How Good Is Gothamchess??

Whatever story you have to tell yourself to get by.

What do you disagree with exactly? Haven't you been working hard on this over the last year or two? You make chess themed entertainment for low rated children, and your hard work has made you money. It would only be "not very nice" if you'd been working on something else, e.g. chess.

I guess he should have said you're popular with children on Youtube (you're not junk at that)... but since this is the same as having junk content I think we all understood the meaning.

To be fair, there are a million resources available to students to learn chess these days, (and none of the best ones are on YouTube). There are comparatively few entertainment sources though. If you go to Youtube for chess, it makes sense (to me) to go for Hikaru, Gotham, etc... and it seems the masses agree (those are the most popular channels).

@GothamChess

I don't watch his streams but I regularly check his YouTube channel.

NOOO WAAY

+1

I only watch his educational content, which are decent (in my opinion).

That sounds like "if you are going to read a tabloid, read the trashiest tabloid" .  There is some pretty good YouTube content for chess, it's just a matter of sifting through to find the good stuff.

Video format should be about entertainment. Amusing ourselves to a higher elo.

Doesn't that make sense though?

I've only purchased one tabloid at the check out line in my life, and it was because the cover article was so outrageously stupid it made me laugh.

Anyway, anyone who is seriously trying to get better at chess will do >90% of their work outside of Youtube. It's good for some basics, so new players can find some good videos, but that's all.

Plus there are a lot of trash channels full of bad or half-true information. 

TheChessWebsite has tons of bad information, but 500K subs.
I often see people mention the Youtuber hangingpawns, who also has plenty of bad / half-true info.

Generally anyone who doesn't have a title makes videos like this... they get the basic information right (develop your pieces) but then the rest is filled in with some gibberish trying to justify an engine move that they don't understand themselves (for example). So they make up crap... and their low rated audience can't tell when the truth ends and the BS begins.

Which is to say... sifting through it is dangerous.

Luckily, some GMs have put together good material, and a lot of it! It's well organized too.

They call it "books."

Books are boo! I prefer online books that is regularly updated with moving chess pieces like the games here!

I think most children agree with you.

Unfortunately for the children, the less work you do, the slower you improve.

Trying to follow variations without a board, and then immediately playing them on the board when you start to lose track, was a common (and often recommended) way for people to improve their calculation.

Are you saying you prefer lame unmoving pictures that are not updated?

Most looking to learn chess prefers nice visuals and up to date work... giddy

I prefer improving over entertainment when my goal is improving, yes.

Well Old Woman enjoy the black and white boards! They don't help you learn better!

I already described the learning mechanism. It didn't involve personal preference.

For crying out loud some of you just don't get it! If you found chess in the normal way and play at your local club, well sure you are better off reading books and analyzing games and studying opening lines etc... But if you're someone who found chess by watching the Queen's Gambit and you just want to know how to play casually, someone like Levy would be great for the average person who doesn't have time for hardcore studying.

I think the kid is joking. Reminds me of Gumball using a map and trying to enlarge the image sliding his fingers on the paper.