Fleshlumpeater: Absolutely! There are many other collections of GM blunders on my youtube channel (lol), but the whole point of these videos is to prove that a 27xx or 28xx rated player doesn't play at that level every time he plays a game. Sometimes it's 26xx, 25xx or... 21xx!
It is much easier to defeat an opponent when you know that he too can play badly than if you think he's a "28xx monster".
Of course i'm just saying that they usually play at their strength. But everyone makes mistakes.
I am impressed by your videos. It must cost a lot of time to make the heads.
Just commenting to subscribe. Need more entertaining comments from
@chessclinic and
@jonesmh "You humans"... :):):)
Quoting Xo: "I wonder what kind of software he used to make this CREEPY faces."
Make up your mind, "Impressed" or "creeped out"? they're not exactly the same thing! :)
I called you an idiot because you committed so many logic fallacies. And you thinking that I'm just insulting you is proof of you being an idiot. I didn't say that you have to use an engine to see these motives (btw, I focused on the Bxh6 thing but generalization seems to be your thing) but I said that you have to use an engine to be sure that it works and that it works in this move order only. I pointed out that due to simple stochastics even 2800 rated players will sometimes not play such a move. The assertion "I would've captured on h6" after having checked it with an engine is meaningless. I called you an idiot for saying "These players are not strong, they make stupid mistakes." (And yes, that's paraphrasing your statements and you will deny meaning that...) And that statement is stupid, of course you will find games where 2800 rated players make mistakes. But making the general assertion "Oh, they make mistakes, therefor they can't be that strong" is wrong. Of course they make mistakes and everyone knows that. You saying they are not as strong as we think either insults our intellect by assuming that we don't know that they make mistakes as well or you are insulting the strength of these players. Your statement "It is much easier to defeat an opponent when you know that he too can play badly than if you think he's a "28xx monster"." (That's an actual quote, no walking back that) is idiotic as well. They make mistakes in some games, often against other strong players, a few times against lower rated players. A "28xx monster" is only called a monster because he makes so few mistakes.
You are misunderstanding and twisting what I say and put yourself on some moral trip ("You are mean and insulting". Yeah, but so are you). If a random IM puts a video on the internet analysing a game between two 2700s and pointing out what they did wrong is no problem. The problem is that the random IM belittles their actual strength. That's why I called you an idiot and why I will continue doing that.
@chessclinic He is impressed by how creepy you managed to make their faces. You know, you can have different feelings at the same time... At least "We humans" can do that.
Oh, and one more thing: You saying "There isn't much to calculate." That statement shows why you are not a GM. You think after checking with an engine that there aren't many things to calculate. Of course the engine doesn't point out many lines in which black can reasonably continue but there are in every position moves that the engine would label with +7 or something but you still have to play accurate moves to get there.
Your lack of critical thinking is astonishing.
Completely agree with
@Chillkroete77 . The position after Bxh6 is incredibly complicated, and to say that there isn't much to calculate is absurd.
And
@jonesmh... The reason that there are these youtube videos of top GMs making elementary blunders is that it's incredibly rare! If it happened with any frequency, we wouldn't be hearing about it.
Also, to say that the classic masters didn't make these silly mistakes is plainly refuted by statistical analysis of their games: They made far more mistakes, on average, than today's top players. You find worse "howlers" the further back you go.
Calling people names is not a valid argument, and isn't acceptable.
