Hi there.
In this lecture, I'm going to talk about the --'s irreversibility aspect.
This is what really attracted me to do my advanced portraits, of course, because --'s reflects a
very, very commendable decision that we actually take for granted quite often in the opening of often
we either playful or defore.
And this is the recommendation that you take this risk of doing a poor move, which is irreversible
because of its benefits.
When you play before you're opening up a bishop and you're opening up the queen and you're laying a
stake in the center, the central squares.
So if for all recommendable moves, there was in chance the modern revolution where the modernists started
to question this fundamental belief that we actually need to occupy the center with --'s so, Breyer
said after efore once game is in its last throes, as if, you know, this could be this is it once
this week in the Nepal and in theory it is in trouble.
So the hyper Montanas fault that they can actually control the center not literally by occupying with
pawns, but maybe letting the opponent set up a center and gaining advantages later through undermining
it.
Now, I have a very interesting example game of Richard Rati, who kind of popularized the retie opening.
So this is named after him.
Not afraid you might think is not afraid.
Such a terrible move because it's not like 844 is a terrible move.
It's a flexible move.
The like could always go back, totally reverse its decision.
So it's an example of not committing to the center, the right opening.
So this game I like to show you against kind of blank in 1924 shows there are sometimes benefits of
not occupying center so rapidly, at least with 844, we see 96 and actually we see CIFOR here
now.
Gee, things are now before.
So in fact, there's still an idea of controlling central squares.
But just with a thin cazzo here where pieces can look over central squares, we see some should be two.
And Capablanca counseled Jeoffrey.
So I think that's on this side of the board.
BASIX, G2, which should be some white console desex.
The frame
we see might be the seventh night we need to A5.
So camp like commence a pawn in the center.
Finally we say Quincy to Ruki eight, F.T. one a five, a free a six and only to have one.
So is this whole opening a kind of provocation told to get black to commit these pawns which are kind
of irreversible.
We see now C five another pawns are locked with each other after five minutes of a free.
And here we see a hint that actually maybe there is a problem with the pawn.
Only five that Y can undermine with the four and try and stretch out this bishop.
So Quincy's seven we see DeFore so hitting that 85 pawn of the Bishop E4 Quincy Frame Capablanca shows
signs that he's not totally understanding what's going on here and why he plays after eating Ayesha's
967 six to seven.
Pinning this pawn
better here was actually 96.
So, for example, detainees see fine details.
This should be fine for black resolve.
This situation should be fine for black, where black can actually get control of the four by Covington
starts to go a little bit wrong here with this move.
Sixty 637 we see Corindi to see takes Bishop takes the form.
So what's the problem that blacks pawn has been swapped off by white central control is starting to
be evidence with pieces.
So it's starting to show actually, you know, the fundamental goal when we move --'s especially in
the center, is to try and get control of central squares.
Do we really need even that occupation if it is quite commensal and is subject to undermining?
So this is a very, very clever move offering CIFOR that's actually taken Bishop saying's Kinsley's
Queen Bee to check King Gate now Route 66.
Why Central Control starts to be superior to Blacks Now of the Quincy Farms of Haiti.
One way controls this nice defo.
So what has happened?
Has Black really played such terrible moves by Ogborn cents a litre for it to be undermined?
Well it depends who wins the war of central control, not occupation, but actual central control.
So Rook a seven, we see 93.
Queen five.
This is a tricky position with black.
Now if Rocsi 794 as an example and look at these, we can dance squares with the absence of that dance.
Quite bishop here, for example, Rook takes seven would be nice to take off the rope ties and then
they have six chac so there are some issues.
So Quiñones five is plaint.
Stopping at least 94, but after 94, yeah, this livescribe is exchanged off and white central control
seems even more evident now after C4 hits in the Queen Protecting the rock.
Twenty five nights he sings nicely entrenched tonight on C6.
So both everyone's bishops have gone.
But the aftermath in the center is very interesting to consider here.
So Health 93 95, if queen aged five had, then actually this is a powerful move.
135 hitting the queen.
And then, you know, again, pawns don't go backwards so quickly to looking at even more pressure now
on blacks possession, for example, like this is, it's getting very, very powerful for why this kind
of situation winning material.
So as an example, so 95 was played and here of the rook, 135 -- queen of night, that's a disaster
for black Capablanca resigned.
So this is a move, 31 devastation.
So this game showed in a theoretical sense, you know, the threat is a worthy opening in its own right
and it doesn't commit a pawn to the center.
So is this kind of rewriting the rules outlined that you should start with central control?
Yeah, but central control is a little bit distinct from central occupation.
With the RedZone opening, you are aiming to try and control the central squares later.
