Play Chess Here ♚ ♛ ♚ ♛
And don’t forget to add me as a friend: 👍👍
👊 👊
Recommended Endgame Book:
☞Winning Chess Endgames 📘♜ 📘♜
Recommended Tactics Books:
☞ 1001 Deadly Checkmates ♜📘
☞ 1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate ♜📙
Rating Climb Playlist: 📈📈
Rating Levels Playlist: 🚀🚀📈📈
Endgame Principles Video: 🏁
Chess Opening Traps Playlist: 💯‼️
About this video:
This is a rating climb series (or speedrun) where I play games against players from different rating levels, starting at 600 and working all the way up to 2400. In this video I play players in the 2200 to 2400 range. I try to focus on the thought process behind the moves I’m making. You will learn all sorts of chess strategies, chess tactics, chess ideas, and chess concepts. I talk about how to think during a chess game and what the thought process should be. Beginner and intermediate chess players will benefit most from these free chess lessons.
chess.com links are affiliate links.
Accordingly with the engine you was lost. 😀
Just a note about your comment at the end, that AFTER you forked his queen and king, the eval bar shot up. The move that caused this status change was actually HIS taking the pawn on g6. It is never OUR move that changes the eval bar positively for us, only negatively. We can only make mistakes, in the computer's view. The best the opponent can do is take advantage of our mistake. And then, the eval bar will stay where it is.I am no chess wiz. And I don't know if this is particularly revelatory, but I noticed this recently. My friend told me that he hadn't heard of it phrased that way, but instead that chess is a game of mistakes.
How can Nelson teach how to reach 2400 if he is not 2400 himself AFAIK?
Yes. First game was fantastic. I can’t believe that’s the only danish in this series. Need more of those
it feels wrong to over extend with your kingside pawns like that. Like one move threats that don't concretely achieve anything, makes the position worse for white in my opinion
Aw man, that really sucks for him. I thought he had you since it was look like 70% win for him
Great video ! very instructive
How did you get a nm tittle
I knew this series had more life. Good video.
I subscribed because I really like how he explains stuff
Good job for explaining, im myself new to chess and jt made me less blunder after watching your videos.
sry but can we see more of these. I am at this level and would love more content like this 😀
I'm 2200 on chess.com
I'm hard working and passionate about chess. I was 800elo two years ago. I'm soon 17. Can I still make it to GM?
This video is a great window into how Masters like Nelson Lopez who are far more numerous though less glamorous than top class super Grandmasters approach chess and how they win. And it is after all pretty cool for someone to reach even the 2200+ level. Rather than trying to master the extensive 2700+ level theory of elite GMs these Masters seem to rely on a less extensive and less analyzed (though perhaps even more aggressive) repertoire designed for quick wins over club players. This leaves them more time for paid students and video content you can contribute to if you wish. And when they lose they go down fighting instead of being crushed like a bug.
Thus Nelson Lopez seems to prefer the Danish Gambit for White to the 2700+ Spanish Opening theory of 2700+ level super Grandmasters. And as Black against 1.e4 he prefers the Islandic Gambit to 2700+ Open Sicilian theory. Of course even in top class chess there is a place for gambits. Thus Magnus Carlsen in the tradition of Bobby Fischer and others more than half a century earlier sometimes take a flier on the Evans Gambit with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4. From this we can surmise that the Evans, even at the 2700+ level gives White reasonable practical winning chances, at least as an occasional surprise weapon. And of course we can study those games.
But you don't find Carlsen (or Fischer back in the day) playing the Danish Gambit as Nelson Lopez does here. From this we can surmise that at the 2700+ level the Danish gives few winning chances though it gives lots of winning chances at the club level. After all you need not have a super Grandmaster's opening repertoire to be a Master. In two separate comments elsewhere, to avoid YouTube software issues with long comments, I briefly discuss the openings in Games 1 and 2. Any comments by National Master Lopez, to the extent that they agree or disagree with mine are greatly appreciated.
In Game 2 Nelson Lopez seems to prefer the Icelandic Gambit after 1.e4 d5 2.exd4 with 2…Nf6 in place of the main line Scandinavian after 2…Qxd5 in part because it is much less well known to club players since 2700+ level players almost always play 2…Qxd5 in place of 2…Nf6. At the 2700+ level, compared to 2…Qxd5, 2…Nf6 is a relative sideline and in fact 2…Nf6 is seen only rarely in games where both players are rated even 2600+. But at the club level Black wins many games quickly with it.
In Game 2 after 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nxd5 White immediately went wrong in my opinion with 4.Nxd5 Qxd5 when Black was already equal. How do we reconcile that with the fact that even a former World Champion once opted to play that way? See e.g. Smyslov,Vassily 2550 – Vaganian,Rafael 2600 [B02] Moscow TV, Moscow URS 1987 (1) 0 – 1 53. Perhaps Smyslov thought to use his legendary endgame prowess to win. After all, he didn't become World Champion in 1957 for nothing. But the Smyslov of 1987 wasn't the Smyslov of 30 years earlier and he lost the referenced game.
The main line used to be 3.d4 Nxd5 4.c4 (Today the more modest 4.Nf3 seems to be the main line although it too is rare at the 2700+ level.) 4…Nb6 5.Nf3 with White taking some space. But after 5…g6 Black can get a satisfactory position that the stronger player is likely to win with either color.
Some players also opt for e.g. 3.c4 e6 (3…c6 is also fine for Black.) 4.dxe6 Bxe6 5.Nf3 with double edged play where White has an extra pawn but Black is ahead in development. The much stronger player would then still be likely to win but objectively Black seems fine. See e.g. Onischuk,Alexander 2657 – Minasian,Artashes 2600 [B01] EU-chT, Batami GEO 1999.12.07 (8) ½ – ½ 25.
Awesome chess channel! Thanks for all your effort.
Ohh that fork by knight… man what a blunder..
Great chess series!
You can't play sharp, play smart under time pressure.
I really enjoy the way you analyse the games and describe your thought process.
game1 isn't qb3 just met by Nd5?
You make it look so easy.
I am learning lots of tricks from ur game.Thank you very much.need more n more.
Wow you're a Legend
Great games and very helpful commentary. It doesn't get any better than this.
Useless video for D4 players
I hope I can get to 2000 one day.
difference between qc2 and qb3? at 4.30?