Answers.Body: <p>Lots of possible reasons why people like him, here are a few:<br>
  1. His videos are on interesting games that people want to see analyzed.<br>
  2. He has a lot of great insight, including other possible moves that could have been played.<br>
  3. He adds humanity to chess by sometimes telling personal stories: including how he got into chess.<br>
  4. His voice is calming. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-11-09T19:59:38.453Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-11-09T19:59:38.453Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Peter Chikov
Body: <p>As in title above, why are Mato Jelic's Youtube chess videos so popular? I like them a lot, but I must confess that I am a bit surprised (not unhappy, just surprised), to see nearly millions of views for them...</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-09T15:17:52.433Z
Comments.Text: because I never watched them; I don't think asking about popularity here makes sense unless you want to advertise those videos - so I will definitely avoid watching them in future too :) And actually suggest closing this question
Comments.UserDisplayName: Drako
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-09T15:22:55.267Z
Comments.Text: So please suggest questions that are worth being asked and questions that aren't, too, so that I will avoid incurring in your criticism.
Comments.UserDisplayName: A. N. Other
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-09T15:27:22.773Z
Comments.Text: here is written how to ask good question: https://chess.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask also from there: ..avoid asking for opinions or open-ended discussion. So just stick to the site rules, sorry for not providing this info immediately.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Drako
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-09T15:31:00.560Z
Comments.Text: Perhaps I am missing why these videos are so good, or something special about them, so I haven't the right to get an answer? BTW, I have nothing to do with Mato, as you seem to imply in your comment.
Comments.UserDisplayName: A. N. Other
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-09T15:38:02.210Z
Comments.Text: You missed a smile in my comment - I personally just don't know those videos - so it's just funny, and as per site rules - this is pointless and vague discussion - I'm FIDE Arbiter/Trainer/GM and even don't know them - they are not popular - by counter that easily can be fake - they are - who knows :) Evry one who whatched will have his opinion - you mentioned near million - do you really want to hear 1 million responses here? :)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Drako
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-09T15:47:37.127Z
Comments.Text: Congratulations for your Chess achievements. So if I ask "Why is the Zurich 1953 Chess tournament" book or "Why is Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual so good", I get plenty of intelligent and respectful answers, on the contrary if I ask "Why are this relatively unknown Fide Master's Chess Videos so popular", that's basically a stupid question? I am not getting it :)
Comments.UserDisplayName: A. N. Other
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-10T01:47:17.467Z
Comments.Text: I'll start by saying that I didn't downvote your question, but to me it seems like the question is more related to youtube views or "how to have engaging videos" than it is to chess. That surely must be one of the reasons for the downvotes. When i glance at the question it feels like its not that much related to chess.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Isac
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-10T02:03:34.637Z
Comments.Text: As to why questions on Zürich 1953 or DEM can be answered is because that it's generally not impossible to outline a) what the purpose of a chess book is, and b) why/why not the book is successful in fulfilling its purpose. With a youtuber, who is (an assumption on my part) disproportionately popular with regards to his chess expertise, it is going to be a lot more difficult to find the reason for this popularity without leaving the realm of chess altogether and instead discussing stuff like presentation/charisma/the "it" factor, etc. And that leaves a lot of room for subjective opinion.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-10T08:42:49.297Z
Comments.Text: I understand, thanks for the comments, but in my view "opinion" is everywhere here too. "Chess truth" is a matter only for strong chess engines nowadays. Or for Robert Huebner. LOL. I see questions such as "What is a good repertoire for the positional player?", or "Why is the Caro-Kann defense considered solid?", or "Should I give the two Bishops advantage here?" and opinion plays a great tole IMHO, although we pretend to think that we are like scientists who give the only correct answer...
Comments.UserDisplayName: A. N. Other
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-10T10:53:06.383Z
Comments.Text: @A.N.Other "we pretend to think that we are like scientists who give the only correct answer" - That has entirely to do with the nature of the site. While opinions certainly are good, and quite often provide interesting insight, its not how StackExchange networks work, and therefore are immediately considered off topic. The idea behind the site is direct objective questions and answers, as it is in any other SE site.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Isac
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-10T14:25:16.593Z
Comments.Text: Chess is art, sport and science, this is widely known. If I ask a question that is mostly opinion-based, that does not mean that a reasonably objective answer can be made. Peter Chikov, for example answered quite reasonably my question.
Comments.UserDisplayName: A. N. Other
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-10T14:42:20.547Z
Comments.Text: @isac: Wouldn't it be simpler trying to answer my question, rather than implying that it's sort of an "how to improve Youtube visualizations" question, as you seem to suggest, (which is definitely not)...Then why can some reasonable answer, such as the one below, be made?
Comments.UserDisplayName: A. N. Other
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-10T14:46:18.130Z
Comments.Text: Note that i am not at all against you, i'm just trying to show you that the type of question you are making doesn't fit the site, according to its rules. Its about as simple as that. Which doesn't imply that the question in general(out of this site) would be bad or good
Comments.UserDisplayName: Isac
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-10T14:52:52.180Z
Comments.Text: Then why can people ask, for example, "Please suggest me a positional opening repertoire with White", and get lots of *completely different* answers? Isn't this a matter of opinion?
Comments.UserDisplayName: A. N. Other
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-10T17:27:38.960Z
Comments.Text: Can you show one of those examples ? Also important mention that the tone in which the question is made as well as the wording and details provided in it do make a difference. I consider the example you quoted also is a bit open ended, but not as much as yours. Possibly broader though.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Isac
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-10T18:06:31.947Z
Comments.Text: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/9546/what-are-all-the-possible-combinations-of-openings-which-work-well-together-li
  
