WEBVTT 00:01.580 --> 00:02.450 Hi there. 00:02.780 --> 00:10.160 In this lecture, I want to talk about my positional heroes, which I based this course on largely. 00:11.210 --> 00:16.790 And the course is evolving, so more and more game examples will be added as the course extends. 00:16.880 --> 00:24.350 It's a very fundamental course, so I see it as important for my own chess development to get as many 00:24.350 --> 00:29.510 good examples as possible in the key areas of positional patterns. 00:29.600 --> 00:35.270 So the first layer of this course is actually British GM Michael Adams. 00:35.270 --> 00:37.820 And you might ask, well, he wasn't a world champion. 00:37.820 --> 00:39.770 He was close to becoming a world champion, actually. 00:39.770 --> 00:41.390 And one of the Friday knockouts. 00:41.720 --> 00:46.100 He's consistently been over 2700 for many, many years. 00:46.250 --> 00:51.690 I've seen Michael Adams play in real life and he became a personal hero. 00:51.710 --> 00:53.690 I've also played him in casual games. 00:53.720 --> 00:58.790 I even had a one day game against him in Lloyds Bank Masters of 1993. 00:59.300 --> 01:08.540 I just admire how he plays so calmly and crushingly positionally, crushingly, and has great versatility 01:08.540 --> 01:08.870 as well. 01:08.870 --> 01:16.670 Brilliant tactician and just piles on the pressure of games, which he really elegantly pulls on the 01:16.670 --> 01:17.000 pressure. 01:17.000 --> 01:21.170 It's just caused so much admiration for his positional style. 01:21.380 --> 01:28.400 And I tended to do YouTube videos comparing him actually to even newer networks, how he can get the 01:28.400 --> 01:35.810 counterplay out of opponent's positions, leaving them with no decent counterplay and, you know, just 01:35.810 --> 01:40.640 crush them quite often, actually much quicker than you expect in some of the British championship games, 01:40.640 --> 01:42.250 which we see in this course. 01:42.260 --> 01:46.310 So, yeah, I'm a personally I'm personally a big fan of Michael Adams. 01:46.910 --> 01:52.430 The second layer is a more traditional example for positional courses is Anatoly Karpov. 01:52.430 --> 01:57.590 So he really did focus on positional chess as distinct from Garry Kasparov. 01:58.040 --> 02:03.970 In fact, I felt there was a kind of switch in world champions, often between static world champions, 02:03.980 --> 02:11.900 dynamic static, as in more interested in the longer term aspects of the position slow steady versus 02:11.900 --> 02:13.250 the dynamic aggressive. 02:13.250 --> 02:18.530 So like sporran for Alekhine, they're more interested in the dynamics of the game. 02:18.530 --> 02:23.150 So each world chess champion did bring something special to the table. 02:23.150 --> 02:30.200 Botvinnik, for example, was known not just as a great positional player but also deep opening preparation 02:30.800 --> 02:33.920 and valued the performance training for the performance. 02:33.920 --> 02:38.090 He had people blowing cigars in his face as training. 02:38.090 --> 02:44.420 You know, smoking was a thing in those days, but each world chess champion basically did bring something 02:44.420 --> 02:46.190 to the table in general. 02:47.180 --> 02:52.490 Now, of course, you know Steinitz actually, Steinitz, between Steinitz and Laskar, they created 02:52.490 --> 02:54.110 the positional foundation. 02:54.350 --> 02:58.700 So you might think, Well, shouldn't I have had more Steinitz and Lasker? 02:58.700 --> 03:03.470 I will use Steinitz and Lasker game examples as appropriate. 03:03.470 --> 03:10.580 But I wanted to put an emphasis on more modern positional chess, which factors in the issues that we 03:10.580 --> 03:14.840 face today in the Steinitz and Lasker era. 03:14.870 --> 03:20.690 Quite often players seem to underestimate the damage done by reckless pawn moves like pull moves are 03:20.690 --> 03:26.960 irreversible on the chessboard compared to other types of moves you see quite often in Lasker wins, 03:26.960 --> 03:33.920 people are self-destructing, and I wanted a more modern view on positional chess. 03:35.280 --> 03:39.900 Now my third layer is actually nimzowitsch nimzowitsch through my system. 