Hi there.
In this introductory lecture, I want to talk about the accumulation of advantages theory.
So the end of the romantic era in chess was when actually the first official world chess champion,
Wilhelm Steinitz, created this theory that actually chess is about a balance at the start of the game
where we fight for an accumulation of advantages.
And it's when you have the advantage, you have the rights and justification for the attack, and you
should go on the attack.
He didn't specify what kind of attack.
It could be a king attack.
It could be on the queenside in this course we're talking about, in particular king attacks, which
are game ending.
So sometimes you can have other attacks just with material, for example.
We're not really focused on that.
But how do we actually consider the accumulation of advantages model in our own games?
It doesn't really say how in a game.
I don't find it particularly useful to say I'm going to accumulate advantages here.
No, it requires work and work directed for me at the downsides of the opponent's position and maybe
even just their last move.
The weakness of the last very last move might be a winning combination trigger.
So I'm focused heavily on downsides That gives me personally the how.
So I'm still kind of respecting the accumulation of advantages model, and for me that's more useful.
It's more practical just to be kind of discerning, more nerdy, discerning, hardworking about what
opponent downsides there are.
You only get advantages in chess if the opponent makes mistakes.
If your opponent doesn't make mistakes, we can't actually win in theory.
So yeah, there is this scientific underpinning of chess that we want to accumulate advantages.
And I personally consider all the time looking at the downsides of the opponent's positions.
But also has this course actually opened up my thoughts on this subject, which I did introduce heavily
in the Complete Guide to Chess Tactics about looking for like default downsides.
If the opponent castles is their back road weak, the diagonal of death and stuff.
So I talk about downsides a lot in the Complete Guide to Chess Tactics.
This course has made me focus more on game ending downsides.
We really want to make the King because then there's no comeback.
They don't get to play on material down, for example, as they would if you make them.
So mating really ends the game.
Is the term costs useful?
Because in chess, a payment doesn't have to be made in terms of money.
It's like the opponent could lose material, lose key squares, they could pay costs for their moves
in other forms.
But it reminds me too much of the current cost of living problems.
And we play chess for fun, not to be depressed, and our terminology should actually inspire us and
make it a fun experience to play chess.
I'll be careful with terminology.
For me, I prefer downsides.
You could say disadvantages.
You could say Kings Russia.
Well, why don't you logically think about the disadvantages being super nerdy about the disadvantages
of the opponent?
Doesn't that give a hell?
Doesn't that link up with the accumulation of advantages model?
Sure.
But you know, it has too many syllables.
And this goes back.
If you're thinking in a chess game, you should make it fun.
The whole process of playing chess should be fun, otherwise it's not really worth it for most of us.
So I personally prefer downsides.
Cons reminds me too much of accounting and financial stuff.
Disadvantage is a bit too wordy.
I don't like to take the fun out.
I like to put the fun in to my chance.
But in particular, there is a qualifier game ending downsides, which is highlighted to me through
this course.
We're really talking about game ending downsides when we're talking about attacking the opponent's king.
So that's the major qualifier, if there's any qualifier of the downsides terminology.
It's that.
So you could say, well, actually, ideally we don't want to just accumulate material or any old advantages.
We want to accumulate game ending advantages.
You could go back to sign its, you know, philosophy and qualify a bit more for the assassin of the
chessboard.
You want it to be game ending, not just you cause discomfort in their right hand, you know.
You know you want to end the war in chess so I could reconstruct this whole accumulation of advantages
to fit what I like.
So you could say the accumulation.
Of.
Game ending upsides.
And you get that for being nerdy about game ending downsides during a game.
Now, let me just give you a concrete example of what I mean.
So this is a game I had in the elite super blitz of 2022.
I was leading this tournament life.
Unfortunately, I had to play Alex for anyone who's like nearly 10,800 Grandmaster.
I had this glorious position here.
Yes, I'm an exchange down, but I've got this glorious past pawn.
And so there's a mixture of downsides here you could think about.
So do you want just plain vanilla downsides?
Or do you want.
I like pistachio pistachio ice cream.
Do you want game ending downsides or plain vanilla downsides?
So I played from this position a plain vanilla downside of the passport because it seemed like a logical,
you know, bias that I've created this passport.
And why not try and exploit it with a move like Bishop C-7?
But I can't play that because, you know, the opponent's going to eliminate the pawn.
So this this had a duality to it.
It's not just about eliminating the pawn, it's about taking out this pawn and creating a pass pawn.
So there's a duality associated with that.
Now, as you become an attacking assassin in this course, you realize that actually this kind of excursion
is a queen temporarily in Siberia.
If they're really going to take on A2, if the queen is away from the king, then usually the king is
kind of weaker.
It's less, you know, it's less covered.
There isn't a defense of Knight on F6.
The Rooks are kind of passive on the back row.
We should be aiming ideally for game ending downsides here and Instructively.
I really fluffed this up with Queen C6, so he's still playing on after this.
I'm trying for Bishop C7 but you know what?
It doesn't matter about Bishop C7 off the Queen Knight's A2.
It's just not good enough.
This is what I mean.
You know, when you accumulate advantages, be careful what type of advantages you accumulate.
You want ideally the knockout advantages, not this because he's just created a pass pawn.
The Queen's not in Siberia anymore, and there's this dangerous pass pawn.
So Bishop takes the eight and without further ado, a two.
And all of a sudden I need another move to get this pawn out of the way.
Queen D six.
And I'm just allowed to make in six.
He's just queen ing.
And this is the end of the game for me.
What an embarrassing waste of possession.
And it hurt me this game.
Online games do not hurt me When I have pain.
I usually have benefit after because I really do soul searching, searching deep for the lessons.
And it was during the construction of this course, this game.
