Hi there.
In this introduction lecture, I want to talk about when is it appropriate to play the attack attacking
chess or tactics instead of positional play?
Where does positional play actually fits in?
Now, there's an interesting, very interesting quotation by Israeli tactics, which is basically tactics
is what to do when there is something to do and strategy is what to do when there is nothing to do.
I don't find this in its raw form particularly useful myself.
And we could actually extend this to basically say, what if we said tactics is what you do when there
is something to do, non controversially, you know, without risk.
So we're factoring in a risk appetite.
What if we said, well, we can't attack right now or play these tactics because there's a slight concern,
for example, in certain variation in they might have some counterplay.
As an example, what if there is a certain backfire?
What if we've got certain pieces that are unprotected and we have an uneasy feeling about them that
the opponent might actually counter sacrifice, for example?
So quite often there's always a potential attack or tactics to make use of.
But we have this notion of backfire.
It could backfire on us if we have liabilities.
You know, the art of war, the good fighters have all put put yourself beyond the feet before going
on to the attack, basically.
So if we change that quotation, for me, it becomes very useful if we talk about the controversy and
the level of risk appetite.
And we might be encouraged.
If we've got a very low risk appetite, we might be encouraged to put a much greater emphasis on improving
the positions first.
And this ties up actually with quotations about positional players that, for example, if Petrosian
starts attacking you or does a sacrifice, you know you're in big trouble because he wouldn't take such
risks.
Basically, he doesn't tolerate risks.
Whilst Mikhail Tal is probably just gambling, you often like to gamble, so would do combinations and
attacks anyway.
So this level of risk appetite is an interesting thing to think about.
And of course, you know the game context, if it's just speed games online and it's going to take the
opponent time to try and accurately defend, then attacks often work anyway without much preparation
or tactics are just going to confuse the opponent and the time pressure comes in.
So, you know, there's also a context there.
But if we think about this in general, this level of risk appetite, then we're making way for the
potential for playing positionally.
And this ties in with another interesting quotation by Nimzowitsch.
You know, do not always be thinking of attack moves that safeguard your position are often far more
prudent, so prudent for looking at the longer term consequences.
And this this more echoes the war principle.
Put yourself beyond the feet before going on to the attack.
So Nimzowitsch has basically said it there in a different form in a way.
And he's also said the threat is, you know, is stronger than the execution, which we could modify
a little bit as well.
The threats maybe of the attack or tactics we could say is often stronger than the execution, especially
if we improve the circumstances for such attacks or tactics slightly.
We tweak the circumstances and they're a little bit more effective.
So it can be in the time it came in the preparation.
So you improve your position better, perhaps specifically in relation to whatever attack or tactics
you're thinking of because you would reveal certain tactical liabilities if you take certain attacking
paths versus others.
And what if you sealed those up first?
So you knew, for example, your back row was going to be weak.
So you play a move to give some air for your king and then you go onto this attack.
And we see that in, you know, in classic games all the time.
Basically, these these slight improvement moves first are a prelude to a thunderstorm style attack.
So we could say that attacks and tactics still crown positional play in general, but positional players,
we could say only celebrate with concrete things when it's very, very low risk do so.
So they're often just happy, in fact, to grind out end games with tiny advantages if we take Casablanca
or Karpov.
But quite often they are blowing away players.
They are brilliant, tactical.
And so it petrosian they're all brilliant tactically, and if the situation arises, they will be happy
to blow the opponent away in the middle game.
Now, a famous comp off game I'd like to show you against Topalov actually has a fine display of tactics.
And this has been called Karpov's immortal because people will absolutely love tactics and combinations.
So it's funny to see Karpov in the role of the attacker here.
So in this position, which stands nicely, we have a nice move 95 to start off with.
So this night wasn't doing too much.
And now because of this pin, well, Black accepts that.
And why is taking the light square bishop which subtly weakens or not so subtly, the light squares
around the board.
Why has this bishop with that counterpart a dangerous weapon?
So this game is analyzed in detail in the course, by the way.
So this is just a light view on it, a light interpretation.
We have Rook eight and now a slightly clever point in here that if Bishop takes six, black has to be
careful and play Rook a seven.
And in this way black's minimizing the damage.
Why?
It might be able to claim a small edge, but nothing more.
The key point here is if Rook c seven, then Queen takes C seven once getting far too much material.
But in any event, Karpov actually bypassed Bishop take C six.
So there's a level of controversy there.
But he found something really emphatic here to do with the light squares of Black's position.
Can you see what it is for 100 points?
So this is positional player.
But the position is ripe here for a very, very low risk attack.
And, you know, combinations and tactics or that mixture of attack and tactics.
So it's a beautiful mixture here.
We have a beautiful move.
So I'm about to reveal.
Okay.
Yeah, a couple played Rook takes E six and actually reflects quite a deep exchange sacrifice.
But it has got attacking implications as well because it is potentially opening up the king.
We have rook a seven if F takes e six, the point would be queen size.
E six.
Check king G seven.
And now as an example, bishop takes C six and why?
It has a huge position here.
The king has been compromised.
The bishop is amazing here.
If Rook C seven, then Queen D five.