03:39.900 --> 03:41.870 This book called My System, which I recommend. 03:41.880 --> 03:48.480 There's a new algebraic edition and it's very, very readable and it's funny and it has some very, 03:48.480 --> 03:52.200 very important positional, I would say, patterns. 03:52.380 --> 03:57.330 I wouldn't get strictly carried away calling them principles or laws of positional chess, because it 03:57.330 --> 04:01.470 really depends on your positions, how you apply the patterns. 04:01.470 --> 04:05.910 I think patterns is more encouraging you to think for yourself to be in the driving seat. 04:05.940 --> 04:13.350 So Nimzowitsch apparently was a big influence on Tinker and Petrosian, who became known as the Master 04:13.350 --> 04:14.400 of prophylaxis. 04:14.400 --> 04:19.680 So with prevention prophylaxis, Petrosian hardly lost any games. 04:19.680 --> 04:22.860 He had this kind of invincibility reputation. 04:23.790 --> 04:30.780 And it's interesting that Karpov in Gibraltar interviews basically says he's Petrosian style, but playing 04:30.780 --> 04:32.190 for a win instead of a draw. 04:32.190 --> 04:34.260 So can you imagine? 04:34.260 --> 04:39.360 You're very hard to beat, but also you're kind of relentless in trying to beat the opponents as well. 04:39.360 --> 04:41.910 So it's a kind of a low risk way of winning. 04:42.360 --> 04:51.960 So for Karpov, but the root influence, if we look at the roots, Nimzowitsch has influenced many modern 04:51.960 --> 04:54.780 grandmasters through his teachings. 04:55.980 --> 04:58.860 Now, further layers, this is an evolving course. 04:58.980 --> 05:07.680 I will add great game examples from other positional players, including Capablanca, Smyslov, Petrosian, 05:08.430 --> 05:11.550 Kramnik and Carlsen as appropriate. 05:11.550 --> 05:20.910 So the course I see is as an evolving course, but I'll give you a really good powerful start point 05:20.910 --> 05:21.720 for this course. 05:21.720 --> 05:28.800 So I really think this is a high priority course to master and these layers of positional players. 05:28.800 --> 05:36.210 I have the belief we will learn a lot of things, perhaps not even seen in other positional courses. 05:36.210 --> 05:38.340 We will learn some key patterns. 05:39.090 --> 05:47.160 So the course will have lots of game examples through the great positional players of all time. 05:48.410 --> 05:56.390 Now, you also see sometimes because we're focusing on carbon atoms, we can also see even opening similarities 05:56.390 --> 05:57.380 and preferences. 05:57.380 --> 06:03.830 For example, Karp often admins both liking the nimzowitsch and the fence, so they respect Nimzowitsch. 06:03.830 --> 06:09.080 Basically, if they like the NIMS of Indian offense, you know, that's that's a heads up to Nimzowitsch 06:09.080 --> 06:11.000 is my system. 06:11.360 --> 06:16.610 A lot of players will avoid the nimzowitsch engine play, not afraid for the Queen's engine but also 06:16.610 --> 06:21.860 carp often Adams like against the French defense to play the tarrasch variation. 06:22.310 --> 06:28.850 So this doesn't lead to as much structural damage, usually for white as the main line. 06:28.850 --> 06:32.310 What's called the main line was the main line widower. 06:32.360 --> 06:35.090 So this quite often leads to double pawns. 06:35.090 --> 06:40.640 Now positional players like Adams and Karpov often don't like having their pawns messy. 06:40.640 --> 06:48.380 They like building on the static advantages, the advantages that are more easily to accumulate. 06:48.380 --> 06:55.910 And yeah, we see by focusing on these two players, we do see some parallels, which in my view helps 06:55.910 --> 07:04.010 reinforcement of positional patterns and opening ideas as well as we go through games from end to end. 07:04.640 --> 07:10.110 I like seeing games end to end, so we pick up a lot of hints and tips through the openings, middle 07:10.130 --> 07:11.510 game and end games. 07:12.840 --> 07:19.560 But of course, you know, the focus of each lecture has a positional point quite often, which I'll 07:19.560 --> 07:20.550 amplify. 