How good is the Backyard Professor?

No piece imbalances ten minutes into the video. From prior skimming, I know that occurs about 25 minutes in.

His explanations would be better if he knew what he was talking about,

Now, back to the question. Whose notes is he cribbing when he makes sense?

I am guessing he is using Jusopov's book.  He is sharing those notes and interpreting some, something any good teacher does.

Which Yusupov book?

Ziryab won't have any more chances of checking it out.

It is a series he quoted earlier.  I imagine he is just on the first book.  

It is not in https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1906552010/

Let me check my books.  I think it is the new one.

I like BYP and I like watching his videos, but that's definitely not because of any insight I get about the game of chess.

Not Qxd7? Why not?

I did find a Dvoretski book written with Jusupov.  But cannot find the book.  He had in his hand, months ago.  I will look for it, have to review his videos to see where he first mentioned it.  

I appreciate your efforts

He or she has been banned already, exceeding expectations. I thought it would require 2-3 days, but the moderators were on top of things.

Ok I watched the whole video.

From his comments he misuses (sometimes flagrantly misuses) the following chess terms:

Outpost
Control of a file or square
A common annotation symbol (?!)
Pin
Undermining
Open position
Critical position

The funniest to me was pin. He spends a full 60 seconds talking about a pinned knight that is not actually pinned.

@ 14:00 he says
"Here's a beautiful tactic, the knight is pinned, and what do you do to pinned pieces, you attack them . . . and with a pawn attacking it the pin becomes critical . . . and black disregards the pin."

Again... the knight was never pinned.

~18:00

critical position

i.e. "caught my attention" is not the standard for critical position, especially when the me in question is lacking in basic skills

There are a lot of good ideas he talks about. Good knight vs bad bishop and king infiltration are the stars of this game, and it's an instructive game.

But constantly woven into the player's or author's comments are his own misunderstandings.

For example on 34:45 and again on 35:40 he talks about how black's once strong queenside structure was to white's advantage (which makes no sense, but you have to remember it's BYP we're talking about here).

He emphasizes over and over this is very instructive.

IN BETWEEN these two rants he reads the very instructive notes about how b4's purpose was to give the d4 square to white's king for the purpose of infiltration.

So like I said, he's always seamlessly weaving crap with gold... how is a beginner to know the difference?

Ah, that one escaped my list, but I remember him saying it. I'll add it, thanks.

~24:00 he delves into what he imagines to be Dreev's psychology after 23.Ne4.

He's not even close, I'll wager. Dreev understood these advantages long before he exchanged rooks.

28:40

undermining

Nope, that's not how the word is normally used

Yeah, and I also added open position due to 10:40

He's not totally wrong because sure, like he says, there are not a lot of locked pawns in the center. But with 7 pawns for each player and only 1 open file, I wouldn't call it open.

A criticism on the instructional level is that he goes on and on about how black is going to lose the game due to his bishop. He also mentions that trading off a bad bishop is a remedy.

Twice during the game black has the opportunity to trade off the bishop but does not, and BYP doesn't explain why (in fact he gives zero variations through the whole game). The first time black doesn't trade he just says it wouldn't be good, and the second time he doesn't even mention it.

This would be very frustrating to any beginner who was paying attention.