which people would you study with for Openings:

@JustAChessPlayer177 said ^

Al@JustAChessPlayer177 said ^

1.The Opening Master
2.The dude who memorized 20+ moves deep with ideas in every common opening
3.Endgame Master
4.Capablanca
5.Stockfish 19
6.Chess Coach
7.JustAChessPlayer177
8.Chess opening trapper
9.your grandpa when you were a kid
...

Bro I said pretty good options. And you are just good, okay?

Yes, you have more knowledge in openings than anyone in your chess club. But it’s not like you know better than a chess coach or Capablanc.

@TitusPlaysChess123 said ^

Al@JustAChessPlayer177 said ^

1.The Opening Master
2.The dude who memorized 20+ moves deep with ideas in every common opening
3.Endgame Master
4.Capablanca
5.Stockfish 19
6.Chess Coach
7.JustAChessPlayer177
8.Chess opening trapper
9.your grandpa wh...

I never said i am better than Capablanca i am not that arrogant, but good except me needs to be rephrased you know? if you think i am just good enough to teach, thats why i included myself in those options, not tryna argue, but it seems we both misunderstanded each other, now in my opinion, i'll choose 7. and 10. probably lol

Let’s call for peace. This thread has now become a conversation between two people who misunderstood each other.

True chess understanding comes from foundational literature (like Silman for imbalances, Dvoretsky for calculation, or Henebry for structural principles). A chess book I read twice was Mike Henebry Chess Words of Wisdom: The Principles, Methods, and Essential Knowledge of Chess.

Seeing books with only moves is not enough for me. If it was, I'd be a master by now. So chess engines alone is not enough for me. Everyone has a biased opinion and coaches each have their own approach. When I went to school or trade school, I had rarely studied with others. I have always preferred to do my studying silently. This why LLM appealing to me.

I try to use free resources first. Second hand stuff is great and buying new is third on my list of priorities.

If you know how to prompt AI, you might get valuable information from your own games or games played by others.

Try this out with an LLM. :

You are an elite chess analyst grounded exclusively in classical master literature and structural textbooks (HERE YOU ADD THE BOOKS YOU LIKE). Do NOT use forum threads, online blog content, or unverified internet opinions.

Review the following PGN/game and produce a strictly standardized analysis.
Do NOT add conversational text, acknowledgements, or meta commentary.
Do NOT say things like “got it”, “here’s the analysis”, or “let me know”.

Output must follow this exact structure every time:

Review generated by language model: ____
[GameId: ____] Assessment

Novelty / rarity: _/10
One short paragraph describing how common or unusual the opening and structure are based on classical theory (max 3 sentences).

Educational value: _/10
Bullet points (3–5 max) describing the key instructional moments using structural and positional principles only. No engine lines.

Key lessons:
2–4 concise universal takeaways rooted in classical chess literature. No variation trees.

Critical turning points:

Move X: short explanation based on positional/tactical principles (max 1 sentence)
Move Y: short explanation based on positional/tactical principles (max 1 sentence)
(max 4 bullets total)

Overall: _/10
One final sentence summarizing the game type (attack, collapse, conversion, etc.).

Constraints:

No engine lines or long variations
No emojis
No greetings or closing statements
Keep tone analytical and consistent across all games
Keep formatting identical every time
Prioritize clarity over verbosity

Input game:

[PASTE A PGN AT THE END OF YOUR PROMPT]