You're trying to dominate them as we see in this game.
But it can be off to the opponents has committed pawns in the sense that if we just rewind back here,
Capablanca had committed pawns and later steps were made to undermine E5.
So that's a thing about --'s because they're irreversible.
It's like.
You're setting up sometimes the construction for the opponents to literally undermine later, maybe
with the advantage of taking control over the center.
So the modernists were making very, very useful points.
They were trying to find useful exceptions to established theory.
And this type of modern agenda is is demonstrated here against, you know, one of the strongest players
in the world.
Can Plancarte, 1924, Richard Reti, a leading kind of hyper modernist, carried it off to actually
conceptually show that basically you don't need to literally occupy the center initially at least,
and you can sort of undermine independent central construction.
So we see, you know, from these humble beginnings with this undermining plan that can lead to advantage.
OK, like it could have upgraded as played out, but unfamiliarity and the need to improvise in such
situations will increase the possibility usually of mistakes and errors.
So with this in mind, you know, pushing --'s occupying the center sometimes just be way, you know,
they can be undermined as pawns are a reflection of so-called irreversible, you know, decisions.
Sometimes there's a lucrative business to pushing pawns like the excitement of a possible but I possible
can become a liability in its own right.
Pawns can become weak and difficult to defend.
And the more dependence on PCs to defend such pawns is like the whole obsession can sometimes become
overloaded, just looking after structural weaknesses.
So here, just to recap this undermining of Black Center.
Yeah.
Led to what?
Essentially controlling sense, especially after this task where Bishop had gone.
It's like leaving some square gaping weaknesses in Black's position to deal with.
And these lines are springing up and kind of celebrating.
These these kind of downsides of Black's position by the defo here is just super annoying as well.
Barring this default pressure, we're already at this stage, it moved twenty 24, you know, capitalized,
only lasting six moves from here to thirty one.
So at this point, the big central control is being demonstrated.
So, yes, if we consider that central control doesn't need occupation and capital moves, if we can
play in a more independent way without introducing liabilities, that's generally interesting thing.
So, yes, in this game we see that kind of hyper modernist approach.
And, you know, the legends like Fisher and Kasparov used, you know, systems which allow the opponent
to occupy the center like the kinsinger in the fence.
So these principles remain and have been successful for some of the world champions.
The high blondness made very, very useful contributions to the whole theory of the game.
But this one notion of having to occupy the center literally with pawns is challenged.
Challenge that actually, you know, what about just control or let the opponent occupy for you to undermine
later to try and get control.
So it's actually in the battle of control rather than occupation of the center or the extended center.
We want to control like the extended center.
We can think of the four key squares and if we want, we can extend that out either horizontally or
vertically a little bit.
And if our pieces have such influence like here, the won't influence over the center and how it evolves
over the next six moves.
Let's look at that in slow motion.
So 93 setting up some dangerous France already like 94 and the Queens just awkward the queen.
The pieces are kind of very, very passive here.
And, you know, Ninety-four weakens Blackhorn online squares, meaning that there's going to be a 966
controlling even more dark squares once those bishops come off.
It seems, you know, it's campaign getting rid of blacks, bishops.
Why it's sort of dominance now on lights, squares and dance choirs here.
So this is just a monster monster kind of night on C6 as well, so this is this is a vivid, modern
example which kind of sets a tone for general the viability of not having to commit pawns in the center.
I mean, what was black doing here anyway?
This is such a tricky position.
The queen is kind of stranded because of that night anyway.
Why is threatening a move like this to trap the queen?
So, you know, if Queen H5 streaker, you know, Rook here is strong and ham, for example, Queen
detA and then there's big issues here, how you know, how black actually kind of play this position.
Blacks in a kind of virtual zugzwang here almost.
And, you know, potentially this idea is to trap the queen G for later if don't be a, you know, crashing
through to rotate.
But what what exactly is black doing?
It's such an impressive position here in terms of central control.
So in this vivid example.
So this is Richard reticence canceling the 1924.
So, you know, many of the leading players in the world showing that actually you don't even need to
play one E4.
So it's a prop..
But look at the fundamental philosophy of it with this game example.
So sometimes you can just let the opponent occupy to undermine later and gain control of key central
squares.
So that central battle and also just generally weaknesses around the king as well in this game.
So it's not always about literal occupation.
So there is that mindset that sometimes you don't mind the opponent occupying or extending forward because
you can undermine later and gain access to key squares.
OK, I hope that's a little bit of an interesting concept to consider.
--'s are criminal in nature and the modernists like Reti celebrated that fact with certain innovations
in opening theory and ideas generally.
OK, that's a much.