking dog!
I like Mato Jelic's, Kingcrusher's and Dereque Kelley's videos on YouTube. But of course if you want to get better and better, the only way is.... playing playing playing (and you should start playing against stronger players: you will drop in rating a bit, but you will be able to improve faster... if you don't get too frustrated of course of being destroyed often 
Also ChessNetwork (NM) and Chess Explained (IM).
They analyze GM games and the play blitz/bullet/standard games.
I found chess network's analysis of his own games very instructive.
Tyrrhenus wrote:
...you should start playing against stronger players: you will drop in rating a bit, but you will be able to improve faster...
Why would he drop in rating?
Because he loses...
If I wanted to hear what a retard had to say on the subject I would have asked my cousin.
Grendley wrote:
Tyrrhenus wrote:
...you should start playing against stronger players: you will drop in rating a bit, but you will be able to improve faster...
Why would he drop in rating?
What I mean is that when one starts playing chess is 'weaker' than better players, that is clear. So if a 1200-rated player plays vs a more experienced and skillfull players (say 1600), he will probably lose more than he wins, at least in the first period (the lenght of which depends of course on the level of effort and study). Hence the drop in rating... initially. I should have phrased better
Grendley wrote:
If I wanted to hear what a retard had to say on the subject I would have asked my cousin.
who are you referring to?
Tyrrhenus wrote:
...if a 1200-rated player plays vs a more experienced and skillfull players (say 1600), he will probably lose more than he wins, at least in the first period (the lenght of which depends of course on the level of effort and study). Hence the drop in rating...
Oh okay I understand now. I'm off to play against people who I should score 91% against because if I score 60% my rating still increases! Thanks for the tip. Next time we speak I'll be the world's number one.
Grendley wrote:
If I wanted to hear what a retard had to say on the subject I would have asked my cousin.
Having a bad day dearie? What surprised me was that you got a normal and polite answer to a (as you would put it) retarded question.
I don't think that it mattered too much what I watched when I broke 1200.
The main reason for improvement at your or my level most likely still is the constant reduction of massive game-losing blunders.
Like I probably can count the games on one hand that were not lost or won by massive blunders but actually by a close endgame where one side promotes a little sooner.
I'm pretty sure you know anti-blundering-techniques already. So it is all about further forcing you to apply them to every move you make.
wasted_youth wrote:
Having a bad day dearie? What surprised me was that you got a normal and polite answer to a (as you would put it) retarded question.
No, this "dearie" here is having a great holiday. Made all the better by this thread. Anyway, congratulations are in order I believe. You win third place in the race to post a stupid reply to what I would never call a retarded question. Rhetorical questions always attract the funniest, silliest, most ignorant replies :)
Oh, rhetorical, was it?
"The effectiveness of rhetorical questions in argument comes from their dramatic quality. They suggest dialogue, especially when the speaker both asks and answers them himself, as if he were playing two parts on the stage. They are not always impassioned; they may be mildly ironical or merely argumentative: but they are always to some extent dramatic" (Wiki).
Spot on, we all realised instantly that yours was a brilliantly worded rhetorical question, thanks for brightening the darkness of our retarded intellects with your stunningly phrased flash of eloquence!
When you have nothing better to do than quote Wikipedia you know you are clutching at straws. That is not a definition, it is an elabourate opinion.
Rhetorical question - A statement that is formulated as a question but that is not supposed to be answered.
- My rhetorical question: "Why would he drop in rating?"
- The underlying statement: He would not drop in rating.
- Why it was not supposed to be answered: The only way that an answer would make sense is if the the following assumption was true, he would drop in rating, which it isn't.
Learn when to cut your losses.
Can you elaborate me as to what an "elabourate opinion "
is
Amazing response to a new chess player who only wants advice on how to improve
I got condescending replies from janniktr and wasted_youth which I responded to with the like; I got a polite reply for Tyrrhenus which I reponded to with a joke; I got an incomprehensible reply from whyayeman which I didn't even attempt to respond to. You're going to have to tell me how I have been a jerk because all I can see is stupidity, arrogance and condescension on the part of others. I guess I just can't see it because I'm a jerk, right?
Grendley wrote:
Rhetorical question - A statement that is formulated as a question but that is not supposed to be answered.
- My rhetorical question: "Having a bad day, dearie?"
- The underlying statement: yes, you obviously are (or you´re like this all the time)
- Why you were not supposed to answer it: The only way that an answer would have made sense would have been if the following assumption were true - that you are not having a bad day (or are like this all the time), which it is obviously not.
By the way, it´s "elaborate", without a "u".
I'm about to break the 1200 mark, I was wondering if there was any chess videos on youtube that are helpful for my relative skill level that you came acrossed when you were breaking this mark. Thanks
--Dog