07:21.720 --> 07:28.920 So we also have these animal metaphors, Karpov and Petrosian, known as boa constrictors. 07:28.920 --> 07:32.080 So boa constrictors have this habit. 07:32.100 --> 07:36.610 It doesn't matter how large the prey is, they kind of paralyze the prey and can win. 07:36.630 --> 07:43.110 And Adams was nicknamed The Spider by Garry Kasparov because he has this great maneuvering style, which 07:43.140 --> 07:46.170 in my view, works just like the boa constrictor style. 07:46.170 --> 07:53.910 So this kind of restrictive style, until the opponents haven't really got much to do, is a really 07:53.910 --> 07:55.050 great effective style. 07:55.050 --> 08:02.160 And if you ever play, for example, the Lila neural network, even on giving Lila only like 10 seconds 08:02.160 --> 08:06.390 of movie, you'll see that there's this idea that you get run out of moves. 08:06.390 --> 08:11.460 You might not be blasted tactically because Lehrer's not even calculating that much, but positionally 08:11.460 --> 08:15.300 to be absolutely positionally crushed, at least the positions. 08:15.300 --> 08:20.910 You're quite sad and not very optimistic about any tactical chances at all. 08:21.090 --> 08:25.230 So this positional style is a very, very powerful style. 08:25.560 --> 08:30.120 And nimzowitsch, we have to give him credit for actually creating the language of positional chess. 08:30.120 --> 08:32.430 That's why he wasn't a world chess champion. 08:32.430 --> 08:35.310 But he was a world title contender. 08:35.490 --> 08:41.160 Maybe he bragged a bit too much and Alexander Alekhine didn't give him a challenge match. 08:41.430 --> 08:47.880 And maybe morally you could argue Alekhine should have because Nimzowitsch had won some great moments. 08:48.060 --> 08:54.240 But Nimzowitsch his most important contribution is within the hyper moderns. 08:54.240 --> 08:56.790 They found useful exceptions to establish theory. 08:56.790 --> 09:02.340 So, so many ideas revolving around the censor that you don't need to necessarily occupy the center. 09:02.340 --> 09:04.050 You can pressurize it from afar. 09:04.050 --> 09:10.800 Think Ito bishops and some really interesting concepts in my system, like over protection prophylaxis 09:11.100 --> 09:14.040 and emphasis on rooks on the seventh rank. 09:14.940 --> 09:22.980 So sometimes the exams are which overly categorized like rook on the seventh perhaps, but in general 09:22.980 --> 09:27.990 he created a language we could talk about positional chess, especially blockade. 09:27.990 --> 09:32.580 When we blockade pawns with like a knight blockade, different types of blockade. 09:32.580 --> 09:36.300 The most effective type of blockade nimzowitsch is favorite. 09:36.300 --> 09:42.150 Blockade is like when there's double pawns in a knight blockading say on C4 later, if the light square 09:42.160 --> 09:43.560 bishops got exchanged off. 09:43.560 --> 09:46.200 So that was kind of nimzowitsch favorite blockade. 09:46.200 --> 09:53.130 But basically the language set out by Nimzowitsch has persisted and has become highly influential for 09:53.130 --> 09:54.930 positional chess thereafter. 09:55.350 --> 09:59.250 So you might think, Well, why wasn't it Steinitz and Lasker? 09:59.280 --> 10:06.240 Laskar was really using a lot of the theories of Steinitz to great effect, being world champion for 10:06.240 --> 10:07.560 so many years. 10:07.560 --> 10:15.000 But sometimes people felt that Lasker had such a universal style, it was difficult to actually say 10:15.000 --> 10:18.720 he was a positionally oriented player. 10:18.720 --> 10:21.180 He was kind of the first universal player. 10:21.180 --> 10:23.910 According to Vladimir Kramnik, the first 2700. 10:23.910 --> 10:32.220 Steinitz did talk a lot for his magazine writings and the ink wars He had a lot to say about, and that 10:32.220 --> 10:38.490 was the rise of the scientific viewpoint on chess, about accumulating, accumulating advantages and 10:38.490 --> 10:41.550 the elements of a chess position, how to evaluate positions. 10:41.820 --> 10:47.990 And so that was an absolutely vital foundation between Steinitz and Lasker. 10:48.000 --> 10:50.010 It's an absolutely vital foundation. 