people actually do, especially one guy who followed theory for 15 moves but it turned out to be a computer cheater lol https://lichess.org/BSLr2sjC/black#28
@flamepelt1 my study is just my prep for upcoming USFC tournaments, in blitz nobody follows theory for more than 8-10 moves but in long games people often do
The point me and other have made on this thread is that the people creating these opening studies first of all know nothing about the opening and also put no effort into it leading to useless studies. Leninperez, the creator of 6 of the top 10 most liked studies is only a 1200 and thousands of people are viewing his studies and being mislead. These studies get tens of thousands of likes from beginners pushing them to more beginners who in turn are mislead by his studies.
@Derrick1Rose i pretty much agree. The most popular lichess opening study is on the Sicilian (https://lichess.org/study/8c8bmUfy). This study was made by a 1500 blitz and looking at it i see so much wrong with it that it is unbelievable how so many people like it. The theory is so messed up and it doesnt even cover the mainlines. i wish people would stop looking at these types of studies.
#52 I am too ignorant to follow the quality argument about openings, but you do seem to describe a social media type of positive feedback loop based on the "like" consequence in the head of the human social animal. And the fact that it is the only thing on top by default.
I suggest people look at other people profiles, one at a time, upon encounter, or forum presence in the analysis or general section. There are also teams to spot dedicated fellow chess players member of lichess. The team content or theme might also help judge.
word of mouth in digital terms i guess i a better way to find study authors or group of authors.
like in scientific publications, citation become as important or more a metric as publication journal or number, in the search systems about scientific literature, or in evaluating a researcher "ouput". (hopefully no self citating ring or club effect happens at the expense of science, or study quality and their diffusion ;), sombre thought).
That suggestion, while waiting for improvements on a more systematic way to find the good ones, or the appropriate ones.
yep, this is exactly like social media because the algorithms are practically the same. I guess handpicked studies may be a good start but it might take too much manpower. I guess more people should make studies based on youtube videos such as hanging pawns and the GMs and IMs on youtube.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.