FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
... Who here has not misjudged a position? Overlooked a mate? I know of at least two world champions who have done so. One who overlooked a mate in one! That is what chess is, its a game of error and here people are criticising the BYP for something which at his level is almost inevitable. ...
Is it inevitable that ("before he had even a grasp of fundamentals") a person makes a video while thinking Black was winning after Black's 9th move in the game, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Nxd5 6 Nxf7 Kxf7 7 Qf3+ Kd8 8 Bxd5 Qf6 9 Bxc6+ bxc6 10 Qxc6+ Qxc6 11 c3 Qe4+ 12 Kf1 Ba3+ 13 Kg1 Qe1#
Not quite sure that makes any sense. What exactly is your beef? That he should not make chess videos unless he's 2400 or infallible whichever comes first? Is that it?
I don't think it takes "2400 or infallible" to avoid making a video that says things like Black was winning after Black's 9th move in the game, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Nxd5 6 Nxf7 Kxf7 7 Qf3+ Kd8 8 Bxd5 Qf6 9 Bxc6+ bxc6 10 Qxc6+ Qxc6 11 c3 Qe4+ 12 Kf1 Ba3+ 13 Kg1 Qe1#
... What false claims did he make?
Did you see the one with the "interesting" game, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Nxd5 6 Nxf7 Kxf7 7 Qf3+ Kd8 8 Bxd5 Qf6 9 Bxc6+ bxc6 10 Qxc6+ Qxc6 11 c3 Qe4+ 12 Kf1 Ba3+ 13 Kg1 Qe1#, and the claim that Black was winning after the 9th move?
That's a erroneous evaluation. A false claim is when someone deliberately makes a claim that they know is untrue.
Was Graf_Nachthafen making a legal statement?
You do not have to make 'a legal statement' for it to be a false claim and its rather ludicrous to think that you do. The fact of the matter is and I thought it rather obvious is that there is a difference between making an erroneous statement and making a false claim with the latter being a deliberate action to proffer falsehoods. They are quite different. As different from being involved in a car accident is from deliberately driving your car off the edge of the road and into a tall tree. Why this should be problematic I cannot say, either way we should be careful when using terms that are inaccurate and do not convey what has actually transpired.
Whatever the definitions are, a lot of what BYP said was both dumb and wrong.
Agreed all it takes is to be human.
Yes but to what extent and why is the interesting thing. Silman in a preface to one of his insufferable tomes cites the case of a six year old girl grasping positional concepts by 'putting her rook on an open file'. This is given as a validation that anyone can and should learn positional concepts. The BYP bought into Silmans regurgitated Steintz theory and adopted the thought process wholeheartedly. While it is admirable that we should think in terms of planning etc the fact of the matter is that much of what transpires on the chess board is the result of pure expediency or opportunism.
I imagine "a grasp of fundamentals" would be helpful to one seeking to avoid making such a video.
... If they want to criticise something, criticise the approach that he took buying into Silmans regurgitated Steinitz theory hook line and sinker before he had even a grasp of fundamentals.
For those who want to try reading original Steinitz stuff, some of it has recently been reprinted.
Soltis is possibly my favourite modern chess author. I have three of his publications, Studying chess made easy, Pawn Structure chess and Bobby Fischer revisited. All excellent. Thanks for the link. If I can escape my wifes cunning plans will read it later