Stop Counting 'Attackers' vs 'Defenders'!

[@lukastux3024]

Another reason the counting logic is flawed is not only because of tactics (as shown in the game), but because the order in which the pieces can take back is also important. A pawn that is attacked twice and defended by a battery of a queen and two rooks can still be taken, because the queen is too valuable

[@ChessCoachAndras]

Good point !

[@fernandopardo8272]

And also some times you can take the piece even with less attackers if after that there is a tactic like a Knight fork or a ping!

[@Australianchessplayer]

@@fernandopardo8272 Or the backrow mate as shown. I think here that the problem is less the counting and more the examining the final position. I don't need to calculate in order to see the final position, but I do have to look closely at it.

[@lp4969]

Man you're such a great teacher, there's not a single concept that i don't fully understand after you explain it

[@JoseDownUnder]

Because he is a full time teacher as well if i am not wrong 😊, and takes Andreas’s chess teaching to another level.

[@Anonymous-ld5ou]

Gothamchess is sweating

[@lukastux3024]

Gotham is more of an entertainer than an educator. This is why I subbed Andras and not Gotham..

[@regisx]

Are they competing? I appreciate both.

[@tylerbrown4483]

I don’t know, I’ve watched a bit of Gotham and I can imagine him saying something like “This pawn has 3 attackers and 2 defenders. It looks like it’s 3 and 3 but that rook is not defending because it needs to stay there to protect back rank mate, so that’s just a free pawn” Yes, he “counts” but he would never count that rook on the back rank as a defender. It’s just a different way of thinking of the same thing.

[@Anonymous-ld5ou]

@tyelerbrown4483 I actually agree with you. At first I thought this video was about counting your opponents defenders and your attackers on the kingside because gotham chess always says you need like 2 more attackers than they have defenders.

[@illuminaut]

@@tylerbrown4483 Yes, that's a good point. The problem with foregoing counting and calculating every move is that unless you're playing correspondence chess without time limit, you'll run out of time. You have to rely on either theory or some heuristics. Counting attackers and defenders can be a useful heuristic, as long as you take the extra step to check if any pieces are overloaded.

[@WilsonMagna]

Andras Toth is the best Chess educator on KZbin and videos like this perfectly illustrate why. If we seriously analyze our own games, we'd find many game-deciding tactics.

[@Speed99999]

Even Andrew tate

[@janolthof2487]

even andrew tate..@@Speed99999

[@forestevans5453]

He is definitely up there as one of the best with Daniel Naroditsky

[@primeexample11]

Chess network is pretty good

[@TheDedloc]

Might actually be the best chess lesson I ever got! Thanks man!

[@ChessCoachAndras]

Awesome, thank you!🎉

[@rojavida]

Really good advice for educators. I will definitely use this to challenge my own students.

[@ChessCoachAndras]

Excellent!

[@kaalad3666]

Best chess teacher on youtube! One thing that sets you apart is the psychology aspect that you teach. I was watching Aman do an episode of slowbrah the other day and while he was evaluating the position, he said something along the lines of "I feel like I'm entitled to a winning position here". Normally I wouldn't have given that a second thought but from watching your videos I realised that's the mentality you often say we need to have as chess players. I've never heard any other chess youtuber talk about that. Y'all this guy really knows what he's talking about!!!

[@ektoplasm5345]

Excellent conclusion of what chess is about.

[@dm_nimbus]

Thanks!

[@ChessCoachAndras]

Thanks for your generosity!

[@neeru7298]

You completely revolutionized the way I look at chess with a 18 minutes video. Thank you Coach Andras

[@ChessCoachAndras]

Glad to hear!

[@kyrollousashraf5374]

IM Andras is a unique presence on KZbin chess. Hopefully the algorithm will finally smile on you ❤

[@WoollyllamaZA]

This is pure gold

[@TheFrenkel]

I highly recommend Calculation: A Complete Guide for Tournament Players by CM Azel Chua - he shows how counting can help understand what to calculate. His 'Burger Technique' helps ensure your calculations are on the right track. This way, you avoid wasting valuable time on irrelevant moves, while zeroing in closer to the winning idea....Always calculate and visualize :)

[@BigAsciiHappyStar]

I agree that counting attackers and defenders should not replace calculation but it is still useful a “basic visualisation skill”. If I were teaching a 600-rated player, I would want him to reach the stage where he can glance at any position and immediately identify e.g. which pieces are attacked at least once by an enemy piece or which pieces are attacked by another piece of smaller value. Once this player masters this type of basic skill and stops having his embarrassing losses featured on Levy Rosman’s Guess The ELO, I would then go over exceptions to the rule 🤪 And remember that any decent 1500-rated player was probably a lowly 600 at some point in his or her career.