10:50.580 --> 11:00.840 And of course, it's it's there has to be game examples from from Steinitz and Lasker as well. 11:02.360 --> 11:09.230 So och positional players in general love to accumulate the more permanent and therefore advantages 11:09.230 --> 11:13.470 easier to accumulate if not just drifting away, taken away from you so easily. 11:13.490 --> 11:19.400 We're talking about kind of investments on the chessboard that you can rely on later. 11:19.400 --> 11:22.060 So you install, for example, double pawns in the opening. 11:22.080 --> 11:27.080 You've still got it 20 moves later this this impact on the opponent's pawn structure and related week 11:27.080 --> 11:27.860 squares. 11:27.860 --> 11:33.680 So it's kind of investments on the chessboard that can't be taken away that easily. 11:33.710 --> 11:35.120 You could see it like that. 11:35.300 --> 11:40.600 And it has to me a strong component of put yourself beyond the fate of war. 11:40.610 --> 11:44.450 He talked about the the effects of fighters in the past. 11:44.450 --> 11:46.940 They put themselves upon the feet before going on to the attack. 11:47.090 --> 11:50.630 And we see that on the chessboard time and time again in these game examples. 11:50.630 --> 11:57.080 So defense or strengthening first before indulging in wild attacks or tactics. 11:57.320 --> 12:02.420 And when endgames are reached, the advantage is often win games as well. 12:02.630 --> 12:09.410 So I'm going to show you now my most enjoyable loss in my lifetime was against. 12:09.410 --> 12:17.000 It was a privilege to play Michael Adams in the 1993 17 Floyds Black Masters, and I'll take it from 12:17.000 --> 12:18.380 Adams perspective. 12:18.590 --> 12:21.680 So I played D four, Adams played nine, F six. 12:21.680 --> 12:22.580 We have C four. 12:22.580 --> 12:26.810 And on this occasion, Adams chose the Benko Gambit. 12:26.810 --> 12:31.490 So we see quite dynamic gambits quite often from Adams. 12:31.490 --> 12:38.240 And the Bank of Gambit was a tool of choice in many of his Lloyds Bank master games. 12:38.240 --> 12:40.280 So very, very exciting already. 12:40.280 --> 12:44.240 You wouldn't think a positional player would make use of any gambits, but Adams did. 12:44.240 --> 12:45.770 So I played B six. 12:45.770 --> 12:52.640 I'd written an art school around the time on the Barnet Chess Club website about B six, a kind of counter 12:52.640 --> 12:55.880 against the bank card game. 12:55.880 --> 13:03.950 So the idea would be to usually aim for this maneuver with 9c4 with tempo and cuts out, try and limit 13:03.950 --> 13:05.420 the opponent's activity. 13:05.420 --> 13:13.040 We have 9c3g6 from Adams, E, four D, six Bishop E to Bishop G seven. 13:13.040 --> 13:17.900 So so far I haven't played too badly with the white pieces. 13:18.380 --> 13:25.010 Now after 932, Bishop takes e to Queen, takes E to BD 79c4. 13:25.010 --> 13:31.700 We have Queen C seven and now I move, which usually you see if if anyone even grandmasters play the 13:31.700 --> 13:34.670 move f four quite often they end up losing. 13:36.140 --> 13:43.560 There's been Feingold's mention that you shouldn't use the f pawn that much if you if you play with 13:43.560 --> 13:45.560 the f pawn, you're asking for trouble. 13:45.560 --> 13:47.450 But I did play with the f pawn. 13:48.530 --> 13:51.620 And the thing is, it does weaken the possession quite fundamentally. 13:51.620 --> 13:52.790 In the long term. 13:53.000 --> 14:01.490 A better bet, it seems, would be Bishop G five and this keeps White's position more solid and white 14:01.490 --> 14:03.440 should be able to claim a small edge here. 14:03.440 --> 14:07.520 But now with F4, I'm going downhill here. 14:07.520 --> 14:14.720 I've also deprived, of course, the Bishop G five associated pressure by locking in the bishop we have 14:14.720 --> 14:22.040 might be six and now this simplification actually causes stress for the person with greater space because 14:22.040 --> 14:25.970 there's a responsibility with a space advantage. 14:26.210 --> 14:29.330 And this means that White's extra space. 14:29.330 --> 14:31.520 Yeah, it's is it a liability? 14:31.520 --> 14:32.510 Potentially. 