WEBVTT 00:01.170 --> 00:01.860 Hi there. 00:01.860 --> 00:04.950 In this lecture, I would like to ask a theoretical question. 00:05.400 --> 00:13.950 Is accumulating advantages better for us or in some way more beautiful or funnier than prevention? 00:13.950 --> 00:16.680 What if we want to play our chess like tapeworm trees? 00:16.680 --> 00:17.760 And what would happen? 00:18.060 --> 00:23.220 Well, statistically, Petrosian did actually draw many, many games. 00:23.220 --> 00:24.840 It was very, very difficult to beat. 00:24.930 --> 00:33.300 So we might have a whole series of long, tedious, drawn games if we take prevention too far, because 00:33.300 --> 00:35.100 prevention does have a bit of a downside. 00:35.100 --> 00:38.990 Sometimes we're destroying our own counterplay as well as the opponent. 00:39.000 --> 00:43.320 Sometimes the positions are like fortresses, mutual fortresses. 00:43.320 --> 00:45.000 So okay, we don't risk losing. 00:45.000 --> 00:49.200 We've definitely prevented the opponent, but we've also prevented our own counterplay. 00:49.230 --> 00:51.750 Is that more beautiful? 00:53.560 --> 00:54.240 Is that funny? 00:54.250 --> 00:55.390 It might be funny. 00:55.930 --> 00:59.710 And why are we even considering these aspects? 00:59.710 --> 01:00.860 Surely, in chess? 01:00.920 --> 01:01.870 You know, we want to win. 01:01.870 --> 01:06.460 So we're looking for things which have advantage for us, which are better for us. 01:06.490 --> 01:13.090 Are we really looking at our own chess strategies and games like we might search for a partner? 01:13.090 --> 01:19.660 Like partner, We might want a beautiful partner or a funny partner or someone that fits us better for 01:19.660 --> 01:20.230 us. 01:20.590 --> 01:21.880 For us to be happy. 01:21.880 --> 01:30.910 Well, I do believe I truly believe, actually, that when we strategize in our heads, we don't want 01:30.910 --> 01:32.710 to bore ourselves to tears. 01:33.070 --> 01:38.440 I know that some chess books like Think Like a Grandmaster by cutoff, give the idea that we should 01:38.440 --> 01:43.910 be thinking like computer, you know, candidate moves, etc. and I detest that sort of stuff. 01:43.930 --> 01:48.580 I actually get most enjoyment for looking at the downsides of the opponent's position. 01:48.580 --> 01:52.390 So maybe I am treating my own chess strategies. 01:52.390 --> 01:57.040 My favorite chess strategies, my favorite way of playing the game as a form of entertaining entertainment 01:57.130 --> 01:59.680 as though it's a partner for me. 01:59.680 --> 02:05.740 I want to be happy with the way I think about chess and then switch cast doubt that the accumulation 02:05.740 --> 02:12.340 of advantages model is like some miser just accumulating money in the bank and maybe, you know, they 02:12.340 --> 02:15.070 die one day and they couldn't take all that money with them. 02:15.070 --> 02:17.740 Whatever too after. 02:17.740 --> 02:18.790 So we do. 02:18.790 --> 02:20.110 We want to act like misers. 02:20.110 --> 02:27.130 But the thing is, that's a really negative view on the accumulation of advantages model, in my view. 02:27.760 --> 02:29.860 Nimzowitsch himself argued. 02:30.880 --> 02:33.220 That on a different subject. 02:33.220 --> 02:38.180 The beauty of a move lies not in its appearance, but in the thought behind it. 02:38.200 --> 02:45.520 Can we not argue, therefore, that it might give the impression of being a bit like an accountant accumulating 02:45.520 --> 02:46.480 money in a bank account? 02:46.510 --> 02:48.610 But on the other hand, how do we actually do that? 02:48.610 --> 02:51.280 We might actually make use of prevention along the way. 02:51.280 --> 02:58.840 We don't want to give the opponent counterplay and we might have to play positional sacrifices to increase 02:58.840 --> 02:59.440 our advantage. 02:59.440 --> 03:04.240 We might have our pieces in optimal places, but to break through, we might need to do an exchange, 03:04.240 --> 03:05.260 sacrifice. 03:05.440 --> 03:07.960 We might need to do what seems to be anti position. 03:07.990 --> 03:12.970 We might need to decentralize the knight to reroute it, to improve it, to improve pieces. 03:12.970 --> 03:17.110 Sometimes sometimes we need to take a step back to go two steps forward. 03:17.110 --> 03:18.670 So the net gains. 03:18.670 --> 03:24.640 So there is a beauty in the kind of paradoxes, I'd say, of accumulating advantages. 