Who is Your Favorite St. Louis Chess Club Lecturer and Why?

I've really enjoyed Jen Shahade as well.  Very pleasant personality and useful lectures on tactics.

I wish Jen would do more St. Louis Chess Club lectures.  Missed her work there, but I know she's probably busy broadcasting/commentating.

Yasser, definitely! I'm a little biased because I played him earlier this year and he is one of the nicest people I've ever met. But his videos are also entertaining to watch. Others have mentioned female players at the club who lecture as well, but I'll always take a GM over an FM. I'm not very good, so anything will help. But I'd still prefer the best.

Jennifer can be quite vacant at times but I have noticed of late that she is getting more involved, putting out more ideas.  It must be quite intimidating because Seriwan is a great player, teacher and raconteur.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Aviv yet, he's really good.  I love his elegant and scathing descriptions of positions; he'll just take people apart ("winter is coming" or just give a look and be like "no") in his analysis.  Besides that, he does a good job on staying on topic, giving relevant lines and ending with interesting positions.

 Yasser and Akobian (oh and Tatev) are each good and I really enjoy their lectures but I feel like Friedman does the best job at being clear, interesting, relevant and funny all at once.  Aviv is also fantastics at showing his passion for the game.  But any of those four (Yasser, Akobian, Tatev and Aviv are likely to produce material I really like watching.  That said, gotta support my man Aviv!

Plus the fact that she's only an IM in a room full of GMs, trying to analyze GM games. I mean, I'm torn on the issue. I want there to be encouragement for women to join. And I think she's incredibly talented and a great person. But she is literally only there because she is a woman IMO. Chess commentary is already lacking because it's an intellectual sport. It's not like basketball where you're analyzing physical movement. You have to be able to analyze what someone is thinking about chess who is better than you at thinking about chess.

I think this is not true and not applicable.  When you're analyzing a game you get as much time, resources, help, and preparation you like, whereas when you're playing a game the circumstances of the game don't allow for all of those advantages, and the circumstanes of the game can detract from 'best play' in other ways as well.

This means a lower ranked player may be able to be more insightful in analysis than a higher ranked player could do over the board.  So, even if a GM is better than an IM when it comes to 'thinking about chess' the IM analyzer has a host of different advantages that means the analysis they provide can be way better than the actual play on the board.  

Analysis and commentary, especially in their presentation, are different from playing ability and need to be treated as such.  For instance, GM Eric Hensen (sp?) has done lectures for St. Louis Chess Club and I find his lectures lacking even though he's a very, very strong player (now probably stronger than Yasser).  We see other evidence of this all the time as top GMs have coaches who are always rated notably lower than those they coach.  

Besides, she's not trying to out analyze GMs, she's trying to point out things that club players (or titled players who aren't as familiar with the game/position) may not see, know, or recognize as important.

I'm afraid that criticism like the criticism above can come off as inadvertantly (and I'm sure, unintentionally) sexist.  For instance, Aviv Friedman, who is another non-GM commentator who produces content for SLCC, doens't get this kind of criticsm.  Besides that point (because, to be fair, Jenn got much more attention on this thread than Aviv), the GM vs. IM argument looks to a only partially relevant skill (playing strength) to evaluate the ability of someone to complete a different task (analyze, comment, and lecture), when that happens and the 'she's only there because she's a woman' claim come together, that comes off as sexist -though I totally recognize that is NOT what you meant nor, I'm sure, how you feel.  Just something to be aware of, and I totally recognize it's not just you doing that.

That said...Jenn is, um, not a particular favorite of mine.

Jonathan Schrantz

I don't know...Bobby Fischer said his early chess coach (can't remember his name) was actually a very good teacher, despite not being a super great player himself.  

Sometimes a lower rated player can explain things better that can be helpful for learners that a higher rated player may gloss over too quickly or discuss ineptly (possibly because it's ultra intuitive for them and not something they've had to "break down" before).  

That's for coaching, at least.  As for analyzing games, I do find that Jen offers some useful insights and is very pleasant to listen to.  I don't see why a similar effect couldn't also be in place with game analysis as with coaching, where a lower-rated player may be able to explain some things better for less experienced players.  Jen may not pick up on all the insights that Yasser does (or maybe she can with a computer), but that doesn't mean she doesn't offer something uniquely helpful.  

It might be a good thing that Jen discusses "less advanced" concepts, b/c the viewing audience might contain a lot of beginners or moderately skilled players.  

I personally think they speak way too fast sometimes in their live game broadcast commentary.  As a beginner level player, I can't follow along. 

Has anyone categorized the lecturers' playing styles?

I know Akobian is noted positional player.  
Finegold I thought was a highly tactical player. 

the cretino is back?