[@alexs1621]

I have got to say, this is the most important chess video I have ever seen, (as an adult improver) this vile habit of just "counting" is what I learned, and on so many occasions let me down, But what is far worse, it holds people back from developing. I have never seen anyone discuss this, or discourage anyone from doing this, you are the first coach Andras, and as an "adult Improver" I will always be grateful to you for this. I think I realised that counting was totally unreliable, almost instintively, probably due to Tactics training, and realising I had missed Tactical Shots because I simply counted "attackers and defenders". You are the first to Verbalise and Demonstrate how counting, not only doesn't really work, but is profoundly damaging to chess developement, because counting makes the chess student avoid Calculating and Visualisation, the key skill for any chess player/student. I nearly skipped this video, I am eternally grateful that I didn't. Thanks greatly Mate. 👍

[@CrashSomeMore]

Thanks! I needed to hear this.

[@ChessCoachAndras]

Thank so much for your generosity!

[@robinesperoza]

It's funny how kings don't care about Pythagoros and travel a longer distance in the same time when going diagonally.

[@ChessCoachAndras]

Exactly

[@nomoreblitz]

Adult improvement is just really difficult

[@johndrake3472]

Always insightful - no paint by numbers crap on this channel.

[@TikariChess]

I was just looking at the line that leads to that third example earlier today; shout out to your 1.d4 Repertoire!

[@matesomos342]

True fans of András will recognize the Nxd7 position from the 1.d4 course ;) great video!

[@ChessCoachAndras]

🔥👍😉

[@adrissan]

Thanks! I think this is one of the best videos you have ever made, sir!

[@ChessCoachAndras]

Wow, thanks!

[@joeldick6871]

Another example of where counting doesn't work is when one of the defenders is a higher-valued piece like a rook or a queen. You'll recapture as many times as the attacker captures, but you'll have given up a higher-valued piece. Also, counting works terribly against zugzwangs. That's why those who learned tactics this way always find zugzwang very difficult to see.

[@framebadger]

Yeah, I was going to make this point. Even if you add up the total values of the pieces, it's about the order too - since at some point your opponent might just do something else. I've made that stupid mistake before.

[@joeldick6871]

@@framebadger Very good point as well. Order often matters a great deal. When you actually play through the captures in your head, you discover a lot more about the position than if you simply count.

[@qazzaqstan]

Zwischenzugs are just hard tactics for me to see period, I often think I'm calculating properly instead of using a heuristic but still, miss them because they require calculating with full board awareness. Zugzwangs are even more difficult because unless they are famous (or similar enough to a well known one to set off alarm bells) the position looks completely innocuous it wouldn't occur to me to look 1 move deeper.

[@AlexLopez-nj2sj]

I really needed this video. There are so many games where my opponent and I spend a bunch of resources trying to attack or defend a pawn, I "win" the battle over the square, I place a pawn or minor piece on the square, and then I get slaughtered on the other side of the board.

[@johnwalker1058]

I feel like the method of "count attackers and defenders" is like using training wheels for learning to ride a bicycle. It may make it easier to ride a bike in the short term, but it actually makes it harder to learn to actually ride a bike on two wheels in the long term because the motions and muscle memory for riding with training wheels is very different from riding with two wheels. A person used to riding on training wheels struggles to balance and turn on a bike with two wheels at first because they fail to realize that they must lean into the turn before turning. They instinctively resist this due to the fact that leaning into the turn would tip you over on a bike with training wheels attached. Likewise, a person may make fewer blunders where they hang pieces if they follow the counting rule for comparing attackers and defenders, but this puts them off (or at least delays) the necessary experience of learning how to actually calculate through a line and visualize the resulting positions after each move and variation in a sequence.

[@guyainsworth61]

Excellent advice, as ever!

[@williammagdalene7439]

Because of your beautiful lessons here, I’m now enjoying your Chessable course, “Center.” Thanks for your teaching, Andras!

[@ChessCoachAndras]

Wonderful!

[@vandammesque]

"Seize the CENTAH!"

[@ronfuse6993]

Another banger!