  This could be an example. Isn't this an opinion-based question and answers? On the contrary, should I imply that opening combinations, i.e. by GMs and World Champions, that do not fit in these answers "do not work well together"?
Comments.UserDisplayName: A. N. Other
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-10T18:47:45.043Z
Comments.Text: question is not stupid - just opinion based and all answers will be correct in a way - its good discussion topic but not as question here
Comments.UserDisplayName: Drako
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-11-11T06:31:32.773Z
Comments.Text: @Drako: You are stating it, both are opinion based, the one about openings is "good topic". No doubt most players will agree with you. But "good topic" is subjective. I might be a composer of problems or studies, and find it totally uninteresting.
Comments.UserDisplayName: A. N. Other
Tags: <chess-videos>
Title: Why are Mato Jelic's Youtube chess videos so popular?
ThreadText: # Why are Mato Jelic's Youtube chess videos so popular?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2018-11-09)
  
  As in title above, why are Mato Jelic's Youtube chess videos so popular? I like them a lot, but I must confess that I am a bit surprised (not unhappy, just surprised), to see nearly millions of views for them...
  
  **Tags:** chess-videos
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: because I never watched them; I don't think asking about popularity here makes sense unless you want to advertise those videos - so I will definitely avoid watching them in future too :) And actually suggest closing this question  
  > **username_0**: So please suggest questions that are worth being asked and questions that aren't, too, so that I will avoid incurring in your criticism.  
  > **username_1**: here is written how to ask good question: https://chess.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask also from there: ..avoid asking for opinions or open-ended discussion. So just stick to the site rules, sorry for not providing this info immediately.  
  > **username_0**: Perhaps I am missing why these videos are so good, or something special about them, so I haven't the right to get an answer? BTW, I have nothing to do with Mato, as you seem to imply in your comment.  
  > **username_1**: You missed a smile in my comment - I personally just don't know those videos - so it's just funny, and as per site rules - this is pointless and vague discussion - I'm FIDE Arbiter/Trainer/GM and even don't know them - they are not popular - by counter that easily can be fake - they are - who knows :) Evry one who whatched will have his opinion - you mentioned near million - do you really want to hear 1 million responses here? :)  
  > **username_0**: Congratulations for your Chess achievements. So if I ask "Why is the Zurich 1953 Chess tournament" book or "Why is Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual so good", I get plenty of intelligent and respectful answers, on the contrary if I ask "Why are this relatively unknown Fide Master's Chess Videos so popular", that's basically a stupid question? I am not getting it :)  
  > **username_2**: I'll start by saying that I didn't downvote your question, but to me it seems like the question is more related to youtube views or "how to have engaging videos" than it is to chess. That surely must be one of the reasons for the downvotes. When i glance at the question it feels like its not that much related to chess.  
  > **username_3**: As to why questions on Zürich 1953 or DEM can be answered is because that it's generally not impossible to outline a) what the purpose of a chess book is, and b) why/why not the book is successful in fulfilling its purpose. With a youtuber, who is (an assumption on my part) disproportionately popular with regards to his chess expertise, it is going to be a lot more difficult to find the reason for this popularity without leaving the realm of chess altogether and instead discussing stuff like presentation/charisma/the "it" factor, etc. And that leaves a lot of room for subjective opinion.  
