Answers.Body: <p>Here are some ideas about whether or not a source can be trusted.</p>
  <p>-Not all titled players are good in teaching.</p>
  <p>-<a href="http://chess.com" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chess.com</a> is great because its members are excellent chess players and will not allow a poor article or video to be published.</p>
  <p>-<a href="http://chess.about.com" rel="nofollow noreferrer">chess.about.com</a> is good because it hires professional people, but not as good as chess.com</p>
  <p>-<a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/thechesswebsite" rel="nofollow noreferrer">thechesswebsite.com</a> is great because kevin (the man behind the site) has many subscribers on youtube, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/kingscrusher" rel="nofollow noreferrer">kingcrucher</a> is another great youtube channel because it offers in depth analysis, but they focus too much on blitz.</p>
  <p>and then you have <a href="http://www.chesscentral.com/chess_dvd_roman_s/40.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Roman's lab</a>, Roman is the greatest chess teacher of all time.</p>
  <p>What else do you have? When looking at books, you can check the Amazon rating and reviews.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-07-01T13:38:31.377Z
Answers.Text: I'd add its counterpart to "not all titled players are good at teaching": not all people who are good at teaching are titled players
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-03-20T00:33:41.963Z
Answers.Text: This is a good answer. There are numerous online chess videos by some great authors. You pointed out some that are all good. MatoJelic is good as well, check his YouTube channel out.
Answers.UserDisplayName: xaisoft
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-03-20T00:52:42.970Z
Answers.Text: @xaisoft thanks sir, amazing channel, i just subscribed :)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Lynob
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-03-20T11:27:12.757Z
Answers.Text: Great, that was my first thought when I saw his videos. I like how he gets straight to the point and they are all very concise.
Answers.UserDisplayName: xaisoft
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-03-13T00:26:30.527Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-07-01T14:06:08.273Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-07-01T14:06:08.273Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Lynob
Body: <p>When reading chess articles or watching videos online, my criteria for often determining if it is worth reading or watching is if it is made my someone with a FIDE title (IM, FM, GM, etc), but what other criteria should I use to determine if someone or something is worth reading or watching?</p>
  
  <p>Some that I can think of myself are:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>The author of the article/video has a FIDE title.</li>
  <li>The website where articles or videos are found has a large following.</li>
  <li>The author is relatively widely known even if they don't have a FIDE title.</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>Also, are there any red flags that should indicate that if I watch or read this, I probably will get incorrect/stale information?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-12-06T23:36:33.617Z
Comments.Text: I think it is really hard to tell. Even a relatively low rated player can make a good article/youtube video if they put time and effort into it, and a GM can have rubbish with a few engine lines and little insight. Plus some presentations styles work for some people, but not others. You might want to ignore this comment though, since I am not a titled player--not even close :).
Comments.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-12-06T23:45:33.560Z
Comments.Text: Same here, feel free to disagree, but being a good player, and being a good teacher (chess coach, trainer etc) are two different things, the vast majority of chess book authors are titled though, not so for the youtube vids. I would go for it, and decide based on the content.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Helio
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-12-07T17:12:16.353Z
Comments.Text: I agree with both your comments. This question mostly has to do with online sources.  Besides what I list though, there has to be some criteria for what you will read/watch.
Comments.UserDisplayName: xaisoft
Tags: <learning>
Title: Determining trusted chess sources?
ThreadText: # Determining trusted chess sources?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2012-12-06)
  
  When reading chess articles or watching videos online, my criteria for often determining if it is worth reading or watching is if it is made my someone with a FIDE title (IM, FM, GM, etc), but what other criteria should I use to determine if someone or something is worth reading or watching?
  
  Some that I can think of myself are:
  
  * The author of the article/video has a FIDE title.
  * The website where articles or videos are found has a large following.
  * The author is relatively widely known even if they don't have a FIDE title.
  
  Also, are there any red flags that should indicate that if I watch or read this, I probably will get incorrect/stale information?
  
  **Tags:** learning
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: I think it is really hard to tell. Even a relatively low rated player can make a good article/youtube video if they put time and effort into it, and a GM can have rubbish with a few engine lines and little insight. Plus some presentations styles work for some people, but not others. You might want to ignore this comment though, since I am not a titled player--not even close :).  
  > **username_2**: Same here, feel free to disagree, but being a good player, and being a good teacher (chess coach, trainer etc) are two different things, the vast majority of chess book authors are titled though, not so for the youtube vids. I would go for it, and decide based on the content.  
  > **username_0**: I agree with both your comments. This question mostly has to do with online sources.  Besides what I list though, there has to be some criteria for what you will read/watch.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2013-03-13. Score: 7
  
  Here are some ideas about whether or not a source can be trusted.
  
  -Not all titled players are good in teaching.
  
  -[Chess.com](http://chess.com) is great because its members are excellent chess players and will not allow a poor article or video to be published.
  
  -[chess.about.com](http://chess.about.com) is good because it hires professional people, but not as good as chess.com
  
  -[thechesswebsite.com](http://www.youtube.com/user/thechesswebsite) is great because kevin (the man behind the site) has many subscribers on youtube, [kingcrucher](http://www.youtube.com/user/kingscrusher) is another great youtube channel because it offers in depth analysis, but they focus too much on blitz.
  
  and then you have [Roman's lab](http://www.chesscentral.com/chess_dvd_roman_s/40.htm), Roman is the greatest chess teacher of all time.
  
  What else do you have? When looking at books, you can check the Amazon rating and reviews.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: This is a good answer. There are numerous online chess videos by some great authors. You pointed out some that are all good. MatoJelic is good as well, check his YouTube channel out.  
  > **username_3**: @username_0 thanks sir, amazing channel, i just subscribed :)  
  > **username_0**: Great, that was my first thought when I saw his videos. I like how he gets straight to the point and they are all very concise.  
  > **username_4**: I'd add its counterpart to "not all titled players are good at teaching": not all people who are good at teaching are titled players  
  
  ---
  
  