I tell it as I see it mate. I know no other way.
Gregory Kaidanov Vs Sam Shankland.
Nice and clear with just the perfect use of graphics.
You have a good voice and I do like the way you give
your opinions on moves, but you need a script.
Too many "I don't knows..." and you get bogged down
on trivialities by doing it live and jumping from one idea to another.
This game would have been a dream to noted up but you suddenly started
going on about the f1 Bishop and why it won't move to gain a tempo,
spending (for a video) a long time on it.
Back to the game and White played Bd3 the very next move!.
You just spent ages telling us why he won't.
3½ minutes in you get all tied up and not sure why White played Bxc4
and stray off course, then admit 'Now I'm looking at it..."
which tells me you are doing off the cuff.
The commentary between 3:30 and 5:55 is cleary being made up
as you go along with pauses as you think and "I don't understand...."
I think you do nail what White for hoping for (eventually)
and was banking on Black playing the obvious Ng4.
The line you give (again clearly being made up on the spot)
with Black taking the e5 pawn and a White mate from nowhere was
not required or could have been explained more smoothly.
But it is this one that prompted the review:
(you do ask for feedback - this is feed back....My way)
Della Morte v William Stewart, Argentina 2010
The video of the game was poor. A menu thing keeps dropping down,
you appeared to be making up the analysis as you went along. (again).
What was all that nonsense about if Black plays 10…Nh7.?
It reminded me of one of my joke Horses Ass vids.
You moved far too quick and the main instructive point.
The Reason Why White Lost
was not mentioned at all.
You could have nailed this one down perfectly.
If you are going to note up games don't be all chummy chummy.
Put the boot in. Your readers'listeners will trust you.
White lost because he followed theory without knowing why he was
playing the moves. When his memory failed he was left in well known postion.
(It's part of Argentina's folk lore for Pete's sake) and just did not know what to do.
White has just played 13.Bb5 threatening 14.0-0+ so Black cannot play 13…axb5.
It’s still theory and you do explain the reason behind 23.Bb5.
(I wonder how many people recognise this position. I did right away.
It appears Will you did not, no mentioned of the Argentine connection at all.)
After 13…..Kg7 14.0-0 Ne5
White should now play 15.Bg3 hitting the e5 Knight with check.
The e5 Knight covers f7 and the idea of 13.Bb5 is to prevent Black from
playing Nc6 or Nd7 to answer Bxe5 with Nxe5.
You mention this and admit you are most likely lost if White plays
15.Bg3 and that was all you said as you quickly fumble about looking
for a knock out.
(Now was the time to mention Argentine connection).
Instead of 15.Bg3 White played 15.Rf6?? and lost painfully.
A typical out of the books and into the frying pan move.
A very instructive moment which you allowed to pass you by.
And today’s lesson is:
The dangers of blindly following opening moves without fully
understanding why you are playing them.
And…(and this is a crime at any level.) Not Knowing The Classics.
Della Morte was playing on memory cells up till here.
The sole idea of 13.Bb5 was to add bite to 15.Bg3, else 13.B anywhere
to threaten 14.0-0+ would have been OK.
15.Bg3 is the key move after the piece sac. It’s been known since 1955!
Della Morte remembered the moves up till 13.Bb5 and suddenly he dried up.
It’s obvious from the follow up he played 13.Bb5 because he had seen it but
not studied it, a very big difference.
Did your 13.Kg7 catch him out?
Now on his own the reason why he played 13.Bb5 was lost to him.
He tried to justify it by playing the Rook sac 15.Rf6??.
You say Della Morte is in the top 50 of Argentina.
Surely he has heard of the Gothenburg Triangle.
Surely you have heard of the 3 Russians v 3 Argentineans
in Gothenburg 1955.
You say in your vid it was all computer analysis.
(Your computer knows more about the games history than you do.)
I quote you:
"White took matters into the extremely complicated and aggressive
Bg5 variation, and I countered with a rare sideline that is not entirely
sound with an early Be7 and g5.
Apparently Della Morte was unfamiliar with the computer analysis that
nearly refutes this line, and was unable to accurately weave his way
through the resulting complications."
3 Russians play 3 Argentineans in the same round and all 3 Russians played ,
as in your game
It was in this tournament the Knight sac was first introduced.
Keres - Najdorf
Spassky - Pilnik
Geller - Panno
Both Najdorf and Pilnik tried, as in your game
and lost quickly after 14.0-0 Ne5 15.Bg3!
Panno saw the mess the other two were getting in so tried 13…Ne5.
Geller played 14.Bg3! (The move time forgot) And Panno too was crushed.
A little bit of theory can be a dangerous thing and we have all forgotten
our theory OTB before. But not knowing the games history……Good Grief.
A chess teachers vid should entertain and instruct. This vid did neither.
People will learn more about the game from the review rather than the vid.
This should not be the case.
A little bit of research, know what you are going say at the key moments,
take them more seriously and be self critical.
End of review.
I know someone who did study the Gothenburg Triangle. (without a computer).
He went into the same line as Black v Gligoric 3 years later (1958) and played 13…Rh7.
He knew Gligoric was a correspondent at Gothenburg and figured quite
rightly Gligoric would know of the Triangle and walk right into it.
So he prepared this wee surprise for him.
The Black player was winning but accepted a draw because it meant
he qualified for the next cycle of the World Championship.
That player was a 15 year old kid from Brooklyn. Bobby Fischer.
Here is the game your video was based on.