  > **username_0**: I understand, thanks for the comments, but in my view "opinion" is everywhere here too. "Chess truth" is a matter only for strong chess engines nowadays. Or for Robert Huebner. LOL. I see questions such as "What is a good repertoire for the positional player?", or "Why is the Caro-Kann defense considered solid?", or "Should I give the two Bishops advantage here?" and opinion plays a great tole IMHO, although we pretend to think that we are like scientists who give the only correct answer...  
  > **username_2**: @username_0 "we pretend to think that we are like scientists who give the only correct answer" - That has entirely to do with the nature of the site. While opinions certainly are good, and quite often provide interesting insight, its not how StackExchange networks work, and therefore are immediately considered off topic. The idea behind the site is direct objective questions and answers, as it is in any username_0 SE site.  
  > **username_0**: Chess is art, sport and science, this is widely known. If I ask a question that is mostly opinion-based, that does not mean that a reasonably objective answer can be made. username_4 username_4, for example answered quite reasonably my question.  
  > **username_0**: @username_2: Wouldn't it be simpler trying to answer my question, rather than implying that it's sort of an "how to improve Youtube visualizations" question, as you seem to suggest, (which is definitely not)...Then why can some reasonable answer, such as the one below, be made?  
  > **username_2**: Note that i am not at all against you, i'm just trying to show you that the type of question you are making doesn't fit the site, according to its rules. Its about as simple as that. Which doesn't imply that the question in general(out of this site) would be bad or good  
  > **username_0**: Then why can people ask, for example, "Please suggest me a positional opening repertoire with White", and get lots of *completely different* answers? Isn't this a matter of opinion?  
  > **username_2**: Can you show one of those examples ? Also important mention that the tone in which the question is made as well as the wording and details provided in it do make a difference. I consider the example you quoted also is a bit open ended, but not as much as yours. Possibly broader though.  
  > **username_0**: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/9546/what-are-all-the-possible-combinations-of-openings-which-work-well-together-li  This could be an example. Isn't this an opinion-based question and answers? On the contrary, should I imply that opening combinations, i.e. by GMs and World Champions, that do not fit in these answers "do not work well together"?  
  > **username_1**: question is not stupid - just opinion based and all answers will be correct in a way - its good discussion topic but not as question here  
  > **username_0**: @username_1: You are stating it, both are opinion based, the one about openings is "good topic". No doubt most players will agree with you. But "good topic" is subjective. I might be a composer of problems or studies, and find it totally uninteresting.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2018-11-09. Score: 3 | Accepted answer
  
  Lots of possible reasons why people like him, here are a few:  
  1. His videos are on interesting games that people want to see analyzed.  
  2. He has a lot of great insight, including username_0 possible moves that could have been played.  
  3. He adds humanity to chess by sometimes telling personal stories: including how he got into chess.  
  4. His voice is calming.
  
  
  ---
  
  