Are people here basing their statements on verifiable information or are these just opinions e.g. "videos are good in the 800-2000 range". How are these numbers arrived at?
I would say up to around 1300 is when I stopped using videos as my main source of information. I would still use them from time to time, usually to get a kickstart overview of a new opening I wanted to learn/counter, but as for actual chess playing skill, nearly none of it was from videos.
Are people here basing their statements on verifiable information or are these just opinions e.g. "videos are good in the 800-2000 range". How are these numbers arrived at?
Just my personal opinion, of course. There’s no way I could know that for sure, and I’m certainly nowhere close to 2000, so I can’t speak for them. But from the way tygxc speaks, I assume that YouTube isn’t very helpful, and from personal experience, YouTube videos are extremely helpful from 800-1600 (give or take 400 points to get to 2000)
YT videos could be helpful- in theory. In practice, they offer very little, because the big majority of them are trash.
I won't blame the streamers for that: They don't care being "educators"- their target is to pick as many kid foillowers as they can, so that they would earn $$$ from the ads. From that point, their videos are "successful", but chances to learn something from them are thin.
Yeah, which is why I capped it at 2000. For actual good players, YouTube is of no use because they don’t help nor educate you. But for worse players, like I, they’re helpful for still learning fundamentals and such.
On the contrary, I got almost all of my chess skill from videos. Maybe I’m underestimating myself, but all I did to get to where I am is just watch YouTube videos and play. That’ll almost certainly have to change soon when I get better, but it’s serving me well right now.
Why are people misstaken passive and active learning for the type of media the lessons are in instead of the structure of said lessons?
Passive is when you just receive information by listening or reading without any active participation in understanding. Watching video, sitting in a lesson or reading a chess book from start to finish without moving any pieces. You don't try to write down concepts in your own words, don't test your understanding by simple puzzles and don't review what you got and what you missed. Just like first time programmers who sit through every lecture and only in the end start to code because "they got everything that the lecturer said"...
Active is when you use any media but instead of just receiving the information, you switch between short intro to concept -> repeat in your word -> try to solve puzzles -> review what you did right and what you did wrong -> redo the part which you didn't understand, with better/deeper explanation. Videos should be either short 5 - 10 min and then have tests or have pauses in one large video, give puzzles and correct answers together with sections where each part i explained better for those that did something wrong. This is interactive media after all.
Videos are, more often than not, passive. You watch the video, and usually, nothing more.
no you missed his point
you can MAKE videos active learning - i.e. "pause the video and try to find the tactic", etc.
It's just that the majority of people who watch choose to learn passively.
no you missed his point
you can MAKE videos active learning - i.e. "pause the video and try to find the tactic", etc.
It's just that the majority of people who watch choose to learn passively.
Well and to be frank, most people who make videos rarely put in pauses or add Questions - Answers part in the video. Have seen many >1 hours videos about programming in universities, where people should know better, but it is easier to assume that the students will do the work themselves.
I learnt a lot from gothamchess recaps, because he is good at being light in explanation for the boring or uninteresting games, but he sometimes will explain strategy and common opening manouevers.
So actually, we have to say that overall GothamChess is better than ChessNetwork, because GothamChess is also funny and has great personality.
There are different levels of informative. I’d say levy is a bit less informative than someone like chess network
anyhoo, I’m not here to argue about chess youtubers. Not the place
Ok you're right that Jerry is preferable to some people.
But I mean overall here is a video for example: even though of course he has a lot of jokes etc... he still explains the overall strategy and different possible moves and analysis, but also he talks alot about the history of the game. So both education and also entertainment!
Ok you're right that Jerry is preferable to some people.
But I mean overall here is a video for example: even though of course he has a lot of jokes etc... he still explains the overall strategy and different possible moves and analysis, but also he talks alot about the history of the game. So both education and also entertainment!
While you are correct, the depth of his explanations and analysis pales to more serious youtubers, like chessnetwork and daniel naroditsky. Gotham is definitely great at condensing information into a few simple sentences, but some of us need more than a few simple sentences.
Ok you're right that Jerry is preferable to some people.
But I mean overall here is a video for example: even though of course he has a lot of jokes etc... he still explains the overall strategy and different possible moves and analysis, but also he talks alot about the history of the game. So both education and also entertainment!
While you are correct, the depth of his explanations and analysis pales to more serious youtubers, like chessnetwork and daniel naroditsky. Gotham is definitely great at condensing information into a few simple sentences, but some of us need more than a few simple sentences.
Levy does make "active" onlne content: Sometimes it gives to his viewers time to solve his puzzle. let's say four to five seconds, and no more than that.
But I guess one should not expect more from someone who speaks so fast, that sometimes even himself does not get what he had just said. His followers are very likely to learn quite a few jokes, and keep the ones that fit their taste, but I doubt very much if they actually learn something about chess this way.
I did learn a few things from watching Levy my friend IM pfren.
An insane gambit I'm yet to play and do a short blog on for one. Obviously giving credit to him and the world champion I believe it's proper name is associated to.
Very interesting opening ideas on his YouTube channel.
I also recommend to watch certain of his more instructional content such as chess steps .. beginners might benefit from that.
My argument is that learning chess related content is also the responsibility of the student. Not only the teacher
The answer to the topic Headline is Yes
Are people here basing their statements on verifiable information or are these just opinions e.g. "videos are good in the 800-2000 range". How are these numbers arrived at?
Just my personal opinion, of course. There’s no way I could know that for sure, and I’m certainly nowhere close to 2000, so I can’t speak for them. But from the way tygxc speaks, I assume that YouTube isn’t very helpful, and from personal experience, YouTube videos are extremely helpful from 800-1600 (give or take 400 points to get to 2000)
YT videos could be helpful- in theory. In practice, they offer very little, because the big majority of them are trash.
I won't blame the streamers for that: They don't care being "educators"- their target is to pick as many kid foillowers as they can, so that they would earn $$$ from the ads. From that point, their videos are "successful", but chances to learn something from them are thin.