Hi there.
In this lecture, let's look at some interesting, inspirational Garry Kasparov attacking chess quotations.
So one of his quotations is he basically sees his own style as a symbiosis of the styles of Alekhine
Tao and Fischer.
And if you look up the term symbiosis, sometimes when there's a symbiotic relationship with species,
sometimes.
You know, they both benefit.
Two species might benefit.
For example, sometimes only one of them benefits at the expense of the other, and sometimes both don't
benefit at all is better without it.
But I'm sure he's talking about in the positive sense.
Hopefully he benefits from blending the styles of the coin tower and fish appropriately, depending
on the position he has on the chessboard.
Sometimes it might, for example, be advantageous to put on the tail hat and increase the complexity,
or maybe on other occasions just put on the fish hat to play, you know, more solidly in a universal
style playing, you know, to the details of the position without too much bias, a universal style.
But Laconia has a bit of a bias towards attacking the king and combinations.
So this symbiosis in a positive sense, he's getting benefits, it would seem, ideally from fusing
the best of all the styles and being appropriate to the position he has and the demands he has.
He might need to win a game or he might just be content with the draw to the tournament situation and
the position in front of him and the opponent.
All of that factored in and then choosing the aspects of style from those players.
So I do have courses on Talon Fischer for you to check out as well if you want to learn from Talon Fischer.
So okay.
He also said who else in chess history has won so many serious games with the help of brilliant tactical
strokes?
So when he's talking about Alekhine, yeah, he's absolutely brilliant tactical strokes.
They kind of help advertise the interest of Alekhine's whole playing style that we want to learn.
How did he get those positions?
That becomes the big question how do we actually get those attacking positions as well?
So he also said attackers may sometimes regret bad moves, but it is much worse to forever regret an
opportunity.
You allow it to pass you by.
I guess a relevant analogy might be Jeff Bezos.
You know, he was working in some company and he thought, you know, should he start up Amazon?
So and that was an opportunity.
He took a broader brush opportunity rather than any particular mistakes he might have made when working
at Amazon.
Maybe he made some mistakes, but the broader opportunity he took of leaving his kind of steady income
job to set up Amazon.
So these these broader opportunities we take on the chessboard rather than specific moves.
That's what I kind of sense in this quotation.
That's one interpretation perhaps you could have, he says.
I like to say the attacker always has the advantage for me.
Yeah, personally, the potential to slip up, especially at faster time, which holds the attacker
for me, has the advantage because, you know, you could you could make the opponents, if they make
one wrong, slip up.
Of course, as an attacker, you could also have your attack defused and later lose.
But you know, especially the fast, faster the time.
So having the attack is advantageous.
And even in one day chess, you know, if the opponent is under pressure, you know, before a time.
So they kind of more likely to slip up even if they were kind of even at some point if they're on the
defensive back foot, you know, it's like there's a potential for disaster.
So the attacker, in a sense, always has the advantage.
Interesting comments.
He says it's altcoins attacks came suddenly like destructive thunderstorms that erupted from a clear
sky.
Yes, that is evident in so many alekhine games is because he's got such a desire to create compensatory
play.
It's almost like totally unexpected, like a thunderstorm from a clear sky.
And he says, in contrast to Fischer with his propensity for clarity, you know, simplification, keeping
things simple clear.
And to Karpov, who grew up on Capablanca games, you know, Capablanca said he would prefer a very
small advantage if it was very, very clear and non-controversial.
So but from his early years, I was enormously influenced by Alekhine's play and won over by his unprecedented
feat in the 1927 match.
The 1927 match with Capablanca Alekhine was the underdog, had only lost to Capablanca, never beaten
him, so it was unprecedented to beat Capablanca in the 1927 match.
I admired the refinement of his ideas, and I tried as far as possible to imitate his furious attacking
style with its sudden and thunderous sacrifices.
So that's what we want to be.
