• 4 years ago


    Interesting game - I like the thought process of don't make progress yourself - stop your opponent from making progress, that's solid defence Smile

  • 4 years ago


  • 4 years ago


    Wait a minute!!!!!! Defend passively while you're worse, not improving your position but trying desperatly to stop your opponent from improving his position??? Whatever happened to seeking active counterplay.

    As Kaidanov stressed in his videos, the ideal setup is to improve your position while limiting your opponents counterplay at the same time. Its not good to be one sided (only improving your position or only trying to stop your opponent's threats). I think Caruana was seeking active counterplay in addition to practising prophylaxis in his game. He was not simply doing one sided passive defense.

    Curling into a ball when in a bad position is down right horrible. I believe this lecture could have been improved if you stressed how Caruana was simultaneously improving his position while stopping his opponent's threats. You are simply giving viewers bad advice by encouraging them to completely give up one improving their position when they are worse. Often, counterplay is key.

  • 4 years ago


    interesting ideas

  • 4 years ago


    CelticChess is really free with his/her criticizms, for someone who doesn't contribute funds.  He\she needs to mature a lot.  "us the members"???  I would love to play that whining baby sometime.

    Another great video, Sam!!!

  • 4 years ago

    FM gauranga

    Great game and lesson, very instructive

  • 4 years ago


    Thanks for the nice video. I have been enjoying this series and look forward to future videos.

  • 4 years ago


    Great video! thanks.

  • 4 years ago


    I really like this video series and you are doing a good job with it.


    As a small point, the examples you're using now, while world class, are also somewhat difficult to understand (I'm 1950 uscf).  For example, if Melik teaches one thing, it is "always choose the active defense!".   It's hard to reconcile this with the message of this series, which seems to be "play passively whenever you are worse!".  Of course, I'm sure you would not say that, but I don't recall you discussing the conditions when a passive defense might be appropriate.


    Take your final position for example.  As black I am terrified of both f5 and a5 being crushing, and hence my feeling was to play Qa1+ Kd2 Qxa4 Qxh2 Qxf2+, giving up the terrible knight for two pawns and an exposed king (and connected passers).  What practical considerations would lead you to choose a passive defense over an active one in a complicated position like this?


    Thanks for the great lectures.

Back to Top

Post your reply: