Hi there.
In this lecture, I want to talk about bias crushing of over.
It's a nice play on King's crushing or King's crushing.
So we want to be bias crushing in search of objectivity.
That's one of the key quotations, in my view, that Alexander Alekhine made.
Chess, first of all, teaches you to be objective.
Now, when we say objective, that is kind of unbiased.
Objectivity is like being unbiased.
Not easily swayed by a particular opinion.
Trying to be more evidenced based more on evidence, concrete evidence.
Tigran Petrosian has mentioned that a strong player knows the rules and laws of the game.
A talented player knows everything that a strong player knows and he also sees exceptions to the rules.
But major test talents we call them geniuses, gradually transform these exceptions into our new rules
and so on ad infinitum, since chess is inexhaustible.
Inexhaustible.
So Tigran Petrosian talks about the evolution of chess and our own evolution of chess.
We also have this kind of process.
The kinds of modernists found useful exceptions to establish theory, and they became part of the theory
that you could, for example, just influence the sense of control, controlled sense.
You don't need to literally occupy with pawns.
So objectivity is a great thing as as a cool, you know, attacking player.
We need to be objective.
It is like being unbiased that objectivity, that ruthlessness the CRO mistakes do post-mortems of our
own games.
Finding absolute truth helps us when we play stronger and stronger opponents.
We need to start with the truth, you know, as far as we can ascertain, sometimes engines don't give
the truth you need to.
Even the immortal game I discovered, you know, recently in constructing this course, if you don't
put the engines for long enough, they think one of the moves is a mistake, as if it's, you know,
a losing position.
But it's not.
If you put it on for more, the engine will realize the huge potential of the position.
So chess is difficult even for engines to gain truth.
And we see also with the neural networks like Alphazero coming in and destroying Stockfish only after
a few hours of training.
This is an example I'm going to show you soon in this lecture.
So the truth of chess.
Chess is astronomical in nature, so it's difficult to determine a truth.
We only have our biases which we try and crush more and more to get a scalability more and more for
stronger and stronger opponents.
Ideally, if we want to improve our chess, we might just want to just love looking at attacking games
as well.
By the way, you don't have to be a competitive player to enjoy the games of this course, but I'm looking
from the perspective that you do want to beef up your attacking skills.
So when we talk about bias in research methods, when I was at Brunel, there was Brunel University
in London, you know, research methods was talked about how if you take one or two samples, they might
be biased.
You need often greater samples and a variety of samples to reduce bias in things that you're researching.
So it's a basic research ethos.
And in chess, because games are recorded with PTEN, we've got more and more examples to base our conclusions
on, and it's like an evolving central database on history and culture which has recorded is absolutely
beautiful aspect of chess.
So we get a greater and greater sample size of games to base kind of rules.
The rules should be qualified more and more and more.
So for example, a pawn chain, you don't have to just undermine a pawn chain and its base.
You could undermine it at its head.
So in the French defense, for example, if you play C6 French, you could undermine the pawn chain
at its head.
So there are sometimes there are no rules apart from the actual rules of chess.
Basically, it really depends on the position.
And attacking chess has gone through major evolutions in its history.
So the romantic era of chess had a bias for beauty, for entertainment, beautiful combinations.
They didn't mind about playing on something in the opening, potentially with with gambits, which might
be a little bit unsound.
But nowadays it's not so popular to play those romantic era gambits like The King's Gambit or the Evans
Gambit, because we have computers telling us exactly how to equalize against, for example, the Evans
Gambit or the King's Gambit.
There are different ways.
There are so many different ways of actually playing against The King's game as well.
Devlin Aronian said that that's the problem.
The King's Gambit.
You need to know all the different counters that are possible.
So there is a bit of an overhead there as well.
It's not, you know, these romantic era relics were evidence that actually chess is also it's not in
a vacuum.
It's in the context of its historical and technological.
And social and economic context.
The games actually reflect the part of history that they're in.
Usually they encapsulate the culture of the time.
So we have a bias through the history books, not having the technology, not having the communications
infrastructure.