By the end of this course, we want to have what seems to be clear skies and we produce thunder for
our opponents to handle or maybe not to handle, and we win brilliantly.
So he says, I used to attack because it was the only thing I knew.
Now I attack because I know it works best.
Yes, there's an object.
They weren't playing.
But if you're playing against humans, we're not playing against computers yet.
If you put them on the back foot for their king safety and the potential to slip up, it really often
does work best.
And of, you know, they're also consuming potentially vast amounts of time trying to defend accurately.
He says when your house is on fire and you can't be bothered with the neighbors, you can't be bothered
with neighbors, friends, Don't be saying chess.
If your king is under attack, you don't worry about losing a pawn on the queen's side.
So, yeah, actually, it should be.
Really?
If the opponent's king is under attack.
Yeah.
Especially in King's Indian Defense.
I think there's so many vivid examples of sparring from the King's Indian defense.
You know, kings in the defense plays in particular.
They don't worry about the definite demolition of the back of their queenside losing material in their
queenside if they're going to chat my on the king side.
So yeah, it's a priority.
It creates an independence of losing material.
It creates a priority system.
You're more concerned with meeting the opponent's king than your material concerns or with structure
concerns, material and pawn structure.
Well, they're just tools.
You just, you know, checkmate ends the game.
So, okay, let me show you a little bit of a game example.
This is a dramatic game where Kasparov actually is material down against Karpov in round 16 of the 1986
match.
But it's absolutely a winning position.
Yeah, this is a winning position.
Even though Black has an extra bishop, the attack is rampant here.
Karpov has actually gone wrong.
Can you see what Kasparov plays here?
If I give you 5 seconds to pause the video, it's actually a really brutal position.
So Rook Takes G6 is a range of these pieces for this attack from from way back.
You'll see this game analyzed in detail in the course.
So Rook takes G6 now threatens this made him one.
We have Queen E five, which seems to be a killjoy.
It's like exchange in Queen's, but we need to sometimes celebrate that.
That is going to be a mechanism which we need to anticipate quite often in our attacking chess Rook
g eight Check King is seven and there's a big snag now in this position for black.
Guess what that is.
What is at play here?
Okay, this is annoying.
The cup of tea six check.
So we have King E six.
If Queen takes D six, we have this nice fork.
So yes, so D six check.
Very nice.
Or queen takes the same kind of folk mechanism.
We've got Knights five check.
So Karpov compelled to play King e6 but now rookie eight Shank King d5 taking the queen.
We've checked nine takes and now DS seven Ruby and now 96 FS have won a crushing finish to the game.
So if Knight takes up seven Queen tanks B eight and then just cleaning Black's pawn is not going anywhere.
So this was the crushing end to one of Garry Kasparov games.
And you'll see this game in detail how it how we got to that position, how Kasparov got to that position.
So, yes, Kasparov is like one of the primary layers of this course to be built on.
As the course evolves, there'll be more and more examples from time to time.
This course is a bit of a work in progress, but the first primary kind of layer is Alexander Alekhine
in particular.
Because he's shown so much admiration from Alekhine.
We really need to know the source of Garry Kasparov, because when we look at the modern, more modern
Garry Kasparov games, sometimes it's very, very complicated home preparation which comes in as well,
which might obscure some of the concepts and principles we need for our own chess.
So by looking at source, that's great.
You looking at alekhine games that often more simple but still kind of complex in their own right,
though of course we need to take great care to analyse in detail and really respect each and every example
the nuances, try and clarify the frets at each point in the game, try and look at objectively the
game, how it could be improved.
Objectivity is our key for scaling up to stronger and stronger opponents.
So anyway, I hope you enjoyed this set of quotations from Kasparov.
I think they're inspirational, you know, encouraging, attacking players.
So yeah, we're wearing a kind of mascot for attacking chess here.
But, you know, sound attacking chess, attacking chess, which could get you all the way to becoming
world chess champion potentially.
Okay.
That's very much.