Yeah, I found some interesting ones too. However, some are just terrible and came close to making me angry. See this one: http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=A8XY2P7tO48&feature=related The commentary reminded me once more why YouTube often sucks. People who have no idea about what they're saying make a video to unleash their ignorance upon the vast reaches of the internet. Playing the Najdorf myself on several occasions, I was looking forward to this video. Soon, anticipation turned into despair. For example, he was mentioning how in the Sicilian, White doesn't capture the d pawn with the Queen because that would be moving out the Queen too early. This is silly because it's a general principle and what matters is the specific reason. I guess playing Qg4 in the French must be wrong too because White moves the Queen out early. This is not a reason, it's a guideline. The reason is that it doesn't help White's development, but does help Black after Nc6. Moreover, he was mentioning how Black made more developing moves than White in the Be2 Najdorf. Right, because both c5 and a6 are developing moves. It's the exact opposite, but Black has other trumps. In addition, he started counting tempi as if that leads to some ultimate truth. What matters is not some stupid saying like this knight moved thee times and this two and this etc., it's the coordination of the pieces for the given plan. His obsession with Fischer clearly colors his evaluations. Then, he goes on to show how little he understands about the Sicilian by showcasing an ugly blitz game where he meets 3. Bc4 with d6!? trying to get into the same pawns structure as Fischer had in the Be2 Najdorf (which is a totally different White setup). Much better is to play e6, blunting the Bishop. Compounding his errors, he continues to pretend it's the same White position as Fischer was facing and plays moves like e5, Be7, and Be6. While in the Najdorf, Black fights for control of d5 or has compensation throguh active counterplay, he just grants White full control of d5 for no reason (especially after the horrible Bishop trade). When he moves the knight to c6 instead of d7 like Fischer did, he actually hesitates thinking that d7 was the move. However, d7 gives the knight no squares and is a horrible position.
I realize that this is a harsh rambling rant, but this video really annoyed me. It's so clear that he has no idea what he's talking about and shouldn't even come close to the Najdorf and yet he thought he had the expertise to instruct others. I guess this must be the Dunning-Kruger effect. *sigh*
Originally posted by exigentskySo, just so we're clear here: You didn't like that video? 😀
Yeah, I found some interesting ones too. However, some are just terrible and came close to making me angry. See this one: http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=A8XY2P7tO48&feature=related The commentary reminded me once more why YouTube often sucks. People who have no idea about what they're saying make a video to unleash their ignorance upon the vast reaches of ...[text shortened]... expertise to instruct others. I guess this must be the Dunning-Kruger effect. *sigh*
Yeah, the analysis was weak, but I didn't get the impression that he was putting himself out there as some expert on the Sicilian. Also, it's obvious he at least has a reasonable foundation in chess, so I don't think the Dunning-Kruger applies; that's usually tin-foil hat conspiracy people that have 0 knowledge of something yet assert absolute truth.