So back in the days the romantic era was was justified by itself because people didn't really know how
to handle the game.
It's the unsound stuff.
They really didn't.
So, you know, the bias a beautiful combination is playing on Sunday and opening.
It was acceptable.
It was an acceptable trade off, but things move on.
So central occupation challenged by the so-called hyper modernists and there are lots of interesting,
useful exceptions which became incorporated in chess theory.
So we can play positions in very different ways.
We can play hyper modern openings, we can play with finger toes, we can even, you know, double.
And so there's a lot of hyper modern ideas which are absolutely wonderful.
The notion of accumulation of advantages is measurable.
You know, we play games, we play online.
We can look at the computer often and see how the advantage has changed.
The notion of central control is measurable.
Even if you put a knight on the corner there, mathematically, there's a basis for it.
So we're not completely saying ridiculous things.
If there's a mathematical basis for things, pawns not going backwards when I started Lasker.
For example, a lot of his opponents and Capablanca were playing irreversible pool moves.
The notion of irreversibility is a very sound and important concept.
There are very, very sound evidential concepts which are good to kind of, you know, think about that
a lot of the time in Laskas time or Capablanca time or altcoin's time players were irreversibly making
poor moves and not really realizing that they're the only piece you can't retract back.
So there is often a mathematical or legally enforceable basis Nimzowitsch blockades, you know, is
basically saying the pawn can't move if you're blockading a pawn.
So the whole nimzowitsch my system, a lot of that is actually very logical and justifiable, even with
great reverence.
It's like certain axioms of chess, which they're not in the legal rules of chess, but they are worth
thinking about from a mathematical and objectively logical perspective, where we can't get enough evidence
to say it's it's bad blockade or it's good blockade.
Well, you can see what it does.
It's, you know, restraining the opponent's pieces, reducing counterplay.
It's kind of measurable in the chessboard not to give opponents too much of a chance to come back at
you.
So we also had, you know, the advances of the neural networks was absolutely fascinating as a game
changer.
Like Alphazero coming and beating Stockfish eight at the time was absolutely amazing, and I followed
avidly the Layla project.
I looked at lots and lots of later games and put them on channel because I thought they they represented
really interesting new ideas about how we think about chess.
So things like form pawns and things about sacrificing pawns, which we thought we threw away in the
romantic era.
But they came back with the neural networks because they're seeing a lot more.
The, the problem of the alpha beta engine approach, if that's a measure of truth, it's it's taking
material as one of the main considerations for evaluating positions.
And if it can't calculate how to get back the material, it often labels things as unsound.
But is that the truth of the matter?
Far much, far.
Seeing in a way, neural networks seeing games end to end can often justify very, very deep positional
pawn sacrifices, which the the alpha beta based traditional engines would underestimate quite often
to their peril.
So even in the engine world, the notion of truth is is kind of a function of how they actually operate
the strengths and weaknesses of different engine algorithms, you know, using neural networks.
So thankfully, in this course, by the way, all the game examples I've been checking with the latest
like Stockfish, which has neural network capability.
So we get some sort of notion of truth and objectivity to base our own attacking chess on.
I like in particular when I'm playing chess to be nerdy about the downsides of the opponent's position.
For me, that's I'm trading off mental effort and time to find issues objectively as I can in the opponent's
position.
But you need to retain the empathy that some positions are so many, there's so many traps they're worth
going into.
Even, you know, especially on fast the time controls, having the initiative, having the opponents
in like minefield situations is having the human empathy for the practical battle that we face against
other human beings.
So we should retain the idea of difficulty to play or, you know, how many landmines in this position,
how many is an absolute minefield of traps for the opponent?
You know, then we can we can play more freely gamuts because we get a certain level of success.
So okay, so we want to be biased, crushing in general in search of objectivity.
So if there's one thing to learn from alekhine, just one to remember from this course, Chess, first
of all, teaches you to be objective.
But yeah, it's a very, very hard thing in chess.
So here Alphazero against Stockfish in 2018.
So a computer match around 255.
So let's have a look at this position.
95 was played and actually there is a tactical threat which is kind of ignored in this position.
