@rokoroks again, you use “Lichess users” as if it’s some kind of identity movement.
Obviously not everyone here is a moron. The people caring about which website a video is filmed on are, though.
I know that when I was a 1500, this certainly was not how I treated Masters willing to share content and advice with me for free. That’s a big part of why I became a master and you never will.
Pretty low rating for a "master".
The problem is your losing your thread. You are responding inappropriately to people that are trolling you and therefor starting to respond inappropriately to people that are trying to support you. You need to back off and cool down. You didn't say the site was filmed with or for you said, "It’s a video I made for my own personal site that happens to use an analysis board from that site." Now wording aside this is saying that chess.com isn't affiliated when it is. And what you're doing is bantering semantics. It is unproductive as someone who is trying to sell themselves to the public to get sucked into a semantics battle. And then attacking everyone at once regardless of their intent is even worse. Because you have more probability of losing support of people who might try to help you. I for one might have linked this video to my pages. However, I probably won't simply because if you get flustered this easily in regular chat. You might not be that great personally. And the people I help advertise I would like to have themselves show in positive light. I don't care where you analyse like I said. It makes no bit of difference if you analyse on a personal board in a 3rd cellar basement.
Take a step back. You are making yourself look bad now.
Poor Blake getting roasted.
I did watch the video, actually.
Yes, officially, the opponent "deviated from theory" on move 9... but your student by his own admission kept blitzing the moves he had learned with a few basic reactionary ones in between (cxb3, Kb1).
I think that is the point that is throwing off most non-trolls here (unfortunately a lot of those around, too): The game wasn't bad, not at all, but it wasn't exactly what one would call imaginative either. It does show the value of opening prep in one single case, but most people still don't trust that, as move 5 deviations are very much still a thing at a 1300 to 1500 level (in FIDE or comparable national rating, not online) and opening study is not the most efficient thing to do for most (although I agree that it's probably worth it for your target group of people who want to seriously improve and don't mind spending a lot of time and/or money for that goal).
What else is there to say about this game, really?
Even your own analysis was rather brief. ;)
Also, what @MeWantCookieMobile says.
@BlakeyBChess I find it unfortunate that your original post slid off point and morphed into petty arguments rather than foster an open and enlightened discussion about the relative merits of studying opening theory for players of lower levels of ability.
Relatively anonymous responses on an Internet platform can sometimes be surprising, frustrating and disappointing and it is easy and understandable to feel flustered and go on "defensive" mode.
But as @MeWantCookieMobile points out, your thread has spun out of control and you've probably "lost your target audience" by now.
I'm sure you could easily take whatever positive criticism you can find within this thread and contribute something of value which would highlight your teaching method, taking care to "keep your eye on the ball" and avoid fostering controversy by ignoring hurtful or mean-spirited comments or responding to them more objectively, trusting that members can tell the difference between someone who is just seeking attention with displays of public misbehaviour and someone who is genuinely interested in a fruitful and productive exchange about chess.
I'm not saying you should close this thread, but the option does exist to you, as its OP.
It doesn’t bother me too much. People who want to improve and care to message me about the video will still do so. People who get distracted by internet troll wars probably would have never listened anyways. :)
Mr. Parcel, if that IS his real name, makes a valid point.
@BlakeyBChess By utilizing a platform, you are signaling you have some sort of preference-- in this case, the preference is towards lichess' competitor. While for you, the competitor may be a better option (I understand that titled players do not have to pay for membership there, and thus you probably are able to better benefit from it's greater size and scope than most), the simple fact is not everyone wants to pay for chess learning/play, and therefore avoid sites that offer advantages (such as premium content) to paying users. By accusing lichess users of being cheap, you are seperating yourself from them, a fact which is further reinforced by your choice of platform. This reduces the likelihood of lichess users watching your video, as they are immediately alienated. The fact that they do not like your use of dot com is not grounds for insulting lichess users, calling them "morons" and telling them they will never become masters. If you want support for your video, try being supportive yourself, both of the site and of its users.