Hi there.
In this introduction, I share, I want to talk about the importance of detailed and thematic game analysis.
So our examples, which we choose in this course I've chosen because I feel that they are instructive
in some way or manner, and it's important to get to the nitty gritty details.
To have a nuanced understanding is great.
Ideally, if we look at the great game annotators of the past, even before computers, Alexander Alekhine
even before computers was a very detailed annotator and many of his annotations stand the test of time.
Some are kind of broken, refuted by computers.
They didn't have the luxury of engine analysis, but he sought objectivity from the games he did analyze
from classic Tillman's, where players were, you know, roughly the same kind of standards.
He was trying to find a deeper and deeper truth of chess.
And in doing so, it kind of respects, if you think about it, the accumulation of small advantages.
Theory sets out why our first official world chess champion, Wilhelm Steinitz, that really the position
is a fight for the advantage first.
And when you do have that advantage, then you have the right for attack.
That was like one of the basic teachings of Steinitz to make it the game more of a scientific basis.
Because in the romantic era, there were some crazy unsound gambits being played all the time.
That sort of attacking chess might be fun, but it's not that scalable to stronger than stronger opponents.
And also opening theory is like violence nowadays.
You don't really want terrible positions of the opening.
So we want to respect the accumulation of potentially tiny advantages.
And to do that, we need to really kind of forensically go through games, in my view.
So when revisiting classic games, I find it has been useful to ask even more questions for clarification.
Clarify what are the concrete?
France Because players might be reacting to really subtle threats we don't even see on some interfaces.
You will press the axe button if you're in an analysis mode when you finish the game and or looking
at math games and that will show you the frat.
So it sort of switches sides.
If if one side had an extra move, what would they play?
That's often a very useful clarification tool for the subtle, you know, move frats that might be not
so apparent when you look at most of the games.
I find my own kind of super nerdiness about downsides is important for my overall chess accuracy.
I see my chess accuracy has been relatively high even in speech as well.
I adopt this idea that I want to really be interested in the details.
Basically, when I talk about being nerdy, I'm talking about being interested in the detailed kind
of downsides of the opponent's positions.
So basically, we don't want to be too concerned about memorizing variations.
We really want to get a gist of the variations and build up our attacking into intuition.
Those ingredients get a hold of them, experience them in the variations.
Something will rub off, and it's not always in your conscious thinking.
It rubs off, you know, later your brain's kind of looking at the examples, putting them together
while you're asleep and and forming these ingredients more intuitively.
But when we revise games, master games of the past and do more detailed analysis, it's going to reinforce
any concepts and important concepts, hopefully that that should be abstracted from those details.
So, for example, Bishop of our counterpart in the classic Morphy Opera game, hopefully that's a detail
now, a conceptual detail.
You'll remember, you know, the iconic games often have great concepts to them.
Just don't be too sidetracked by the final combination.
You can't be obsessed with the final combinations.
It's the question we're already asking this course.
How on earth did they get those attacking positions?
So at minimum, the course also kind of revisits epic attacking games.
So for the nuances of the variations and the more fundamental themes, the ingredients, we're very
carefully appreciating the detailed ingredients and the detailed analysis will often emphasize in the
game.
The imprecise moves can totally ruin an attack now, especially an attack where you've sacrificed the
pace, like here Raymond Kane against Anthony Myles.
Raymond Kane had to play very, very precisely here in this position.
It looks like a great attacking position in principle that the King's been weakened by it needs a very,
very precise follow up.
The details matter.
And when we analyze in our own games one of our big.
Problems is like we're like a web browser, we're caching pages which shouldn't be cached.
We should be looking at the exact position we now have for the detailed finesses for the opportunity
we have in that position.
Each position in our analysis all should be kind of individually respected on its own merits.
And for me I found a weakness of the last move is a great bias crusher that look at exactly forget your
grand plan.
You've just you've just calculated with your ego like ten moves ahead.
What is the specific weakness of the opponent's last move?
It might be a major opportunity, might be a quick chat, mate.
So it's really important, this open mindedness as well.
We've got to try and remove our biases and analysis we've done ahead of time can be a major bias and
you end up not playing the position.
So detailed attention to nuances will really help.
And that's like the root level for creating broader conclusions.
It's like if you're doing something, if you have an accountant one day, you have to provide, you
know, the details of the data they transactions, and then you get the more general trends, you know,
the profit or loss or whatever the reports, but you need the details first.
Then it's like chess.
The details are in the chess games.
We've got to have a detail view first before we base our conclusions on those details.
So, okay, here, let's look at this, this game now.
So Raymond Keenan had to play very precisely so the move he played is actually Queen B1.
But we've got to really appreciate here why weren't other queen moves?
This looks a bit odd, doesn't it?
Queen B one Why weren't other queen moves possible?
Queen D3 Can you see what black plays?
And this is the pain of chess.
It's a very, very cruel game that if you play imprecisely after sacrificing, you could be severely
punished here.
Black could play 95, and it's like hitting the queen and defending G6.
So this is a snag.
You know, this this position, we've got no attacks.
That's the difference between an attack working an attack, you know, vanishing here.
So if we you know, this is a very, you know, tricky position.
Now, there's lots of variations and you'll see that in the more detailed analysis of this game.
I just wanted to show you that precision engineering, especially in attacking chess, is very important.
The details matter hugely, especially when you've made an investment of material.
It's a kind of unbalanced position to weaken the opponent's game.
So precision really, really matters.
So here off the Queen B 195 was played anyway, D takes 94 and once just mowing the way through on this
diagonal.
Now the attack is much stronger than it would have been with the imprecise Queen move.
So now I have six check and certainly Miles was a bit of a sport.
He played on to the checkmate here.
Checkmate.
So, yes, we have this dream of checkmate in the opponents.
And I'm saying we have to be truly rigorous when we look at all the attacking games.
How would the attacks have fallen over?
They would have shown nothing, nothing to show for the sacrifice at all if this attack wasn't played
precisely.
And you'll see this over and over again, especially in sacrificial attacks.
The accuracy is a very important ingredient, very easy to take for granted.
You have to play accurately once you've especially sacrificed pieces and weaken the opponent's king.
So, yes, there is a bit of a downside to attacking chess, especially on one day games where opponents
have a lot more time to find defensive resources.
But attacking chess can still be successful if it's played very accurately.
The intuition of weakening the opponent's king for material is a basic trade off in chess, material
versus king safety.
But to ignite and exploit that trade off, yes, we need accuracy.
So okay.
So I just wanted to reinforce some points here about detailed and thematic game analysis.
If in our ingredient section, it was about bishop of our counterpart, I try and highlight the key
variations relating to that famous specially hard and go especially involved in that particular theme
just to get that ingredient highlighted and exemplified.
So one game you can pivot around different variations.
You're basically extracting as much insight from a particular game as possible, especially on certain
key themes.
Okay.
So I like to let the theme of the section basically amplify all the relevant variations for that theme.
So I hope this is a good basic introduction to why games are analyzed in such detail.
It's going to be good for you.
You don't have to memorize everything, try and get the gist of things.
You can always revisit the games later and later and get more and more insights as your.
Improves generally.
Okay.
And so much.