And it keeps up this idea of the exchange sacrifice.
So White would have two points for the exchange.
We can.
KING We can evaluate this as really great prospects for.
WHITE So in the game, we have real K seven.
And in fact, now guess what Karpov plays.
He still keen on the exchange sacrifice as a concept.
He plays rook takes g sex check.
Wonderful stuff.
So f takes is played if King F eight Queen H three is nasty frightening credential mate.
And here if fg6.
Queen h h check King of seven Bishop RD five will be checkmate.
Or if King H seven Queen H free check is possible and the King is brought out here and is in big trouble.
So for example there Queen H six Checkmate.
Or if F five, queen size F five check and the tax really strong and this this is all very very nice
and powerful the kings really in big trouble we're restricting now the king fretting queen G ancient
mate and this is just a winning attack because the light squares, the light squared domination actually
means this is a very, very strong attack, which is difficult.
Blacks can end up crumbling.
So, for example, like this.
So yeah, some very interesting variations here, but F takes was played and we're going back to the
main idea of a kind of positional exchange sacrifice.
So, Bishop, take C six.
So if we count the pawns, six pawns, black for two pawns of the exchange we have.
Rook eight What else?
If Queen B six, there's Queen C eight.
So rugby eight and here C takes B five.
Bishop 694 We have Bishop D four, B takes a six, and our Queen B six here.
If rook takes a six, there's a weakness of the last movement.
Then E seven we can use E seven here and now 9g5.
This is a very strong position for white.
For example, here we have authority on the E foe and the attack carries on.
So Queen B six was try and rook D one queen takes a six.
And now more tactics, more pressure.
Can you guess what Karpov plays here?
Another great move.
Rook takes DD for another exchange sac and it opens up the opportunities on the dart squares.
We have rook tanks D4 and now Queen have six check.
So once that bishop's gone, we can plan the dance squares.
Queen takes g sex check we have king for.
If rook g seven here there's 9f6 check and Queen H six.
And this is mating.
So King of eight, Queen eight, check.
King G seven, Queenie.
Five check.
King J nine have six shapes, all running with with tempo Jennings checks, which is important in itself
not to give too much counterplay sometimes.
So Bishop check King F eight if King G seven instead, then 97 disconnects the rook and then we can
play for a checkmate soon.
For example like this.
So King F eight Queen, take C five check why it's got so many pawns.
And here after Queen takes a seven, Queen takes F six.
There are so many pawns here.
Yeah, five pawns for the exchange.
Unless black's got something concrete.
And this is big trouble.
So we have rook B two, King G two and and here top have resigned.
It looks futile if it to say we'd check we have bishop free.
And what we can do is just try and get the Queen's off here and just win this resulting end game.
There's so many pawns now.
It's overwhelming for just the rook and the king here.
So yes, this is a really sparkling display.
You wouldn't have four if you were giving this game without the names.
Would you have really thought it was Anatoly Karpov?
But on the other hand, if you check my petrosian course, where I've kind of biased on his wins and
is relatively shorter wins, you'll see that Tigran Petrosian was an amazing tactician and there are
discussions on the internet generally.
It's like Petrosian in a way, is just as tactical as TAL, but he chooses to use them for prevention
rather than for attacking.
So he puts his emphasis on not losing, whilst TAL puts his emphasis on winning brilliantly.
So is the emphasis of the use of tactics.
And we can say that a risk appetite is the distinguishing feature.
So as a positional player, tactics are vitally important to be aware of, but you'll see that the positional
players, you know, for example, like Capablanca, if we take Capablanca, you know, his tactics
and combinations were often very low risk and and logically born out of the position.
There was a great substantiation for why they should be successful.
So we're talking about that here.
So basically, it's our risk appetite.
If we want to play recklessly all the time, then we might not give a full to improving our position
slightly gently.
We might play an attack and not really care.
Maybe it's a fast time that maybe it would just confuse opponents.
Works for me a lot in the fast time that's online, but positional play is a nice refinement on our
chess that quite often if we want to beat stronger players, quite often it's a very useful category
of move to think about, to slightly improve the possession.
And you know, with this style of play, we're even without any direct attacks or tactics or just little
tactics.
We see, for example, Michael Adams winning games very, very quickly in one day.
Chess less than 30, moves against games quite often just with the improving method.
So it's effective also in its own right, even if we're talking small, very small tactics at the end
to crown the positional play.
So it's a very powerful idea.
You could also say contrary to this, of course, that what if delaying the tactics or the attack is
actually worse than playing them out?
So you've got to have that tradeoff consideration that sometimes it is good to try and kick the boot
in rather than improve your position.
So chess is a complex game, but we can factor in.
There's a risk appetite for playing attacks immediately, all playing attack or playing tactics immediately
or combinations.
And there's a certain risk associated with also improving your position.
Maybe you let your your opponent reorganize if you improve your position too much before going on to
the attack.
So there's this balancing act.
You're going to get the right balance for this nice blend between tactical attacking and positional
play.
So I hope this is interesting, this example, and we will see some beautiful attacks in this course
as well, because it's interesting to see how positional players are limiting the risk prior to such
attacks or tactical combinations.
I did so much.