Hi there.
In this lecture, I'd like to talk about what's attacking plans.
Dream about?
Well, in the past prevention era and why it could have been beneficial for them.
And actually how we can do this nowadays quite easily.
I'll get on that.
So in the past, certain players like David Bronstein and especially Alexander Alekhine had these games
which were never actually played.
They just dreamt about these games.
Bronstein on occasion admitted it was actually just part of his preparation when he was awake.
It wasn't in his dream and got traumatized a bit more, as if he'd dreamt it in a dream.
It wasn't the case on occasion as as I've got a great example to show you of that one of Bronson's dreams,
which is actually analysis for a game he was going to have against Viktor Korchnoi.
So why would it be beneficial to create these variations which were never actually played out in real
games?
So a variation like a fictional game or made up variations can be treasures in their own right.
There can be delightful.
I have to say, I once had the pleasure of Natasha Regan and Matthew Sadler coming over and we talked
about game changer.
And I was absolutely, completely blown away by the amount of analysis.
One game.
It kind of.
Actually, I couldn't put it in my my days if I had to change the restrictions in my software to accommodate
this analysis.
So I have evidence first hand.
You're a top grandmaster in the UK doing an immense amount of analysis I would have never dreamt of
for, say, YouTube video, You know, YouTube videos.
They have to be like ideally less than 15 minutes.
Otherwise you lose everyone's attention.
Attention spans are going down.
But you know, the top grandmasters, I would assume they have very, very detailed analysis of games
and it gives access to all sorts of insights through those variations.
And, you know, the analysis in this course compared to this course is like tiny.
What he could do, I imagine, of each of the games that, you know, we have analysed in this course.
So you know, there are limits of what you can take for analysing a game, all the variations so in
back in the day without engines so insights in working out preparation for opponents could be training
for exploiting certain tactical issues.
It could give a deeper appreciation of king safety versus material, and it reflects the attacking plans,
passion for king hunting that some of the variations may end in a beautiful checkmate.
So we're talking about very, very beautiful variations where, you know, checkmate ends the game.
And I made up several games of fancy and some people kind of took fun out Valentine for doing that.
Was it his ego or something?
So he had some classic games like Against Tenor, which were kind of beautiful but made up.
But nowadays, yes, we can do such an immense amount of analysis and we can even take that even further.
So Sadler has talked about running sort of computer tournaments from a particular position to arrive
at more objective truth.
You know, the search for objectivity, you can take it to to so many degrees, basically to get a lot
of insight just from one particular game.
So we have this Bronstein dream, which wasn't actually a dream at night.
And it goes like this.
So D4.
In his actual preparation.
It was against Korchnoi where he knew caution played C4 96, 93, 693 Bishop B Force.
We have this position where D4 was played here and off the D6.
Bronstein had his analysis for a very interesting variation because it seems, you know, the bishops
are tactical issue.
So that was the actual thing that he extended from analysis of a game against Viktor Korchnoi and the
great chess historian Edward Winter, you know, uncovers this to separate, you know, fiction from
reality.
Anyway, in Einstein's dream game, we have the same position emerging, kind of kind of different move
order, different removal of completely, actually.
So we have this position with a3d6 head.
So Roy, is that same kind of position, the same position as his preparation?
So quite a four track going off to that tactical vulnerability.
96 And you might think, well, D five, isn't this kind of dangerous?
Four Black So one of the key tactical points here after E takes case, what do you think the first tactical
point in here showing actually there are some downsides for White doing this.
So this piece is kind of protective, but it's through that annoyance.
Can we exploit this as a downside?
What would you play here for 100 points?
Yeah.
Queeny for it sets a nice trap.
So if three takes, we can play Bishop take C free check.
And when the queen.
So we're learning about, you know, tactical downsides being exploited, cleverly causing, you know,
this major trap thing which might be tempting for white to play.
So 92 is played giving the bishop handy.
Take C6 and it looks as though well.
Yeah, there are still some problems to solve.
Black councils are afraid.
And now we have this problem solved.
We've just, you know, victim here of this pin.
But now night g for looking at F2 and now Geoffrey is is played.
If queen takes b4.
The point is queen takes have to check candy one night every chat and the queen of night beautifully
coordinate her to checkmate.
It's a beautiful conclusion there in that variation.
So we have g free Queen f six which is again looking at taking out F2 and taking out F2 and then E three.
So OC we have eight X before being played, which keeps an eye on the D one square.