Perhaps it is an attempt at being more diverse but she has genuine qualities that occasionally get to shine through. . . meh who are we kidding??? you are absolutely correct, she's eye candy man! has zillions of chess nerds drooling every episode with her voluptuous figure! I read the comments, I never seen so many fashion gurus in one place! We don't care why she is there, we are just glad that she is! dwool! dwool! :P

Next time you talk to Yas, ask him about his Monster chess game he made for early pc's. It was a hoot, lol. Brings back memories.

We shouldn't objectify women like that and reduce them to being objects of beauty for our pleasure.  

As I stated before, being a high-rated chess player does not mean you would be good at commentating.  Commentating/analysis skills require:

i.)  good public speaking (pleasant tone and personality, ability to speak in ways that hold viewer interest - so not a boring person, and other things)

ii.)  good chess insights

iii.)  ability to communicate those insights in a way others can understand (***key point I mentioned earlier)

iv.)  ability to fill in gaps with humor, pleasantries, interesting banter or stories, etc.  ...basically, do non-in-game chess talk at times (Yaz is really good at this!).

Not everyone who is highly rated would fit the bill.  Ding Liren would likely not be a very good chess commentator.  MVL wouldn't likely be a good one.  

Magnus Carlsen would provide awesome insights, but a good portion of it might also just go over people's heads if he didn't have the skills to explain things well for non-masters of the game.  

I see no reason to view Jen Shahade's presence on the St. Louis Chess Club live commentary team as being merely a token female position or done for "sex appeal" reasons.  She provides useful insights in a pleseant manner that many people can benefit from and has good chemistry with Yaz.  They are fun to watch together.  Both seem light-hearted, while remaining serious at the appropriate times with analysis of the game.  

Jen is great in her role, imo. 

NM Shelby Lyman was quite popular as a commentator for the Fischer-Spassky match in 1972, not due to his over-the-top theoretical knowledge, but because he made the match interesting for his audience.  That's really what the job is all about.

1964

Hands-down: Aviv Friedman

I don't think many of commentators at the GM level break down concepts thoroughly, which is partly because there is so much (skill, knowledge, technique, etc.) that is so deeply ingrained in the subconscious that it takes tremendous amounts of reflection (on chess content) and meditation on pedagogy that it's difficult for them to break things down thoroughly.  In my experience watching Aviv present, he seems to have an awareness of these assumptions and sees possible misconceptions because he's probably done some of his serious improvement as an adult.  

In terms of style, I like Akobian and FInegold.  Many of the St. Louis presenters are excellent, flat out.

Didn't know about him, batgirl.  thx for sharing!

I think also that it's important for commentary to reach a broad audience and not just skilled chess lovers/fanatics (I say that in a good way - not like a crazy person, but meaning a super lover of the game).  

A lot of people watch sporting events, who are either not:

a.)  super skilled at it

b.)  a super fan of the game

They might have varying degrees of interest and knowledge of the game.  So, to reach that broad audience it can be helpful to have commentators who can relate to those viewers with an ability to explain things simply to them and, yes, do "shallow" analysis at times.  Of course, they need to appease their core audience as well - so there needs to be very high-level analysis too.  But, you need to be able to speak to more than just GMs or like 2200+ players.  99% of the chess population isn't at that level.  

And, as said earlier, it's NOT ALL about in-game chess.  It's about the personalities of the game, their background, their motivations for competing...we want to know people's stories too.  Honestly, chess can be very boring in live games for long durations.  When players sit there and don't move for long periods, you need a commentator who is capable of mixing in some fun or interesting stuff to keep people entertained.  

I think Jen and Yaz are the absolute best/perfect duo.  I can't think of any other pair I'd rather watch.  

My only wish is that they'd do even MORE beginner/moderate level analysis with SLOW speech and LOTS of pictoral representations of what they're talking about.  That helps ME (probably the average viewer), who CAN'T visualize all that stuff in my head without pictures.  

When they go:  "Black can just play Queen to c4, prompting bd5, followed by Nf4, forcing a take on yada yada yada....."   I'm sitting there like:

UHHHH???What?  I didn't follow that!  Can you slow down and SHOW ME visually.  Do it slow?  Explain it slow?   

Also, Maurice Ashley is fantastic as part of the Jen/Yaz duo of live commentators for SLCC.  I still like Jen/Yaz as the main hosts/anchors/commentators "in studio" (or whatever you want to call it), but wouldn't mind Ashley taking on that role sometimes (replacing either one).  

He speaks clearly, is engaging, makes things interesting/exciting, has good humor, great enthusiasm, and knows his stuff.  

Actually, now that I think about it, Maurice and Yaz might even be a better duo now that I think about it.  ...Or maybe they could make it a trio in the commentating booth.  

In any case, I think SLCC has the best people in the best positions for their live commentary team.  Jen/Yaz/Maurice are THE BEST!

Every once in a while, I wouldn't mind seeing Ben Finegold in there cracking jokes as a featured commentator.    I don't know if his style would go over the same as it does in lectures.  But it's hard to go wrong with humor, during those lulls and long waiting gaps between moves in live chess games.   

Mahatma Ghandi by far.