Levy Rozman’s choice of a personal favorite is convincing precisely because the game is not presented as a flawless performance. Facing Peruvian grandmaster Emilio Cordova in 2018, Rozman entered against a significantly higher-rated opponent and surprised him with the unusual 4…g5 opening idea. The preparation worked in one important respect—Cordova spent 48 minutes considering his response—but Rozman freely admits that he subsequently mishandled the position. Rather than building a mythology around an immaculate upset, he reconstructs a game in which he emerged from the opening a pawn down, unable to castle and objectively worse.
That vulnerability makes the analysis considerably more interesting. Rozman repeatedly compares what he understood during the game with what modern Stockfish analysis now recommends, including the counterintuitive …e5 pawn sacrifice he says he never would have considered at the board. He also identifies mistakes such as …Qe7 and later acknowledges that a seemingly natural pawn recapture missed a much stronger attacking continuation. The engine analysis sometimes becomes dense, particularly when several hypothetical variations arrive in quick succession, but it serves a useful purpose: the retrospective does not confuse the eventual result with proof that every decision leading to it was correct.
The game's central transformation is explained especially well. Cordova has the extra pawn and initially enjoys the superior position, yet his pieces become progressively restricted while Rozman establishes a central barrier and searches for activity before White can fully coordinate. Rozman emphasizes that material advantage means little if pieces cannot participate effectively, and the board eventually provides an unusually vivid demonstration. White's queen becomes awkwardly placed, the queenside pieces remain spectators and Black's initially vulnerable position turns into the more active one.
The standout move is …h5, and Rozman gives it the attention it deserves without reducing it to a simple kingside attack. His explanation is that the pawn advance enables the rook to enter through h6, adding another active piece while White remains badly constrained. From there, …h4 and the pressure against the queen create increasingly uncomfortable practical problems. This is where the video works best as chess instruction: the important lesson is not a memorized combination but the broader concept of improving piece participation while denying the opponent the same opportunity.
Rozman's presentation is energetic and accessible, particularly when he translates positional concepts into practical language about pieces being unable to move or join the game. Moves such as …Kg8 also receive useful attention because they demonstrate that an attack does not require forcing moves at every turn; improving the king can be more valuable than immediately chasing tactical fireworks. The frequent jokes and exaggerated descriptions keep a long analysis lively, although expressions such as "fatal error," "absolute evisceration" and repeated declarations that White effectively cannot move sometimes make the explanation sound more categorical than the engine evaluations and variations themselves suggest.
The concluding attack provides the payoff for everything established earlier. Rozman describes how White's inactive pieces leave the king exposed once the position opens, while Black's pieces arrive with tempo and increasingly concrete threats. The late …Rb6 maneuver and final …Bc6 are particularly satisfying because the bishop that had spent much of the game quietly positioned on the queenside ultimately creates the decisive mating threat. Rozman's excitement is understandable, but more importantly, he shows why the finish was possible: the tactical collapse grows directly out of the earlier positional domination rather than appearing as an isolated combination.
The retrospective framing also gives the game more weight than a standard victory recap. Rozman connects it to reaching what he describes as his highest live rating, defeating the highest-rated opponent of his career and a period when competitive chess was his full-time pursuit. He occasionally wanders into promotional material and nostalgic asides, and the analysis could be tightened by trimming some repeated variations and declarations of dominance. Still, remaking the game years later proves worthwhile because the combination of stronger presentation, updated engine analysis and candid discussion of his own errors produces both an entertaining personal story and a useful lesson in activity, restriction and initiative.
Pros
- Candidly identifies Rozman's own opening mistakes rather than presenting the victory as flawless.
- Updated engine analysis highlights several counterintuitive alternatives and distinguishes retrospective evaluation from what was practical at the board.
- Explains the importance of piece activity and restriction through an unusually clear example of material advantage becoming secondary.
- The discussion of …h5 effectively shows how a quiet-looking move can dramatically improve piece coordination.
- Connects the eventual tactical attack to the positional advantages that made it possible.
- Rozman's enthusiasm and personal memories give the game genuine significance beyond its instructional value.
Cons
- Some engine variations move quickly through complicated alternatives that may be difficult for less experienced players to follow.
- Hyperbolic descriptions occasionally overstate positions that the displayed evaluations suggest were still defensible with precise play.
- Several ideas about White's restricted pieces and Black's dominance are repeated after the strategic point is already clear.
- Closing promotional material slightly weakens an otherwise satisfying ending to the retrospective.
Rozman's favorite game earns its status not because he played perfectly, but because he recovered from an inferior opening and gradually turned superior activity into overwhelming positional and tactical pressure. His willingness to expose his own mistakes while explaining the ideas behind the comeback makes the analysis more instructive than a straightforward celebration of an upset. A little less repetition and hyperbole would sharpen an already compelling retrospective.