[@theinacircleoftheancientpu492]

So to summarise: Counting is a redundant aid since it is simply hit and miss, and since it doesn't reliably provide correct information you may as well not do it. Better is to look for weaknesses, paying particular attention to thematic patterns, and if you see the possibility of a breakthrough or pattern then try and understand it by calculating and evaluating the positions that arise as you calculate.

[@qazzaqstan]

So I understand your point, but heuristics are definitely still useful even if in the ideal situation pure calculation is better. I'll grant for the most part that particular heuristic is kind of a problem though.

[@LightningGunne]

damn. i was just thinking of sending someone a video about counting attackers and defenders (something which i admittedly don't even do that much myself), and this was the top search result. after watching this video all the way through, i'm glad it was. i first found you on Twitch and i was quite sadistically entertained by _those two_ gamer rage moments at the top of your Twitch clip archive, but i very much see now why other chess players like Hannah Sayce recommend your content so highly for learning chess. thanks, Andras!

[@DjapDude11111]

Profound insight. Does this also apply to the square rule?

[@rocketpig1914]

Damn gonna have to give up the box. Although i could never remember if the king is supposed to be in it before or after the move....

[@dm_nimbus]

This was so instructive! For myself, as soon as I looked at the first position, I zoned out, but once it was even suggested to calculate, I saw it immediately. So I CAN do some calculation... I just need to actually do it! I had trouble with the second so I'll spend some time with king and pawn endgames. I saw the third pretty quickly.

[@ChessCoachAndras]

Glad you found it useful!

[@rocketpig1914]

Great stuff love the enthusiasm and pace

[@marthalea876]

Brilliant, thank you! Subscribing 👌Counting now a thing of the past. It’s a no-brainer and I really wish I’d never heard anyone going on about counting attackers and defenders when I started out!

[@ChessCoachAndras]

Glad you liked it, and welcome onboard!

[@miroslavcebic7239]

Great lesson

[@johnwalker1058]

Another major problem with "count attackers vs defenders" is the relative value of the pieces attacking and defending. A defending player can hold onto a target even if they have fewer pieces defending if they have lower value pieces defending it. Otherwise, if the attacking player goes through with the attack on that square, they may capture more pieces, but the defending player may get to capture better pieces and thus would still win more points worth of material even if they made fewer captures. Example - Two rooks in a battery attack a pawn, but the attacker would not want to take the pawn because it is defended by another pawn. They may have outnumbering attackers, but following through with a capture sequence of exchanges would just be losing material for them (as it would begin with trading a rook for just a pawn).

[@frednimzowi9852]

Counterarguments: -1st example: I see:3 vs 3 plus the back rank theme, then adjust the counting to 3 vs 2. I can take the pawn, no calculation. - 2nd example: I know the Reti study so 1. Kg7 draws, no calculation involved whatsoever 😅😅😅. I have to give you right in the endgame, but knowing the principles (here that a diagonal king march is as quick as a straight one and can perform miracles) and kbowing some basics positions, will guide your calculation. Calculation alone can be very confusing, and energy consuming. Some positions, I agree, there is no choice, you have to do the hard work and calculate. But choose your moments, those critical positions where you must do this more than a couple of moves a head.

[@timwoods3173]

Thanks for the lesson

[@blessingkahiya5147]

Thank you sir. Very instructive. Can you please make something on visualisation and blindfold chess.

[@dkpandey1996]

Time to unlearn another concept and learn something better. Excellent video!

[@GutenChad]

I'm a Chess beginner, and I really needed to hear this! Thank you

[@santodagostino6896]

Another in a long list of clear, instructive, and excellent videos by the great IM Toth. Some of the best chess content on the internet, delivered memorably and with enthusiasm.

[@ceejelly8783]

Thank you Coach!

[@satanickmukhuty2579]

Fantastic content! I will be sure to send this video to any improving player I know. It's so instructional and demonstrates exactly what chess really is: a battle of ideas.

[@ChessCoachAndras]

Good to see you on the channel sir, and thanks for the kind comment!

[@ShogiDojoLyon]

Very good point, thank you 😃

[@aleksapopovic9704]

great video as always

[@ChessCoachAndras]

Thanks again!

[@0001Alf]

Wow… being a new player myself: great video! Great insights offered

[@chanchchanchellor1545]

“my decision making is based” IM Andras Toth 6:05

[@MrJorjantas]

Thanks for the advice

[@Gamma5Matrix]

The funny thing is, I don’t think you were done calculating in the first example. There was still Qb1+! If the pawn was on h2, we’d lose-but luckily we played h3 at some point so we have Kh2.

