Hi there.
In this lecture, I like to say if we can further internalize the accumulation of advantages model,
which our first official world champion Rammstein has introduced and Laska successfully used into a
really great weapon so he could be dominant as world champion for so many years.
So this accumulation of advantages model kind of playing to the finances of possession, trying to extract
advantages for the opening and then using them as the justification for attack.
You could perhaps view it as a form of delayed gratification for attacking chess.
So for example, in our early days we may have started games as juniors just aiming to, you know,
checkmate the opponent's king with queen age five.
But then we find out that opponents can defend f7.
They don't need to be mated.
So even though you could say this as an attacking game, it's not using all the pieces in the army.
So there's less teamwork than what could have been a much more refined game.
And so the royal appears and once players start defending with moves like G6 and then you get nothing
from the opening, you find out you get nothing, you try and scale up your game and you may become
much more refined later.
And so you don't bother with that and you pay for a play, for example, Royal Topaz.
Or you might try just quite a, you know, variations of piano, piano and trying to accumulate your
advantages so we could see accumulation of advantages as a form of delayed gratification.
The downside we're delaying our attack, the upside.
We're trying to create the better circumstances.
That's the upside for when we do attack through it to be more justified, less easy to defend.
So building up advantages first makes sense.
And this is good for other domains as well, this idea of delayed gratification.
So.
Maybe you're aware of the donut test.
They did tests on these kids.
Would they take the donut?
They're told if you if you can wait like 2 hours, we'll give you more donuts.
And the kids that just took the donut, they couldn't wait lines.
They found out the ones with delayed gratification did better in their careers.
You know, generally being able to delay is like being able to take the upside of delay and and get
better circumstances to do things, especially on the chessboard.
So basically, we also had this kind of, you know, romantic era in chess where attacks were just set
off, like with the King game as early as the second move to try and get attacking positions, not worrying
if it's a bit unsound, not worrying about the range of possibilities which could fully equalize with
black and as well as the King's Gambit, The Evans Gambit.
So in the junkyard piano with Bishop C4, Bishop C5 playing B4 and their spot systems were worked out,
Ashley Laska had a very good equalizing system against the Evans game.
So in the evolution of chess, the concepts of kind of more direct, speedier ways to get into attacking
positions is not really this kind of delayed gratification model.
So sometimes, yeah, we want to evolve our positions to a point where it does seem entirely appropriate,
entirely logical to further our position with an attack, especially against the opponent's king.
So basically, you could say, you know, our first and second world champions taught us positional
play.
They taught us a form of delayed gratification on the chessboard.
The role of positional play, getting into good positions first, you could argue, is a form of delayed
gratification, not just expecting immediate attacks to be successful.
And chess generally with computers, in my view, is evolving to be more dynamic, like playing the
position to its merits.
Not any artificial rules of chess, but more of a, you know, play the position basis, more of a scientific
basis that's progressed, but always with a practical bias, because we're playing generally against
humans that make mistakes so biased towards easier to play positions.
That's the general kind of attitude and easier to play from an attacking class perspective.
It's easier to attack than defend.
So that's where we're kind of evolving, in my view.
So attacking chess plays a great role to get easier to play positions if you're looking for these juicy,
attacking ingredients.
So one slip from the opponent, there'll be mated.
Of course, computers can defend.
But there is this underlying idea that if we play the position and actually play it accurately, we
can potentially accumulate tiny advantages.
And a tiny advantages can mean we're really in great positions to attack the opponent.
We've got better mobility, central control, basically, but lots of juicy ingredients maybe have been
accumulated and then we can attack appropriately rather than look silly for attacking.
But it's easy to defend and the opponent just counterattacks in a winning way or whatever.
So, yes, even despite all our technology, we're still playing usually a human opponent that makes
mistakes.
So the preference for an easiest play position is there.
So we're not just, you know, computers looking the tiniest of details of position to find, you know,
the perfect move each time.
That's not achievable.
Our time constraints that we impose with clocks both online and off offline, means we've got to make
practical decisions as well.
We've got to balance it.
Time that quest for perfection with easier to play positions so sometimes you can sacrifice pieces for
an attack might not be objectively sound.
And the town, of course, proved that style of play all the way that sometimes, you know, weeks,
months later, years later, there's analysis which shows, well, maybe the opponent could have offended.
It's academic by that point.
It's really academic.
It's who you play at the board.
You're trying to get easier to play positions.
And attacking chess plays a great role in that.
But yes, our first and second world champions taught us about positional play and delayed gratification.
The elements of the chessboard which were trading off for each other, which we're fighting to try and
get the advantage in the possession, which can help justify attacking possibilities.
Okay, So I thought this this is an interesting introduction lecture just to perhaps try and internalize
a bit more silence in Lascaux.
I hope that's interesting.
Punch a much.