14:32.780 --> 14:37.040 If there's less pieces to manage that space, you end up with potentially just weaknesses. 14:37.220 --> 14:42.530 We have E five so I'm trying to gain space, but again, am I being left with weaknesses? 14:42.530 --> 14:45.140 I wasn't too convinced with my position already. 14:45.140 --> 14:48.910 And the funny thing is about this knight going back to E! 14:49.310 --> 14:51.260 This is a thing about positional players. 14:51.260 --> 14:57.440 Sometimes it looks like almost anti positional, but there's a net gain if this knights maneuvered to 14:57.440 --> 14:58.190 the center. 14:58.340 --> 15:05.240 So you've got to think about the net game is improving now the piece so C seven Queen F two and also 15:05.270 --> 15:08.780 of course it's a lovely feature to have the pawn on A six supporting Knight. 15:08.780 --> 15:11.390 B five We have Rook ABA. 15:11.690 --> 15:13.910 I've analyzed this game in great depth. 15:13.910 --> 15:14.840 Later on in the course. 15:14.840 --> 15:18.080 I just wanted to highlight in general some points of this game. 15:18.080 --> 15:21.410 So this was an inaccuracy, ab1, B free. 15:21.410 --> 15:28.760 And I still might be able to claim equality here, but with this move I'm making things slightly worse. 15:28.760 --> 15:30.950 Queen b4 Rook for one. 15:30.980 --> 15:39.920 Rook b seven We have Queen C to 95 and I'm left spectating here this positional maneuver and you might 15:39.920 --> 15:40.430 think again. 15:40.430 --> 15:40.850 Hang on. 15:40.850 --> 15:49.820 Isn't it kind of anti positional in that Adams's pawns might be doubled so 94 Knight d4 he plays this 15:49.820 --> 15:58.070 anyway despite the apparent effects you know the pawns are temporarily doubled e takes e tanks but does 15:58.070 --> 16:00.920 it actually matter because the bigger point here. 16:01.700 --> 16:03.890 Blacks call this bishop without a counterpart. 16:03.920 --> 16:07.430 Blacks caught this potential to now make use of this e file. 16:07.430 --> 16:16.010 And of course this is an interesting pawn, but this e file could be good and often only f to Queen 16:16.010 --> 16:16.430 a five. 16:16.430 --> 16:18.740 Also this kind of disconnected pawn on D five. 16:18.740 --> 16:19.850 So does it actually matter? 16:19.850 --> 16:25.280 Overall, we have to think about the overall obsession when we think positionally. 16:25.490 --> 16:30.170 Overall, it looks as though is this an anti positional decision what Adams played. 16:30.170 --> 16:36.470 But actually I'm the one with a more exploitable weakness this disconnected pawn on D five which is 16:36.470 --> 16:37.520 being hit now. 16:38.780 --> 16:45.140 So yes I'm being positionally outplayed overall it's the overall that counts Quincy four Rooks seven 16:45.140 --> 16:47.450 Queen B free rook C five. 16:47.930 --> 16:52.280 And I try and potentially gain some compensation. 16:52.280 --> 16:55.640 I played Queen F3 and now we have. 16:57.880 --> 16:59.530 Queen cites a two. 17:03.020 --> 17:11.680 So maybe, you know, there's some slight tricks if he took b4 and then trying to lure the queen in 17:11.690 --> 17:12.800 a bit of hassle. 17:13.560 --> 17:15.540 Yeah, but, you know, he's avoiding that. 17:15.640 --> 17:17.340 Just playing queen takes a two. 17:20.290 --> 17:23.130 I play nightly free Rook cci. 17:23.950 --> 17:26.820 And now night before and I had this level of excitement. 17:26.860 --> 17:31.440 I'm going to get a night on C six, but it's how effective it is. 17:31.450 --> 17:33.700 Is this not really that effective? 17:34.240 --> 17:37.480 The Queen goes, The C four is not particularly effective. 17:37.480 --> 17:44.200 Sometimes we have to judge nights not just in how they look, good positioning, but are they actually 17:44.200 --> 17:45.820 concretely effective. 17:46.090 --> 17:50.650 And the thing is, overall, this is the running argument about this game. 17:50.650 --> 17:54.040 Overall, Black now has significant pressure on the e-file. 17:54.130 --> 18:01.690 We see rook free and now a lovely move to try and gain authority on this e-file and hold DD for quite 18:01.690 --> 18:02.530 comfortably. 