Definitely not.. 
Great stuff! Look forward to a a few more from others if they can be arsed. Find it interesting. Am sure a common thread with good players is starting young. I started after I left school. Recently bought Fischer Teaches Chess for myself but it's more suited to teaching my 9 year old, tho am sure I'll learn something too. Only started it recently. Have thought about teaching chess at my kids local primary school and using it as my base.
That sounds cool. I've only taught chess tactics and theory to my brother and some friends, I believe it's interesting to discuss the game and tactics, so I hope teaching proves to be a really good experience for you.
Glad you think chess should be on telly. I personally think it's made for it, tho maybe just for one game... i find it hard to keep up when there's a dozen games going on as often I'm peeking in every so often and not able to watch continuous coverage. Four hours +.. one game... two regular commentators, guests each day... analysis. Very entertaining too if the right people are involved and chess has its characters (and dullards obv). But the American show is quite good.. St Louis? My interest has dipped in and out over the years but catching a Jan Gustafsson/Svidler show some years back got me into it again.
I agree mate. It should be one game at a time, they should pick the one that could get the most views and get on with it, just like they do for other sports. St. Louis, I follow that channel on youtube and get to see a few games, commentary could be better, but it's a model that can be followed.
My curve is similar to you, maybe I've always been interested, but my involvement has been up and down. Now, I follow a few channels in youtube for analysis that keeps me always in. I check at least two videos a day, do some Puzzle Rush and solve some tactics on a daily basis. I can't play full-fledged games though, don't have the time for it and as you know, I don't prefer blitz, so solving tactics keeps me involved, while I play a few games with my computer engine in my free-time (limiting its rating) and see how far up the rating can I be competent. I hit a rating level of the engine a month ago and I've been competing well with that level (winning about 60% of games and drawing/losing the rest), but I'm not quite there to go next level yet - I tried and lost 3 games in a row.
I only play blitz/bullet chess... which is a dreadful way to learn how to get better at the game I know. Don't have time for long games and people cheat online so don't bother with it. I enjoy the adrenaline rush too sometimes... and the online psychology. Would help if people learned better manners tho and not get so wound up! I am working on my own version of 1. Nf3 but won't go into it here in case it's stolen. Arf. I go thru some of my games with a simple online analysis thingy for my own amusement really, but I think it helps.
Agree, Blitz has its own audience. In terms of top level players, someone like Nakamura is not among the top 10 players in classical maybe, but he ranks insanely high in Blitz (probably next to Carlsen), so it needs a different set of skills you could say. I'm not very good at it, in Blitz people go for Hit and Miss moves more, but I'm not that kind of a risk taker, though I'm taking more risks against the engine than against humans just for learning recently. People who play Sharp Lines like Blitz more. I guess you're good at it.
Yeah, Nf3 is more common than I used to think during my early theory learning days. I certainly hadn't encountered as much of it during my tournament playing days. It's better known online I guess. Hope your version comes out good.
At school chess seemed a bit nerdy and dull, but have become fascinated by it. Am into music, maths and art so when I left school I found it eventually. Had all the components. I quickly became the strongest out of my group of friends but I had started going thru games in the newspapers and reading about it. That's how I learned it. No internet then. Very lucky to have it now!
There are huge gaps in my knowledge and they will never be filled. Watching Magnus Carlsen chat thru his banterblitz games while swigging huge bottles of water reminds me of this... stuff about dark squares/light squares, and knowing when a dark bishop can be exchanged off the board etc is beyond me. I have my own understanding of the game to do with pattern recognition as much as anything. I know when I'm up, know when I'm down. And if I'm down... sacrifice something. It's blitz after all.
It's certainly not dull mate. Once you know you're somewhat okay at it, there are so many intricacies and details in the game that can keep people hooked. It's just that it's not that popular because you don't just watch a game and understand how it works like you do for other sports. For playing it, you need patience and you need stamina (not physical but mental obviously). For playing classical games, you've to be prepared to be there for 5 hours giving your brain constant need to think and solve problems/come up with ideas for the entire duration. So, for a casual viewer, they need more information about its intricacies to pull them in, they're not going to get in by just viewing it or knowing the basics of the game.
As for gaps in knowledge, I think even most of the Top 100 rated players will say the same mate. Everyone's working with machines and trying to constantly up their games and tactics. People used to do it without machines, but again competition is relative. Now, it is increasing at a scary rate. For players who're learning and/or below FM/IM level, we would be strong in a few areas, but there's just plenty of stuff to know in chess that looking at the vast topics can scare some of us, but the interest can get us through. For example, I always play 1. d4. That's my strong area when playing with white and I know a few variations of it. But if I'm playing an opponent who knows better to respond to those lines, and I know it beforehand about that player, I still can't switch to 1. e4 or anything else with as much confidence, the main reason is it might take years to master many variations a single opening. The better players are more prepared for adversities, that's their strength. It's also hard for non-professionals to keep learning as their day jobs will be a hindrance.
As for exchanging pieces, if I'm a piece up I always simplify so I exchange them off, if I'm a couple of pawns up with a decent position, I still exchange them off. If I'm a piece down, I never exchange unless there's a positional advantage or a mating threat I could go into. If the pieces are equal, it's your call on which of the opponents pieces stop you from executing your plans. If you find there are such pieces like the black bishop you mentioned - if you have a lot of your pawns on black or if that black bishop is doubling with another opponent piece, you'd like to exchange them even with equal pieces. My few cents if any of that made sense