[@songbrothers4342]

I understand your point,(and agree) but that wasn't as much on topic and didn't work anyways, so on a lesson standpoint it wasn't really necessary.

[@hosiahjones]

​@@songbrothers4342Actually it is on topic and valid from a lesson standpoint, because calculation not only involves calculating what works but also calculating what does not work, including making sure the opponent counterthreat does not work. So that final queen check that does not work is highly, highly relevant.

[@songbrothers4342]

@@hosiahjones ok, I totally agree. I just stated that maybe andras just wanted to drive the point of counting and dismissed tactics that don’t work if you look at it for one second. Idk though because I’m not Andras.

[@hosiahjones]

@@songbrothers4342 Bottom line, white can't take with the bishop if his pawn is on h2 (and then it's white who blundered not black). All final checks must be calculated. It's highly relevant and on point, yes, even in this lesson, especially in this lesson. The worst blunders are when you THINK the opponent blundered counting but he actually didn't (again, if pawn was on h2).

[@alexandergrant2420]

I was thinking of Bxd5 Q g5 for black being a problem for taking the pawn- it seems to get complicated beyond the obvious back rank threat...

[@joeldick6871]

I agree with you that you should always play out the moves in your head and not rely on counting... BUT, to play the devil's advocate in the example you gave. Those tactics books would say that there are three attackers and three defenders but one of the defenders is overloaded, so its power is illusionary, so there are effectively only two defenders.

[@bartek8945]

Great work as always coach!

[@markosborn3079]

Thanks, Andras! Really useful, fundamental stuff, that will have an immediate positive effect in my games I'm sure!

[@ChessCoachAndras]

THe pleasure is mine!

[@achessjourney402]

Hello chico Andras. You should make a calculation playlist. Cheers.

[@joeystenbeck6697]

Counting pieces is kinda like the London System, it’s a shortcut that can improve your play a lot really quickly but will make you hit a (low) ceiling. Brand new at chess and want to see how good you can get in a day? Learn heuristics like counting attackers. Then want to get past that ceiling? You gotta start from the beginning with calculation

[@robhead22]

Excellent examples! Now Im a subscriber Thank you!

[@ChessCoachAndras]

Welcome aboard! Thanks a lot!

[@trent797]

Great video Andras! I have always been uncomfortable with the counting method, but I could never explain why. Your explanation is much appreciated!

[@ChessCoachAndras]

Glad it was helpful!

[@yousef446555]

Thank you so freaking much for this video, you've gained a new subscriber.

[@MarcusHCrawford]

I spaced on the back rank mate for a minute because I was analyzing the rook taking on d5 instead of realizing it hung mate. Guess this video is definitely for me. As always, thanks for all of the help, Andras.

[@mauer1]

Puzzles are easier to figure out when you know the answer and move backwards. I saw the backrank mate, then I looked how to make it work.

[@BundyChess]

absolutely fascinating! you explain these ideas amazingly!

[@ChessCoachAndras]

Glad you think so!

[@reneebrambilla]

Great video!

[@federicoversari8486]

Bravo !!!! And Grazie !!!!

[@mauritsvandermeer9501]

Awesome video! Watching this improved my puzzle rating by 50 points ;-)

[@ChessCoachAndras]

Glad it helped!

[@willyh.r.1216]

Very interesting. I appreciate if you can make a video on chess visualization.😊

[@hosiahjones]

The good ol' mate-pin. Love it!

[@ChessCoachAndras]

The best!

[@KeepChessSimple]

Hm..in the popular calculation course on Chessable by Azel Chua, the pawn on d5 would count as an 'unproteced piece' (pawn in this case). Because it has just as many attackers as defenders. Just one of the many tactical elements you can look for in a position before you start to calculate. (Like a weak back rank, trappable pieces, x-ray attacks, pinned, forkable skewerable pieces, mating patterns etc). But you still have to ''count' to come to the conclusion d5 is a potential weak spot for a tactical pattern you have to calcute. I assume this isn't wrong?

[@janolthof2487]

Great advice, going to try to take it to heart. Thanks!!

[@Martin_Neal]

Thank-you, very much, Andras! I have long made the error of counting defenders versus attackers to evaluate what to move: to add a defender or attacker; or to capture or occupy a (strategic) square. It is perhaps why I have not improved much in chess(?)