So it doesn't whole notion of combining on D one.
Isn't that extinguished now because the queen actually hasn't played Queen since before the Queen's
looking at D one so we have Queen takes F to check King D1 but now there's a key move which makes everything
work beautifully.
This relentless idea, you know, you have downsides, but you got to be relentless about it to really
make it work as the attacking player.
So what is the relentless move which is going to factor out the key defensive resource Queen D one here?
So what do you think that is for 200 points?
It's the relentless move played is be fine because if 93 check can see one queen, one check, there's
91 protected by the queen.
Right?
So B5 is played first trying to lure the queen away from D one.
We have Queen B free.
If Queen C two, then that just runs into 93 check and 92.
So Queen B free.
We have Bishop E six.
Queen goes away from D one, and now we can have 90 free check.
Can you see one queen E one check.
And we get that beautiful mate.
So, yes, this was actually just daytime analysis, but it shows that the attacking players kind of
make one day chess fun.
If you're going to invent all of these, make combinations as part of your preparation for someone that
makes it fun.
The whole thing about one day chess, if you could turn it on its head, it's not the act of playing
the one day game.
It's the amount of beautiful, fun preparation.
If you can make things fun, what seems to be hard work and tedious, you make the whole thing fun.
The process is fun.
Then that's great.
You know, life is a ride.
It's not about the destination.
So he's doing these fun preparations against Viktor Korchnoi.
You know, that's another attraction perhaps, of one day chess.
You pick your opponents, you start creating these fictional variations, you make them in all sorts
of ways.
But we pick up, you know, notions of soft spots, relentless, you know, aspects like taking things
out of the equation to make things work.
There's a lot to learn from this fictional game, and there's a lot to learn even from especially from,
you know, Alexander Alekhine's fictional games because they are beautiful and they show similar kind
of things.
The king hunts the checkmate.
The logical conclusion.
Yeah.
So it's fun stuff.
And so as I say nowadays, that's why I like doing a detailed analysis of games.
We don't want to just play for a game.
We want to know as an attacking player, especially if you play chess, We want to know how things work.
We need to look at the variations, what was not played and why We need to extract the insights.
Even from the variations they are like pivoting around a particular game.
We're trying to extract maximum value from a particular game.
We want to ask the questions until we're satisfied that we've got all the beautiful variations, at
least from that game, especially the beautiful ones, because that makes analysis even more fun.
These variations, which end in Checkmate, is good to capture those ideas and be able to use them in
our own game.
So we're making the whole process of chess analysis, the search for objectivity, a fun process where
we see the beauty of chess.
So yeah, and if you want beautiful checkmate combinations, check out my checkmate course.
But basically, yeah, there's a lot of richness to a game example, and the amount we can do with modern
engine analysis makes investigating games very easy.
Some have said, well, it's not as mental mentally challenging as in the old days.
They didn't have the engines they had to analyze on their own.
That's true, but I don't feel that's a problem.
I like saying all the beautiful stuff when you analyze with engines that they create in seconds, it
might take you like in a real game 3 hours to work out a combination.
They might be wrong, but with engines they show you these beautiful variations.
So it's enjoying the process of analysis.
And you know, Alexander Alekhine was one of the great annotators, so he must have enjoyed, you know,
analyzing these games, finding the tiniest of nuances, trying to enrich his understanding of chess
generally to reach the objective truth as far as he could, the search for objectivity.
So, okay, I hope you got a few points from this that the attacking players have these dreams Alekhine
You know, it's a bit of a difference sometimes when Bronstein Alekhine kind of says the game was actually
played when it wasn't.
And you need historians to, you know, do a detailed check.
Was it actually played this game?
No, no.
But yeah, so sometimes, you know, we need to cross-reference the magazines and publications, but
even if they're made up games, we still get insights.
It's like benefiting from the creative flights of fancy of Alekhine.
He had this huge, you know, flight of fancy like David Bronstein.
The attacking players loved the king hunts.
They just dream of the king hunts.
The king hunts come in the variations.
We should celebrate that.
We should appreciate that we learn more about the trade offs on the chessboard, especially between
material and king safety, especially if we've got our King Castle, the opponents, kings, not castles.
It's asking for problems, isn't it?
Fundamentally.
So it's like a proof, you know, of king safety there.
So okay, so I hope you share my enjoyment of analysis.
Analysis leverages games to the maximum from what we can learn, especially from the beautiful variations,
we're creating a fun journey of analysis.
Okay, That's so much.