03:24.640 --> 03:31.000 Sometimes we under able the opponents pawns to create more exploitable weaknesses that we can get hold 03:31.000 --> 03:31.530 of. 03:31.540 --> 03:38.020 So all the paradoxes, the creativity, and even the sacrifices which might need to be made to further 03:38.020 --> 03:41.830 increase the advantage in the position is part of the toolkit. 03:42.280 --> 03:48.580 And generally you could say if you want to win games, you give the opponent a bit of counterplay. 03:48.580 --> 03:54.280 Actually, you know, there's a prevention to an extent, but maybe you have to give them counterplay. 03:54.280 --> 03:55.510 So you have counterplay. 03:55.510 --> 04:00.300 So it's not like a fortress position in an extreme where you might as well just agree a draw. 04:00.310 --> 04:05.290 If neither of neither you, your opponent has no breakthroughs, no pawn breaks, nothing to do. 04:05.770 --> 04:15.100 That's a bit dull potentially, but I do like the idea that Nimzowitsch is not just in general what 04:15.100 --> 04:16.540 I do like about this. 04:16.540 --> 04:22.780 When Nimzowitsch casts doubt on the beauty of things, is yeah, we need to enjoy chess. 04:22.780 --> 04:27.250 We're not all professionals and it's very difficult to be a chess professional. 04:27.250 --> 04:34.210 So if enjoyment is a priority, then perhaps we should look at our chess strategies as our kind of partners. 04:34.690 --> 04:36.910 I like thinking about downsides. 04:36.910 --> 04:37.720 It does work for me. 04:37.720 --> 04:39.010 I win lots of tournaments online. 04:39.010 --> 04:43.180 I like the way that chess works for me, and I don't work for chess. 04:43.180 --> 04:48.550 You know, some grandmasters give you these prescriptions and what if you didn't enjoy their prescriptions? 04:48.550 --> 04:52.270 What if you didn't enjoy the openings that they chose for you or something like that? 04:52.270 --> 04:57.550 If you were having grandmaster training, it's, you know, you take control in a driving seat like 04:57.550 --> 05:04.210 in the driving seat positions in the driving seat of how you choose to even play the game conceptually. 05:04.420 --> 05:09.250 But for me, yeah, the accumulation of advantage model has a lot going for it and it's nice to have 05:09.250 --> 05:15.940 one way games where you weren't scared of being completely crushed because you limited counterplay to 05:15.940 --> 05:16.950 an extent. 05:16.960 --> 05:23.800 So it's definitely a very important part of the toolkit in general, restricting what the opponent can 05:23.800 --> 05:24.130 do. 05:24.130 --> 05:28.240 Prevention can be really very, very useful. 05:28.420 --> 05:35.320 And while we're at it, you know, partner traits reflected in our chess strategies, do we need our 05:35.320 --> 05:36.850 strategies to be funny? 05:37.600 --> 05:41.470 Well, Nimzowitsch certainly was very humorous in my system. 05:41.470 --> 05:47.500 You know, he talks about past pawns being criminals that needed to be kept under lock and key. 05:47.500 --> 05:50.650 You know, active surveillance was not enough through his humour. 05:50.650 --> 05:53.890 You know, the writings also passed the test of time. 05:53.890 --> 05:58.780 There's a lot of humor in his writing, so he obviously was quite funny as well. 05:59.200 --> 06:04.360 And in his games, you know, some humorous looking moves like Knight right to the corner to, to re 06:04.390 --> 06:05.740 centralize it later. 06:05.740 --> 06:12.820 So his idea is prophylaxis is quite a funny word nowadays for contraception. 06:12.820 --> 06:17.800 I think the word prevention is probably less funny and more useful to us to think about prevention if 06:17.800 --> 06:23.410 it's for a specific move or preventing the whole of the opponent's position not moving at all. 06:23.410 --> 06:26.470 So prevention seems to be a more functional word and more useful. 06:26.470 --> 06:29.440 So we've got to find our own balances of priorities. 06:31.120 --> 06:34.990 So yeah, you know, John Cleese, you know, he liked humor. 06:34.990 --> 06:37.090 He was editing things to make things more humorous. 06:37.090 --> 06:37.840 That was a priority. 06:37.840 --> 06:43.240 If you if you're doing a funny sketches, etc., or Fawlty Towers were checking if you've ever seen 06:43.240 --> 06:46.210 Fawlty Towers, because it's good to to smile and laugh. 06:46.210 --> 06:47.860 It induces positive hormones. 