B5 was played, allows Knight takes a free check and it looks as a hold on hasn't black just won a pawn?
So Alphazero just doesn't mind.
It's kind of relaxed about this D4 because it's basically saying, well, that's a road to the king.
Well, I'm not I'm not saying for categorically I know what alphazero thinking, but it is a road to
the king is a semi-open fa which we know are pretty dangerous.
So there is a kind of gambit here being played.
And it is a you know, it looks pretty dangerous because we also have this dark square bishop without
a counterpart, which is an attack ingredient which is emphasized in this course.
So night bd7 we have Bishop E to Queen f6, the numbers should be two.
So there is a convergence, it seems, of a danger between the bishop and the rook.
So we have.
Four, which seemed more material grabbing.
So the traditional engines just looking after their material as a priority because it's easier to measure
for their evaluation functions.
So for saying have my --, take my pawns.
So Rook Geoffrey and the is a bit more in Siberia.
So we've got another attacking ingredient emphasized Queen the queen offsides semi final ingredients
bishop var counterpart ingredients, team ingredients rook and bishop Maybe other team members come
in rapidly while the defensive team is a bit asleep over here.
So things are brewing up in terms of attacking ingredients.
So castling, queenside.
So the teams coming together.
Bishop F3 concrete France now emerging like rook H one we have Queen H and Rook H one queen f6 and now
just King B one just saying I'm I'm chilled with the position.
I'm playing a quiet move here to improve prospects, getting my king a little bit safer.
G6 dot square weaknesses being being created Rook Jiji one just casually accepting this position, a
couple of pawns down and just trusting in the attacking ingredients, intuitively looking at the position,
not just the material element of the position.
So we have a full King one, so improve the king a bit more away from the opponent's light square.
Bishop So this is all a dot square now, Rook G seven and now E4.
So starting to open up things F4 if F takes E4 was played, Bishop takes E4, Queen f7 Bishops C one
for example.
This position is going to be nice for whites.
So for example, if it opens up here, so it opens up here, then this is going to be trouble.
After D5.
You can see things are brewing up on the diagonal in some lines, but anyway, F4 trying to keep things
shut down.
We have C5, Queen is Rook C one of six E5 trying to break open things again for the bishop.
And that's another ingredient.
We have the bishop pair here as well as the bishop without a counterpart and just rookie one.
So that's a very, very accurate move as well.
There is accuracy here.
If details are being played, it seems, you know, this would be fine for black.
There'll be no problems here objectively as far as we can tell.
So Rook HD one, though, pulls up the pressure and now opens up the position.
Bishop takes E4 Queen feint D5 so opening up the bishop so another pawn.
So right now isn't this rule breaking, you know, rule breaking.
But these are not the hard rules like legal rules of chess, where rule breaking in terms of giving
out all the pawns.
Wasn't this isn't this a very unsound gambit system being played in this game?
Free pawns down now so Bishop G4 every willing to give another pawn Bishop D7 if Bishop takes him free.
You know Rook have won.
We're going to be getting a pawn back with interest with that nasty pin on the Queen and we can build
up our team.
Pressure builds up here on F6 with interest, so we actually end up being better there.
So Bishop D7, we have Queen C3 piling on the pressure amplification strategy, which is very good.
Nice H five We have rook five C6 rook C one amplifying the rooks as well.
So there's authority being built up.
That's a great attack ingredient to build up firewall authority and amplification authority on the diagonal.
We have six.
We have queen the full centralising slightly C takes B five so you can see C meltdowns evidence if rookie
eight her rook takes the 8/19 be six.
And this position is fascinating because because of this authority know that's mate.
So what happens here if if six this is almost like a zugzwang Queen's sub six what does black actually
play here?
Bishop C Then this rook takes E and Queen's hands G seven If H five, then believe it or not, you know
there's another attacking ingredient here, not just in terms of making the King, but the past pawns
lost to expand.
We have Bishop A6 here it's a crusher and then B seven.
And you know, black is overstretch.
So a wonderful position where we start to see symptoms.
You know, this doesn't look like a good move in principle.
It dismantles the pawn chain.