18:02.740 --> 18:04.090 Can you see what Adams played here. 18:04.090 --> 18:10.210 A very lovely move dispelling any notions really that I'm going to get DD four as well. 18:11.950 --> 18:17.380 Five and it means that there's going to be rookie forward supported rookie for for doubling rooks and 18:17.380 --> 18:18.850 this of course supports D four. 18:18.850 --> 18:23.980 So this is really I'm getting positionally crushed here now so rookie for authority on the e-file is 18:23.980 --> 18:24.970 a bad sign. 18:24.970 --> 18:32.110 If rooks enter on the ranks they're going to cause havoc for me and a lovely subtle weakness provocation 18:32.110 --> 18:33.970 move here Can you see at some points. 18:35.390 --> 18:35.600 You know. 18:35.600 --> 18:43.340 Bishop six So my second rank is being weakened with another committal pull move and our rookie free 18:43.340 --> 18:46.580 rook takes three, Rook takes three going for the rook. 18:46.610 --> 18:48.320 Activity to go to my king. 18:48.320 --> 18:49.100 Queen H one. 18:49.100 --> 18:50.150 This is rather embarrassing. 18:50.180 --> 18:50.780 Embarrassing. 18:50.780 --> 18:58.520 Now, if Queen F2 rookie two wins my queen So Queen H one Queen C to Czech King H three And now just 18:58.520 --> 19:01.730 Bishop takes F four and I have to resign now. 19:01.730 --> 19:08.780 Although I was crushed, it was just an honor to play such a strong player on their way to becoming 19:08.780 --> 19:11.270 a super grandmaster later. 19:11.270 --> 19:14.750 But Adams had already, you know, he'd actually won. 19:15.770 --> 19:21.080 One of the additions of Elisabeth Moss as we see some noise about Masters Games in general in this course. 19:21.080 --> 19:27.800 It's really amazing playing style, in my view, how advantages are being built systematically with 19:27.800 --> 19:29.510 minimal risk, minimal counterplay. 19:29.510 --> 19:32.960 So yes, he's a positional chess hero of mine. 19:34.010 --> 19:39.980 I think in general it's nice to be a well rounded player, although I like to attack and I like tactical 19:39.980 --> 19:40.640 chess. 19:40.640 --> 19:47.560 Seeing this other other aspects of chess, it shows that chess is such a rich game and you can play 19:47.560 --> 19:54.710 a play with like a boa constrictor style, just removing counterplay from the opponents and thinking 19:54.710 --> 20:01.940 about the overall balance of elements just because things might visually look bad, like double pawns 20:01.940 --> 20:03.260 or visually look good. 20:03.260 --> 20:08.210 You've got to think about this overall picture of what's happening on the chessboard and the opportunities 20:08.210 --> 20:14.990 and what what is the exploit ability factor that was able to exploit the authority on the e-file, create 20:14.990 --> 20:17.870 targets and win material with devastating effect. 20:18.770 --> 20:21.050 And it's not just a spectator in the end. 20:21.050 --> 20:23.630 So and so what about the double pawns? 20:23.630 --> 20:29.210 So yes, a great game and really did inspired me and inspire me. 20:29.210 --> 20:35.300 And it has been an inspiration to check out many other games of Michael Adams starting in Lloyds Bank 20:35.300 --> 20:37.550 Masters and also British championship games. 20:37.550 --> 20:42.620 And, you know, he can crush British grandmasters quite often less than 50 moves. 20:42.620 --> 20:43.370 We'll see. 20:43.370 --> 20:45.920 So, yes, a great positional hero of mine. 20:45.920 --> 20:47.840 So there you have it. 20:47.840 --> 20:55.070 In this course, we do emphasize Adams Carpe off, Nimzowitsch and then we'll look at other classic 20:55.070 --> 20:55.910 players. 20:56.750 --> 20:58.700 So, Steinitz, Lasker. 20:58.700 --> 21:03.140 Of course, I kind of take for granted that they aren't the foundation of positional chess, modern 21:03.140 --> 21:04.040 positional chess. 21:04.040 --> 21:10.250 But then later Capablanca Smyslov, Petrosian, Kramnik, Carlsen and Nimzowitsch is in there. 21:10.250 --> 21:14.390 He's an influential plan because of his writings. 21:14.390 --> 21:15.710 In my system. 21:15.710 --> 21:21.290 So I hope that's an interesting introduction for inspiration for the positional heroes in this course. 21:22.040 --> 21:23.750 Okay, that's very much.