06:47.860 --> 06:56.230 So if your chest causes you to smile and laugh or your strategies, then that's great potentially as 06:56.230 --> 06:57.550 well as exercise generally. 06:57.550 --> 07:03.820 But anyway, so it's accumulating advantages really mightily. 07:03.970 --> 07:04.930 This is my question. 07:04.930 --> 07:10.960 If it involves creativity and paradoxical looking moves, or let's use them as Victor's own argument 07:10.960 --> 07:13.660 against them, lots of thought is behind the process. 07:14.320 --> 07:16.150 I would say it's great. 07:16.150 --> 07:18.490 Potentially you can make it a lot of fun. 07:19.360 --> 07:23.950 You can look at your opponent's downsides as a way of trying to increase your advantages. 07:23.980 --> 07:25.330 I absolutely love it. 07:25.330 --> 07:29.380 I absolutely am as passionate as chess as I ever was. 07:30.990 --> 07:36.720 And we can make use of or sacrifices, which seems to be, you know, rebelling against the laws of 07:36.720 --> 07:37.450 material. 07:37.450 --> 07:41.570 Or when you sacrifice a rook for a knight or a bishop. 07:41.580 --> 07:43.710 But the long term trend is good for you. 07:43.710 --> 07:45.810 You know, that's a lot of creativity and fun. 07:46.650 --> 07:54.690 Or you can do what seems to be anti positional moves, but you create a lot of pressure and play, you 07:54.690 --> 07:58.740 know, the creative conversion of advantages into more exploitable ones. 07:58.740 --> 08:02.220 It's creativity, it's fun, it's interest, it's enjoyment. 08:02.820 --> 08:06.960 Now, no counterplay, counterplay games have a lot of beauty. 08:06.960 --> 08:11.280 If we look through some of the masterpieces from Nimzowitsch, his opponents are left without any moves. 08:11.730 --> 08:15.570 You know these immortal Zugzwang games often in Nimzowitsch games. 08:15.960 --> 08:22.650 And can it be more entertaining to let opponents also self destruct? 08:22.650 --> 08:27.420 If you have restrain them out of desperation, they try and release the shackles of some positional 08:27.420 --> 08:29.280 binds and they self destruct. 08:29.280 --> 08:33.840 Maybe that's funnier sometimes if it's not more beautiful. 08:33.840 --> 08:36.390 Maybe it's just funny to let the opponents do that. 08:36.390 --> 08:42.210 But bad plans is, you know, it's argued in this course they can be much, much worse than no plans 08:42.210 --> 08:42.810 at all. 08:42.810 --> 08:48.270 And I want to give you an example of petrosian against caution in which korchnoi evicted caution in 08:48.270 --> 08:53.320 which in their early encounters in 1946. 08:53.320 --> 08:59.100 So they had this long hatred of each other throughout their careers. 08:59.100 --> 09:03.570 It seems, of course, being in the factor probably didn't help towards that. 09:03.570 --> 09:11.880 So so here you know we have c sex a Dutch stonewall was being played against Tigran Petrosian and it's 09:11.880 --> 09:13.500 a brilliant plan at the time. 09:13.500 --> 09:18.960 It's kind of kind of a modern plan for the time be free just to exchange off the bishops. 09:18.960 --> 09:25.080 So it seems there's an element of prevention here with this plan against the Dutch Stonewall. 09:25.110 --> 09:33.390 If we can eliminate the Dark Square defender and we can blockade on E5 and, you know, reinforce blockade, 09:33.390 --> 09:40.350 we can aim to keep the pawn on E six locked in and the bishop kind of just useless potentially, unless 09:40.350 --> 09:42.510 it tries to regulate attack, it might take a lot of moves. 09:42.510 --> 09:46.890 So the idea of restraining the pawn structure to in-turn restrain the pieces is evident here. 09:46.890 --> 09:52.170 So this is about restraint and prevention and prophylaxis. 09:52.170 --> 09:59.370 So Black Castle Bishop, a free the bishops came off course going on the attack with Queenie A We have 09:59.370 --> 10:00.600 90 C to Queen H five. 10:00.600 --> 10:03.300 But why is kind of being very calm here? 10:03.300 --> 10:10.470 Queen C one we have 94, C one so one just maneuvering to lock the E six pawn. 10:10.980 --> 10:16.110 So G 593 And these pool moves are pretty commensal pawns. 10:16.110 --> 10:16.980 Don't go backwards. 10:17.020 --> 10:21.510 90 795 So dramatic turn of events already. 10:21.510 --> 10:23.520 Why is e two offered? 10:23.520 --> 10:24.480 We have eight. 10:24.480 --> 10:27.900 So E two is offered because. 