[@battlescard213]

Always great, Coach

[@csarmii]

Its correct to count attackers against defenders here. You just need to do it properly. And you stop calculations at the wrong place.

[@-DistantHorizons-]

You deserve many more subscribers Sir!

[@ChessCoachAndras]

I appreciate that!

[@DanielSouza-rs6wo]

Always very instructive, Andras. Great video!

[@ChessCoachAndras]

Glad you liked it!

[@rotatingmind]

Enlightening examples, especially the pawn vs pawn endgame. Are there any good exercise/puzzle books focusing on (pawn) endgame?

[@mathieumclean2761]

Inserting algorithmic comment :) Thank you for this tip. Itll changebmy approach

[@peteryftalvarado5095]

Hate the algorithm but love the content… keep it coming coach!

[@omererkul1669]

In my games there is often a clash between the two, now i can tell why

[@tomas-wi8dy]

Thank you!

[@ChessCoachAndras]

You're welcome!

[@BallisticaMetal]

This is really interesting because I was ABOUT to adopt this "mental process" because I calculate like you say we do, but I was always scared of doing just "numbers" and I calculated lines regardless why? because I remember a game where my opponent counted and thought everything was fine but I had an intermediate move and that tactic gave me the win... there I learned that you have to calculate everything even when it seems "safe"

[@codygarrett866]

You have a strong point sir

[@TomJerry-bp9ig]

Awesome man❤🎉

[@asdf14051]

youve mentioned doing pawn endings for calculation, do you have any resource that has a collection of pawn endgame studies?

[@abottiglieri1448]

How do I book a session with you?

[@JoseDownUnder]

Great topic coach , really appreciate this one, I am also in this bad habit at times 😁

[@blackmirroxx]

calculation is key -> look for a refutation for your own ideas XD

[@SharpTern]

That third example almost looks like it came out of a London!

[@ChessCoachAndras]

Almost. But not quite. It was a proper opening😉👍

[@hosiahjones]

@@ChessCoachAndras Hahaha, gotta love the london hate!

[@MartinyH22]

Literally advice from Garry Kasparov though

[@thuroria7631]

Hey now, I'm sure this guy knows more about chess than Kasparov... oh, wait.

[@chandanmaurya3291]

I'm the latest subscriber of this channel

[@MMWGR1980]

Nice explainatory examples

[@ChessCoachAndras]

Glad you liked it!

[@framebadger]

Very good point. Teaching my kids I think I've mostly avoided this trap but will defeinitely do so now.

[@allaboutthegyro]

Wow this lesson hits hard, because calculation is my worst skill, due to exactly these criteria.

[@eschiedler]

Thanks for the lesson. Btw, hello from the USA, I find it amusing to think that due to gravity at any moment we are standing upside down from you in Australia. Cheers!

[@joebermuda6452]

This Is immediately interesting because I feel that this is like a big big deal!

[@derkamon]

I plead guilty many times I found missed opportunities after I run a game analysis, just because I was counting its a lazy way to find moves. and yeah, its a bad habit

[@kristofferopstad2203]

I mean, I understand the message you are trying to convey... but it doesn't really makes sense to me putting it like that... The harm doesn't lay in counting attackers vs defenders, but rather in counting incorrectly. In example 1, the rook on d8 isn't really an attacker, making it a 3-2... Of course lower rated players should never just count the pieces without taking into consideration which type of pieces are attacking and defending, as well as which pieces can or can't actually leave their current square, but for more experienced players this is obvious. Edit: I haven't watched the whole video or other videos in this series if they exist, so I may be missing some points in the way things are taught on this channel

[@michaelf8221]

People often want a shortcut to playing chess. The truth is: chess requires actual effort!

[@framebadger]

The funny thing is that there are shortcuts and they're called principles, and Andras has courses on them! But those principles are about narrowing down the human 'search function' to help a human work out which moves to consider (e.g. does this move help control the centre?) - they're never shortcuts to avoid calculation.

[@hosiahjones]

Calculation is for tactical moves. Principles are for positional moves.

[@nickburggraaf3977]

Andras, how come your Lichess account is closed?

[@jib6546]

Didn’t even realise I was doing this. Never again.

[@peterfredriksson1857]

And me thinking I had a weakness when most often forgetting to count pieces. 😊

[@Nocturnalcuber]

If i have to divide my chess help to improve in percentage it'll be like 30% training 30% My personal coach 40% your contribution