Hi there.
If you think about what is the relationship between my free golden ingredients of calculation, I routinely
use weakness of who last move.
Isn't that looking for opportunities to get squares that the opponent neglected?
Isn't the common squares also, in a way, getting access to squares where your pieces cooperate so
they give you a license to use squares, which previously you couldn't without losing material to in
a way that squares as well.
And the in effect clause, isn't that about squares as well, when you have discovery of facts, you're
gaining access to certain squares.
When you're liberating pieces, you're gaining access to squares not just for where the piece actually
moved and what it frightens, but other pieces now are looking at squares that they weren't.
So even the act of liberation, the discovery of facts is about squares.
Chess is about squares.
Sometimes you can access the squares in the most outrageous ways.
Unimaginable.
Here is a Boris Spassky comment, a combination Boris Spassky played Fischer in the 1972 match.
He is a great legends in his own right.
He was for a long time the strongest Russian grandmaster.
Here were the black pieces.
He plays a stunning move which illustrates this lost to win squares.
If this is the commonality between my three golden ingredients that have given you essentially that
that goal in itself to win sequences is very greatly emphasized in this position, in dramatic fashion.
If we follow our ingredients and look for the very forcing moves, we can look at all the checks, we
can look at all the captions, and more subtly, we can look at all the frat's.
The major top major France will be a of making one or two.
I don't mean major frat's like twenty to a pawn to one night.
No one.
I talk about major France, I'm talking about France and making one and two.
Those are going to win new games, more of them.
Not if you're in the middle of a blitz game, for example, and you threaten to win a pawn, you could
end up winning on a pawn by then, losing on time.
If you want to be more effective than any time, control.
When you consider your frat's, make the major make them war ending frat's, not battle ending frat's.
You want to win the war.
Not a little battle.
So major, major frat's of one or two.
You know, when you prioritize the forcing moves and see the impact on winning squares, basically the
weaknesses of the last move that you create.
So here can we actually do something which is really, really significant in this position?
If I give you five seconds, pause video, what would you play?
So you might want to check all checks and there's at least two checks to check out.
Yep, so in our prioritization of forcing moves and he captures where we can capture on B5.
And he frets that one or two, so kind of war ends in France, major France.
OK, I hope you clarified the checks on this occasion, don't actually do that much if we look at this
check and it's kind of a false move by King one, where's the follow up?
The night adequately protects H2.
So even if we move on Queenan, we're still not threatening anything.
It's adequately protected.
I think it was adequately protected.
Well, what about the other one?
Again, kind of same story.
So we're getting nowhere and we haven't actually won any squares that we didn't have access to.
If we look at the threats now, there's no major captures either.
I mean, Bishop so wants no big deal.
OK, I can tell you that anyway.
But if we look now at the threats of meeting one or two more threats of making one or two, do we have.
Well, actually, we can Fransen A in one by the Queen G5 or an outrageous way, so you might lose the
Queen G5 and you do gain access.
It seems you weaken, for example, with Jeoffrey, you can get into Afri and maybe, you know, that
would have been dangerous, but it doesn't seem that dangerous there and nor does it seem that dangerous
there.
And in fact, you know, the opponent also has this option potentially.
So that's not major.
It doesn't prove to the winner's squares.
But there is a move which Bruce, the Windsor Squares.
Which is the main one, which is not Queen G5.
Can you spot it?
OK, and it's Queensferry, yeah, we're friends of mine, one, there's no G Frager's G2, so really
we are disrupting the opponents -- configuration.
When we do that, that's often major golden opportunities arise.
So they actually have to take that.
And you're poor moving from that's their kraatz to weaknesses potentially.
Renfree have now been significantly weakened.
So we've kind of won squares in a totally dramatic, forceful way.
Which way to take on a free.
Now, we want access sometimes to the common squares, and if we take with a knife, we don't actually
get any killer common squares to speak of.
There's no way to create anything of significance.
For example, we haven't got a rock on G5 to mean rock Jiwon.
There isn't a common square on Jiwon.
H2 is guarded.
So what about the other way of checking?
Do we have any access to potentially killer common squares in this position where two pieces can cooperate
as a team?
Is there such a move which actually frightens, I might add, one in this position as well?
OK, Jeffrey, we're actually threatening Bishop G to checkmate and in fact, what can we do once only
got Spight chance here to follow if quintets we just take one of us won't do nothing once getting checkmated.
So it looks as though.
Hold on.
So this example is actually kind of very interesting.
We're gaining dramatic example to squares and we're using the common squares after finding exactly the
right chance to use it.
Yes, a remarkable move.
It's a stunner.
It's a beauty, in my view.
This Queensferry free.
But the main principle I wanted to illustrate wasn't, you know, the flashiness of this.
I think the undertone in general, the undertone philosophy of my golden ingredients is about winning
squares in chess.
If you win squares, you gain access to things that help you win games and squares that often help you
win games.
So here this is just a dramatic example of that spirit of winning squares and how, you know, when
you prioritize forcing moves, you need to see what squares you're winning.
So that ambition's win squares must be linked to the ambition of winning games.
The more you want to win squares, the more you're probably going to win games.
Two people looking at the same position, one finds one winning squares, the other doesn't.
That's your difference between you and your rivals.
Your ambition to win squares is the undertone, the actual tools which have those in common that ambition.
Yeah, the weakness of the last move, always on the lookout for what the opponent we can do have got
access to that square, the killer CommScope, common square, as always.
And look out for getting your team of pieces, cooperating on those squares, in effect, gaining access
to those squares and the liberation of the facts, making sure your pieces are kind of liberated enough
active enough fish to try to keep his pieces active and liberated, sometimes even compromises pawn
structure because he wants his pieces liberated.
And when you look at the liberation of facts or moves, then you'll be more keen to sometimes open up
positions.
You'll be more keen to do amazing pawn sacrifices like Fisher did to brilliantly crush opponents because
he sees the subtle liberationist effects all around the position.
Gaining access to squares, gaining access to squares should become a passion within a passion.
In fact, it is a common thing about these free golden ideas.
Some food for thought that I hope may you win squares and win games.
OK, thanks very much.