Bishop B1 is not mining all these pawns down, but who has the actual authority in the possession here?
So this is material grabbing versus authority.
So there's amplification, there's a foul authority, there's kind of.
Yeah, there's pressure points.
We have Bishop C six.
If rook c eight as rook takes D5 as possible, this possession of queen takes the E5, check Queen D
four and then we have Queen D six and this possession we can play Bishop A2.
Ouch.
Look at these absolutely wonderful bishops.
So Bishop C six, Rookie six Rook have some rogue G one Look at the pressure being built up on these
key squares around the King.
Queen G seven Queen takes her for rookie eight rook D 697 Queen cc1 rook have six.
We have now a four.
And look at this slow motion attack with F5 trying to destroy and undermine the opponent's king.
So here Rook takes up 6 to 9, takes another F5.
Wow, what a thing to do being so many pawns down.
But you know, it would take distant endgames to exploit any of these extra pawns.
In the meantime, the black king is under fire.
We have f tanks G6 here.
This has now reached, you know, reached a desperate point, was a meltdown of King's safety.
And so Queenie free and she is a desperate attempt to get rid of the queen's.
But white now is is winning in this position.
This is an absolutely winning position.
It's a big of rook have won, for example.
It's just overwhelming this position we have Knight 6h7, which is desperate.
That's just giving up a piece rookie free and one is able to convert this into a win with the extra
bishop.
So what on earth have we seen here?
You know, it's a battle of objectivity, game changer, as Natasha Ragan and Matthew said in a book,
game changer how neural networks have changed kind of the rules of the game.
Not not the hard, hard rules, the legal rules, but the rules of strategy, the rules of tactics,
the rules of material versus authority of the possession.
So that almost echoes central occupation versus central control.
You want authority in the possession.
You don't just want to be extra material.
Material is a bit like occupation.
It's about an unjust occupation, having more material, occupying things.
You really want your pieces to have authority.
So here, you know, black resigns.
Now, this is a very, very light analysis.
I just wanted to highlight to you.
We're in a continual search for objectivity.
Chess is such a vast, astronomically, vast game that even, you know, our relatively recent engines
just a few years back are not playing to the limits of the game by any stretch, even on long time controls,
There's more beautiful things to be uncovered.
Chess is such a supremely rich game.
So our objectivity.
Needs to be kind of moderated because we play a very ridiculous fast time controls quite often.
If you like online chess, like me.
And so just having fun with the game, you know, having pressure points, having king attacks, that
bias is acceptable because the opponents are often not able to find, you know, the objective, the
sound continuations and they're using time on the clock as well, which is another piece of the chessboard,
the opponent's clock.
You can use it as a weapon.
If you're so much up in time, that's going to be winning new games in practice.
So there's a difference between practice and theory as well.
But anyway, the key thing I wanted to say with this introduction, nature, it's useful to be bias
crushing in general, not just in chess, but in other subjects.
You know, we're continually learning all the time in science, in technology, in mathematics, in
physics, especially all the arguments in physics, how new theories overtake previous theories.
So this search of bias crushing in search for objectivity are tools like modern chess engines help us
to become more, more kind of biased crushing.
It's good to do even just quick post-mortems If you lose even online games just to sharpen things,
it's often very, very useful to sharpen ideas, to sharpen opening variations, to get rid of the flaws.
I know it's painful.
I'll you just play this game.
You want to forget about it and go to the tomb.
But it's good to sometimes if you get a few minutes, just quickly review.
If the longer the time it's the more painful, the more those deeper postmortems get you even more kind
of ideas to reformat your game a bit, to to revisit, to reduce bias in your game.
So, yes, for me, you know, chess is about being super nerdy about the opponent's position to find
the downsides.
I like to put in the effort the time to get those finesses of possession, to build up those small little
upsides, the accumulation of little upsides, so we get a crushing attacks from that.
So, yeah, bias crushing in search of objectivity is a very interesting thing that Alekhine had said.
Chess, first of all, teaches you to be objective.
Okay, I hope you enjoy this little lecture of things to think about.
Thanks very much.