I thought, why didn't I?
Why?
Why didn't I play?
There's other attacking moves than trying to queen the pawn.
And this is what I want to share my pain about.
We want game ending downsides.
You know the pistachio downsides.
I hope you like pistachio, not the plain vanilla.
We want the game ending downsides.
So what are they?
Well, there's two moves.
One just literally points at the king.
And, you know, there'll be a big penalty.
You know, if Rook takes then Queen G4 and, you know, we're threatening and we're threatening kind
of indirectly defending and fine, we're just going to play Queen G7.
So let's say Queen takes a two, We go for the king, we go for the game.
Ending downsides.
That's what the whole point of this course is.
We're looking at game ending downsides.
I'm not teaching this course just to win a pawn on the Queen's side.
Let's get that crystal clear before you look at any game examples where after game ending downsides.
Now, why aren't I saying to you, Oh, just accumulate advantages?
It's very difficult in a game to make use of that.
We do want to respect the underlying philosophy of the accumulation of advantages, but for me, the
most effective way is to continually work and focus hard about the issues of the opponent's position
and their moves.
And for me, being super nerdy about especially game ending downsides will end the game.
And this is one way which is of course obvious the computer in a millisecond how to finish off the opponent.
But if you look at it, the queen is also in Siberia and it's just too slow to queen this pawn.
It's far too slow to do this.
The queen getting out spirit and the king is going to be mated.
Her queen takes her to queen, takes age six.
Let's say queen takes be three, Queen takes 86.
How on earth would black defend this possession?
It doesn't matter about their passport.
And subsequently, by the way, yesterday at the time of this recording, I did actually be annexed.
So by going for his king.
And funnily enough, we had another situation.
He was coming down hard with his past pawns.
Well, I should have made to this king, but it was quite a dangerous attack which led him to eventually
lose on time.
But there was actually a forced me.
So this is a recurring pattern I have with this this game.
He's like nabbing these pawns, trying to play like Karpov or something.
You know, these guys, you've just got to find the game ending downsides.
You can't waste these opportunities against higher rated opponents.
He's like 2100.
I could have put me away with Bishop E5 game ending downsides Not playing vanilla ones.
Queen G4 is another one.
What is he going to do if he tries to nudge the Queen?
We stick around.
If he tries to stick around, we've still got a great attacking position here.
This is a very strong attacking position.
And anytime rock takes D7 hands, you know, it looks after the position, you know.
Bishop E5, we're looking after the position.
What are they doing here?
F6 We've got to take on on G seven.
What are they doing there?
So that pawn is kind of immune.
And even if we got this ending again, the game ending downside.
Yeah, it wouldn't be to take the rook, but to try and win these pawns.
That's not game ending to take the rook.
If King Joffrey is the way here, this would just be leading to a draw.
You've got to think about your downsides.
Are they game ending?
The king is going to come out.
It's going to be a draw.
No.
Better to nurture this position.
We can get a more aggressive king.
Keep the king in its box and make sure that when we win material, it's game ending.
So this game ending philosophy isn't just for champ mating.
You know, we can pick up material and then with another pass and this is definitely going to be more
game ending potential.
This possession is going to be more game ending.
So the point is, is here, there's a few points for this introductory lecture.
I had to carefully think about this.
I don't want to be too weird about this one I was trying to express here, but we do want to reflect
on the scientific era of chess.
So it was Steinitz combined with Lasker, making it into formidable weapon, the accumulation of advantages
model, finding even more fine grained advantages, seeing how they can trade off for each other.
So, you know, basically, Lasker was regarded by Vladimir Kramnik as the first 2700 player.
So if we want to respect the accumulation of advantages and we do, ideally we do the best classic attacking
games have this accumulation of like tiny advantages.
One comes to mind to me in particular even from a symmetrical pawn structure.
Check out Rubinstein's Immortal game.
Small tempo Losses in the Endgame.
In the Endgame in the opening led to a formidable, beautiful, creative combination to checkmate later
with amazing sacrifices.
So we do need to respect the accumulation of the advantages.
Very.
But you might be missing the hell of it for me.
My answer to be super nerdy, super interested in the details of the opponent's downsides, especially
given this course game ending downsides.
Don't try to just win material in chess.
You are just winning a battle.
You're not winning the war.
We're interested in winning the war in this course.
So this is more like, you know, win friends and influence people.
You know, you don't just win little battles.
You want to win the war.
So, yes, conclusion to bring this to a conclusion.
Be super nerdy about, in particular the game ending downsides, not just any old downside to winning
a pawn on the queenside.
You know, what are you going to eat?
Lettuce as well during the day.
Are you a rabbit?
No, you're not a rabbit.
No.
You want to be, you know, a chess fighter.
You know, a formidable opponent that people fear.
You want to be a Kings crusher.
So that's the major qualifier of this course.
Not ordinary downsides, no game ending downsides.
And yes, you know, I'm going to be on the lookout when I play this grandmaster in future occasions.
And I have a positional advantage which seems to logically say, Oh, I've got to promote the pawn now,
I've got to do this to get more material.
No, just because you have one material, one one's some possession of it doesn't mean you can't switch
to the king.
So I look for those opportunities for the knockout punches game ending downsides.
So I hope that's clear from this introduction lecture.
So when you work through the examples, you try and differentiate and also opponent materialism is often
the source in itself.
If opponents are materialistic, they're taking pieces away from their king.
Sometimes that's often a great source and justification for the attack.
Other pieces in Siberia, in effect, not just the queen, other pieces away from the king, you're
outnumbering the opponent's forces around the king.
Go for that knockout blow game ending downsides.
Be kind of nerdy and interested in those in particular.
Okay.
Thanks so much.