10:29.020 --> 10:29.140 Sure. 10:29.140 --> 10:31.150 Using the calculator a forcing sequence here. 10:31.150 --> 10:34.690 Can you see what we do if Queen takes E2? 10:36.400 --> 10:37.270 There's upsides here. 10:37.270 --> 10:40.510 For us, this apparent aggression is weaknesses around the King. 10:40.690 --> 10:42.040 There's a vacuum of weaknesses. 10:42.040 --> 10:45.130 So this is kind of funny how this backfires In this variation. 10:45.140 --> 10:48.970 Bishop takes E for eliminating the defender on G five. 10:49.300 --> 10:53.080 So that was also a kind of funny, you could say, funny weakness for the last movie The Queen coming 10:53.080 --> 10:58.600 to E to away from G five because now we're making inroads with the Knights and this is such a strong 10:58.600 --> 10:59.320 position. 10:59.320 --> 11:04.210 If this happens, this is just crushing and that's just completely lost here. 11:04.210 --> 11:06.250 This is just a completely lost position. 11:06.250 --> 11:08.530 And these pieces are still dead. 11:08.770 --> 11:10.060 They haven't gone out of bed yet. 11:10.090 --> 11:15.790 So yeah, a bad idea to take the pawn in a nutshell with Queen takes E2, just in case you're wondering. 11:15.790 --> 11:18.570 So King H eight, we have three. 11:18.580 --> 11:21.730 And for me, after E four. 11:22.120 --> 11:24.760 Yeah, it does seem a funny game. 11:24.760 --> 11:26.020 What happens here? 11:26.020 --> 11:28.570 It's been called like a case of jujitsu or something. 11:28.570 --> 11:29.080 What happened? 11:29.080 --> 11:32.740 How this magically transforms up to C takes D five. 11:33.050 --> 11:37.930 Like D takes E, five, D takes E five, C takes the five. 11:37.930 --> 11:41.980 We have e takes D, five, E takes D five an F four. 11:42.160 --> 11:48.880 And you can see that Black's game seems pretty bankrupt here. 11:49.240 --> 11:52.570 A lot of pieces on the back row D five is a target. 11:52.570 --> 11:54.320 White's pawn chain looks mighty strong. 11:54.320 --> 11:54.700 The Bishop. 11:54.700 --> 11:56.750 That's fantastic, you know? 11:56.830 --> 11:57.490 Wow. 11:57.490 --> 11:58.600 Rook D eight is played. 11:58.600 --> 12:01.510 We have Queen seven a terrible infiltration to deal with. 12:02.320 --> 12:12.340 B six we have F two, G five giving whites the F four square upside bishop a six and now have four and 12:12.340 --> 12:19.510 it moved 23 Korchnoi has to resign to be fair, of course, was just 15 years old in this game. 12:19.510 --> 12:25.240 A very talented 15 year old going on to become, you know, one of the uncrowned kings of chess, know 12:25.270 --> 12:33.220 potential world chess champion so close to becoming world chess and so black has to resign. 12:33.220 --> 12:39.370 If queen takes G five, Queen takes F seven, Bishop takes F, one rook takes F one. 12:39.460 --> 12:43.060 Petrosian was young as well, but a bit older than than korchnoi in this game. 12:43.060 --> 12:46.240 But this is just hopelessly lost. 12:46.390 --> 12:54.370 So we see here a case that prevention is very, very useful versus a direct attack. 12:54.370 --> 12:59.380 We see that it is kind of dramatic as well. 12:59.380 --> 13:08.290 That could be another attribute drama or the drama of this game through prevention rather than, it 13:08.290 --> 13:15.370 seems, actively searching for our own possibilities just to kind of take all the upsides from what 13:15.370 --> 13:16.690 the opponent is doing. 13:16.900 --> 13:21.100 So Petrosian had some beautiful games like this where he's saying, you know, come and get me. 13:21.100 --> 13:25.170 And it does create sometimes very, very beautiful games. 13:25.450 --> 13:30.160 This game against Boris Spassky world celebrated by Spassky, went for him and there was a beautiful 13:30.160 --> 13:35.170 queen sacrifice at the end so beauty can result from prevention. 13:35.470 --> 13:41.590 And the opponent trying to break the shackles of things, can overcommit, create new weaknesses, new 13:41.590 --> 13:42.430 downsides. 13:42.430 --> 13:47.050 And if you're dynamic enough, you can offer material and expose those weaknesses. 13:47.140 --> 13:51.430 So prevention can have a real sting to it. 13:51.940 --> 13:58.360 It can be done with a view of vicious counterplay attacks after where there are a lot more weaknesses 13:58.360 --> 14:04.870 than they ever were before the opponent started to attack you with only part of the army. 14:04.870 --> 14:08.380 You know, part of the army is just still in bad hair. 14:08.380 --> 14:12.970 So this is kind of an entertaining game, a dramatic game in my view. 14:13.090 --> 14:16.570 And many where Petrosian was saying, you know, come and get me. 14:16.570 --> 14:22.510 And he wasn't seemingly actively following his own plan, but rather preventing the opponent's pieces 14:22.510 --> 14:26.590 or part parts of the opponent's army of pieces. 