Great video by the way. I couldn't help but be astonished by the hostility and retardation in the comments from random hateful losers who had no value to add whatsoever, except to remind us that they have unhappy lives lacking in human contact and love. God, I knew the chess community had a lot of antisocial, negative people, but at least learn to give feedback. I guess there was none to give though, and it was a way to try to attack the IM who made the video without actually having any substance. There's a good chance they didn't even watch the video. Pathetic people.
I smell irony...
Keep in mind that I'm currently unable to watch the video (blocked in China where I'm on holiday. Yes, holiday. I don't spend every hour of my day staring at my screen and posting crap in forums). Firstly, your point about giving feedback is completely wrong. They are giving feedback. Just not your feedback that's correct in your view. In your one-sided point of view, are you saying that if a person doesn't agree with you, then they are retarted and antisocial?
'Attacking the IM'
Really? Before I even begin on this, they are attacking the video, not the person who made it. A title isn't everything. If Magnus Carlsen made a video saying that he's the best and everyone else sucks, would you still insult the people who disagree? In your reply to IMBacon, they even specifically stated that this was a good video. Still, you decide to take the only bit of constructive criticism and deem it as 'undercutting the IM'.
Are you the IM's hired servant or something? You praise him like he's the President (not assuming you support Trump).
The truth is, people are allowed to have an opinion, yes, even if it isn't the same as yours. You don't have to hail to someone just because they have a title.
It's lost on your low IQ brain too that to give feedback properly (just like to criticize a chess move) requires suggesting an alternative. None of the trolls here did that. That gives it away. Everything I saw here was personally motivated, without any specifics or analysis of any kind. It was easy to see, even as an outside observer. They're called haters. Welcome to the internet dude. Chess is a game of analysis, and chess players love logical methods and analyzing things. The fact that the negative comments here don't do any of that shows me that these people aren't interested in learning and don't have good motives. Like I said, it's just sad to watch. Get with the program, dummy. Are you really this poor at thinking and observing? Maybe your autism prevents you from recognizing social behavior clearly?
It's like a thread saying, "The Nimzo Indian sucks!" Uhhh, compared to what? It's quite easy to tell when someone is just jealous and has nothing useful to add. These guys just live in threads and are negative to anyone who is successful. What a shit life. I can see you're exactly the same. Such a sad way to live. How does it feel to live a life of pure inadequacy and jealousy? Like, do you feel good about just being a negative loser? You wake up, look in the mirror and see an out-of-shape low IQ loser women want nothing to do with, then hop in front of your laptop and write negative comments on chess.com in a forum. Lol. Just a sad, sad, life you live man. Why even live? Serious question.
I mean you ARE allowed to criticize someone but just do it while suggesting an alternative or a better idea. Someone could say they're the best in the world but it does make sense until he actually gives evidence of that statement.
Really nothing new, but still a nice video. I would say that #5 and #1 are intertwined. If there are no weaknesses around the king, you need to see if you can create any.
Where? Show me a source or who said it. This strikes me as a petty and idiotic attempt to undercut the IM who made the video, and you're probably just lying anyway. #1 states that the idea is to try to checkmate the king immediately, or threaten to by force on the next move. #5 is about creation of weaknesses, which is something different. Apparently you didn't understand.
Well, I think #5 is more positional rather than tactical. For that reason it probably complements with the first four.