I would have told you it was impossible, but I think Vlad, a player I've been mentoring, came pretty close! I was really happy to see him put this amazing game together and crush a player rated much higher than himself.
I made this video as a testament to the power of opening preparation, and to once again illustrate that memorization alone isn't the most important aspect! Vlad's opponent deviated on move 9, but because he had worked hard on learning the ideas of this opening and analyzing it deeply, he played like a Master would play well beyond move 20.
If you're interested in learning more about developing a Master-Level Opening Repertoire, just let me know! I have an exclusive training I can send you, not publicly available on youtube.
There is no such thing as a "perfect" chess game. Perhaps there is in some theoretical sense that involves the "solving" of the game, but no human is capable of seeing it or putting it into practice.
Trying to fool 1300-level players into thinking you can have them doing just that, or playing like a "master," is a good marketing technique, though, if your target is people foolish enough to believe that.
You could also try being realistic, but then realistic people are probably less likely to waste their money.
Your only rating here is correspondence, you are rated 1900, and you haven't played a game in months. Yeah, you can teach people to play "perfect chess."
The hypothesis is that looking deeper a player can discover underline ideas and tactics that can be applicable in many variations, and that the deviations can later be used as hook points for further learning.
I don't see anything wrong with this idea and it resonates with me.
You’re not a 1300-level player though. If lichess ratings are reliable, you’re not far from this guy’s level. So what you say is hardly surprising.
I disagree that it is simply semantics, in this case. I think he purposely used the absurd language he did in hopes of drawing in suckers.
I think that the poster is correct. I am not sure I consider this deep study. Saying "Perfect moves" is probably just something someone says when the computer doesn't object. I would say that white's play was as his said later in his video, "Almost perfect". I don't know how good he is at teaching. This video does nothing to show teaching method or style. However I don't see anything bad about the video or presentation to get anyone to tell him he is using "absurd language". I feel the best teacher on the planet is GM Igor Smirnov and all of his ads sound like they come off QVC. If you went by his marketing approach no one would go to his material ever.
So, can a 1300 play perfect moves.. Here is the idea that it first sprang up. Back in the twilight of chess computer age we found the birth of the first official PC version of fritz. Which quickly became one of the top engines. The engine was so good that it was beating Master and SM level players. It had difficulty with IM and GM because the processing power to accomplish this wasn't made available yet. The level of the engine was master level. If a player in the class sections made it through a game without a "notation" or without a higher than 1 disadvantage they were deemed fritz perfect. Even if they lost the game. If the whole game was basically close to 0.00 and the player resigned because they saw eminent doom, the game was still considered fritz perfect. As of around 2010-2015 the engines and processing power got so strong that even the top ten humans couldn't beat the top 100 computers. Or had massive troubles without anti-computer tricks. The ability to create "Comptuer perfect" games became more scrutinized.
The question is can a 1300 player play a perfect game? Yes.. It's actually quite common according to the old method of evaluating perfect play from a human vs a computer. Does it mean they play computer moves? No, even computers are not perfect.. But a human can easily at any level play a game the engine doesn't find wrong with the moves up through around move 20-30. And sometimes an entire game through 60 moves. Opening study can help with this. And changing your frame of mind when studying openings can effect this.
Do I agree someone should listen to this NM? I don't know. I always suggest to contact masters or experts that speak to you and how you learn. I think his video was well done. I might consider taking his lessons based on this, if I was 1300. I wouldn't consider myself a sucker either.
I think choosing openings you can learn in a day is best. And then focus on real chess, but that is my teaching style. Not everyone can handle real chess.;-)
@Chuck_Fess Did you really try to flex on my Lichess “correspondence rating” when I have a real-world title? Some people here never cease to amaze me! Obviously this isn’t a site I play in much, but I’m not sure I see the relevance.
If you don’t think the game shown was “perfect,” or at least as close to perfect as can be expected, feel feel to suggest improvements...
I would ignore it. From the looks of the message he was trying to speak. I would tag him as a troll that didn't really care about the actual post. The thing I am wondering is. Are you actually asking this question, or are you trying to get students, or is there an ulterior motive?
@BlakeyBChess And why invoke that real-world title if it is one that doesn't mean anything really? ;)
It was not a bad game, certainly, but its beauty is somewhat tarnished by the fact that your guy memorized 18 moves and then won easily after his opponent blundered on their 18th one.
It would be much more interesting to see a strong game where his opponent leaves his prep on move 5 or something.
Well... the answer is yes...lichess.org/YaMnuxB8/black
The thing is, my rating was provisional and still is provisional in classical because I play rapid (1467 rating), blitz (1289 rating), bullet (1335 rating), and correspondence (1625 rating) more often.
My opponent there was also a 1080 or so.
@Chuck_Fess If you always understand words literally, by their dictionary definition, doesn't mean that everyone has to. Most people on this site at least would understand what it means. I think his topic was nice, including the video. Nothing was over the top. I myself spent two months just watching chess videos. Here is the link to the one which I think is similar to this one, but it might be for higher rated players then 1300. It is by Yasser Seirawan and is called "Hold the Draw Against Higher Rated Opponent".