14:26.920 --> 14:31.540 And the result, you know, weakness, creation, even more potential downsides to tap into. 14:31.690 --> 14:37.030 And if there's minimal risk, Petrosian will play super dynamically to expose those weaknesses. 14:37.030 --> 14:46.480 So, okay, I would say, you know, counterplay reduction, keeping the opponent's counterplay to minimal 14:46.480 --> 14:51.280 levels or ineffective counterplay, there might be counterplay, but it might be not not as dangerous 14:51.280 --> 14:52.030 as yours. 14:53.140 --> 15:01.210 Yeah, it's it's useful tools whether counterplay destruction of the opponent is more beautiful or funnier 15:01.510 --> 15:05.200 or useful than the accumulation of advantages model. 15:05.800 --> 15:07.690 Well, you can reason about that yourself. 15:07.690 --> 15:13.210 But I would say, you know, they're both very, very dangerous ideas in chess. 15:13.210 --> 15:18.550 Prevention is better than cure is a very, very powerful concept which applies on the chessboard, and 15:18.550 --> 15:22.270 it can lead to desperate measures from opponents to over weaken themselves. 15:23.200 --> 15:27.730 The accumulation of advantages is generally the scientific backbone of chess that. 15:28.310 --> 15:32.810 Ideally, we want these one way games where we gradually accumulate advantages with minimal hassle. 15:33.230 --> 15:44.300 I think there's beauty and entertainment and drama and even humor in both these models of playing chess. 15:44.600 --> 15:50.960 So it's whatever rock your boat rocks your boat, basically whatever entertains you and you get maximum 15:50.960 --> 15:53.570 enjoyment and pleasure from on site. 15:53.780 --> 16:00.500 But yeah, the positional viewpoint is worth integrating into our own chess so we can have that hat 16:00.710 --> 16:01.910 to put on. 16:02.390 --> 16:07.700 If circumstances dictate that we need to prevent the opponent's counterplay is good, that we're aware 16:07.700 --> 16:10.460 of positional players as well as the great attacking players. 16:10.670 --> 16:15.960 And you know, it was with great delight that I do have a course on Tigran Petrosian. 16:15.980 --> 16:20.420 I just chose his wins because I don't like playing through draws generally, and that's my bias. 16:20.720 --> 16:23.810 So you see a lot of particularly chosen shorter wins. 16:23.810 --> 16:28.490 They're quite dramatic, showing what a great tactician he is as well. 16:28.490 --> 16:32.750 Tactics is also beautiful in its own right and separate from positional play. 16:33.350 --> 16:37.070 Of course, in attacking chess, there are many beautiful aspects of chess. 16:37.070 --> 16:42.290 We can find beauty and maybe we should think more about nimzowitsch that the greater the thought behind 16:42.290 --> 16:43.100 something. 16:43.490 --> 16:49.490 Then we increase some things beauty, and maybe it's also its humour and the same that value as well. 16:49.490 --> 16:55.880 The more we think about the intricacies, it's like different aspects unveil themselves. 16:56.180 --> 17:03.880 So anyway, so I hope you find this for provoking this introduction lecture. 17:03.890 --> 17:05.630 I couldn't let it go. 17:05.660 --> 17:06.860 This question. 17:06.860 --> 17:12.950 I know it's like a question which might not have absolute functional value, but generally we do want 17:12.950 --> 17:16.880 to enjoy our chess and we want to be in the driving seat of our strategies. 17:16.880 --> 17:18.860 So I thought, it's interesting to compare. 17:19.430 --> 17:26.000 Do we need this accumulation of advantages model or can we just sit there, really strengthen our position, 17:26.000 --> 17:30.470 destroy the opponent's counterplay, let them self destruct, then pounce on them after? 17:30.600 --> 17:32.630 What's interesting is the way you want to play it. 17:33.140 --> 17:39.950 Och, I think it's good to be able to put on different hats in chess, attacking tactical etc.. 17:40.070 --> 17:46.310 The range of hats increases our enjoyment of the flexibility of how the game can be played. 17:46.310 --> 17:48.470 Och, hence much.