@AnatolijKasparov What if you want to beat a higher rated opponent?
@A_0123456 I don't know. Feed him hash brownies before the game?
@MeWantCookieMobile the first two :)
You’re incorrect - I don’t think you watched the video. His opponent deviated from theory on move 9, not move 18.
As far as a move 5 deviation - that’s hardly a thing anymore!
Sorry to hear you think my title “doesn’t matter.”
Lots of trolls on Lichess today!
If by "perfect" we take as a reference the engine evaluation according to inaccuracies, mistakes and blunders (0-0-0), clearly this is not only possible but even probable in some games, most notably in games where a wide margin separates both players and the game is tactically very simple, ending early due to a tactic the weaker opponent missed.
I'm sure this happens all the time as I am a relatively weak player and used to be astonished by my accuracy level in certain games until I realized that playing in a game more or less devoid of tactics against a much weaker opponent allowed me to achieve fairly high accuracy of play under those particular circumstances, despite my patzer skill and ability level.
Having said this, When I first started playing chess again almost one year ago after a 20-year hiatus, I very quickly determined that most games are "lost" and not "won", at least under "Class A" or perhaps "Expert-level". This statement is fairly easy to check by using data from a cross-section of random players and games available on Chess.com or Lichess, for example.
It is plain for anyone who cares to investigate to see that, under a certain rating level, the advantage fluctuates wildly within many, many games and said fluctuation is more often than not due to egregious mistakes and blunders which occur at all levels of ability, though the frequency follows in inverse proportion to rating level.
The fact that the opening is far from the decisive phase of the game, generally, for the vast majority of games under, say, "Class A" level is extremely easy to verify. At lower levels such as mine and for normal time-controls, what opening prep does, more than anything else is give one a "sense of confidence" which a firm grasp of opening principles and fundamentals would also give without "opening study" becoming the "time and money sink" it is for many, many players.
Because the opening is the phase of the game where players of our level are directly and publicly confronted with their ineptitude or incompetence. Once we make it out of the opening ok, our egos feel better and our incompetence is less obvious (to ourselves) in the middlegame, or at least not as hard on our fragile egos.
But what use is coming out of the opening with +1 and even working that up to +2 or even +3 when one's other weaknesses cause one to blunder away the game because of things as trivial as absent-mindedness or a failure to see a basic tactic or a simple enough combinatorial manoeuvre?
Not to take anything away from you or your student, this reality is no different for the "booked-up" lower-rated player though the mistakes and blunders will creep up later in the game, rather than in the opening. So, whatever advantage a "booked-up" lower-rated player accrues is more likely than not to be negated, on average, by mistakes and blunders he/she commits in the middlegame and endgame when playing against a significantly stronger player. Especially if the opponent is tactically skilled and the weaker one is not.
For every game a significantly stronger player may lose to a "booked-up" weaker player such as your student because of his stronger grasp of the opening, that very same player will win 10 against the weaker player because of the weaker player's behavioural and tactical weaknesses: his/her play just isn't consistent enough at that level for the opening advantage to be the decisive factor, on average.
If they play enough games, the "booked-up" weaker player will lose much more frequently even if he comes out of the opening with better theoretical chances in 100% of the games.
Conversely, once games are played by very strong players, say "Class A" level and above, egregious mistakes and blunders are much more infrequent and games often hinge on incremental advantages, first obtained as a result of a better opening and then added upon as a consequence of the more accurate play. It, therefore, follows that knowledge of "opening theory" is vital for this class of player though much less important for lower classes of players.
(By the way, your title most certainly does matter and is an achievement to be proud of. Though some people may be of "bad faith", others who are new to the game may simply not know what it means, though some may find that proposition hard to believe)
1300s are basically beginners when I think I was 3 month old player I used to beat my chess trainer master. she basically is kinda stupid but I will send the link
I dont think a 1300 Fide rated player can play a perfect game without the opponent making a blunder early on. Eg in this game 16. Nxe7? is a clear mistake, because the Bishop is really weak and has no squares, while the knight controls so many squares in the enemy territory.
That being said, I think studying the opening as a beginner is useful (I started playing 1 year ago and it really helped me). The big misconsception is, that as a beginner you must not study a opening like a GM.
Focus more on ideas than on certain moves, because like mentioned, your opponent will deviate from theory most likely early on.
So to conclude, I think your teaching method is good and it can improve play a lot for weak players, but they will still make positional mistakes in the midgame (which is fine).
I think that if you want to attract students via lichess forum posts of your videos, you'd probably get a more positive response in the thread if you'd recorded a dedicated video using lichess itself.
@hampy Why? Are lichess users some kind of cult? I would think a chess player wouldn't care what platform a video is filmed on.
I have gotten that reaction before on lichess though, it's very weird. A lot of lichess users seem vehemently against other chess websites, whereas I never see that attitude anywhere else.
I get the feeling that a few people are drawn to Lichess because they're freebie-chasers too cheap to pay a few bucks a month for a membership to a more comprehensive chess website. But of course there are plenty of serious chess players here too.