Hi there in Atlanta, I'd like to go over some key points relating to winning tips that still respects
you as the long term chess player that you want to develop and evolve.
You want to respect the golden goose that's you, not just the eggs they lay, metaphorically speaking,
at least.
I hope you don't lay any golden eggs yet.
You know, you might want to see someone about that if that happens.
But OK, so the style of play, let's take the likes of fish in the spotlight.
What was it about their style of play which gave them phenomenal results?
Well, I have studied Fisher in depth.
I mean, check out my favorite courses.
I've looked in particular is key, important wins and some key observations.
He tries to always have good piece activity generally and counterplay if you don't have good piece activity.
So you have a bad behavior or pieces outside the game or not developed, they are unlikely to be able
to generate any tactics that are meaningful that could cause the opponent any problems.
You are unlikely to be able to take advantage of any downsides of the opponent's position because your
pieces are just not active enough.
Quite often Bobby Fischer would seek help on structures which are more dynamic.
And when I say dynamic fishing spot for very dynamic players, they often valued tactics and combinations
and piece play rather than pawn structure, the more static world champions.
And you need to find out what side of the fence you are.
And there's nothing wrong with either side of the fence.
By the way, you can either choose to be more like Capablanca simplicity and elegance or you can be
like Arlequin.
You can either choose to be like Petrosian risk averse or Boris Spassky.
You can either choose to be Anatoly Karpov or Kasparov.
These contrasts in playing style evidence at the highest levels.
But make no mistake, they are well rounded chess players.
They know all the fundamentals.
They just have a stylistic tendency.
So that's why they tend to think it's good for you to be aware.
And if you do want to be a dynamic, aggressive player, then generally you'd value good piece activity
and can't play.
If you want to be a player that minimizes losses and wants to just control possessions, then you want
to look at reducing your opponent's counterplay, generally making sure they don't have any possibilities
or good piece activity.
You play in it more long for Fluxus style.
If you do want to be aggressive, then you play for like King attacks.
Generally, if you want to be more positional about Paul strikes, you play for damaging the opponents,
Paul's structure and accumulating small advantages systematically, more based on Paul's structure than
King attacks for Fischer and Kasparov.
Quite often they would play very, very aggressively to attack their opponents.
King But make no mistake, even if you look at the more positional players that say where I'm chosen,
you know, as soon as he's accumulated significant position advantage, he would go in for, you know,
the king attack to finish the opponents off because the king let's think about the king, the opponents
king, the object.
The game is checkmate.
And that's one of the key ways of winning.
Assuming you don't want to win on time, generally, you're going to win by checkmate or the opponent
resigning because they feel they're in a totally lost position.
But generally so the opponents king is the most vulnerable piece to attack.
And you could be down on material.
This is the undo button metaphore that sometimes even when you're lost, you can carry out Swindells
based on the opponents king.
If you make the opponents king, you've won the game.
Still, you could have been a queen, a bishop, a rook down.
You could have been totally lost throughout the entire game.
But if you checkmate the opponents king, then you've actually won.
And this is actually a healthy interest to have.
Even if you do want to become a world champion like Fischer and Kasparov, they did prioritize going
for the king, the likes of fishing spot Kasparov.
That was a great priority for them.
So the Kings, the most sensitive piece, don't underestimate King.
Same thing when you look at chess positions in terms of how you evaluate them.
So it's not just about who's material up, who's got the best.
Putin's Russia.
It's all of you know, also about, you know, king safety piece activity as well.
King safety piece activity.
And, you know, the pool structure is is very important for structural weaknesses.
Outpost's can help you leverage any plans whatsoever, whether that be a king attack or positional plans
based on winning more material or increasing positional advantages further.
But generally, if you're a dynamic.
Aggressive player, and you want the role models of fashion as an example, then you would go for dynamic
pawn structures which don't sometimes look that great but offer you good peace activity in counterplay.
You would play fighting opening's even the black pieces like this to sitting in the fence.
They both gravitated on the same night or for example, against 194 Sicilian.
Neudorf became a major weapon of choice because my life was influenced by Fashir.
He also wanted to win with the black pieces to win every game as much as possible.
And they both were very, very aggressive to do with opponents kings, and they were both relentless
in putting the opponents under extreme pressure.
Sometimes in chess, there's a choice of simplifying the game and not keeping as much tension going.
You got to be wary sometimes that a lot of that a lot of those games where you simplify could end up
as a draw.
So sometimes keeping it in a complex mental game rather than transitioning to an end game, they might
be making huge mistakes, especially with King safety, which could be far more fatal than, say, you
are pulling up in some endgame, which they might somehow get away with a draw.
So when you knock them out in the middle game with King attacks, you are sometimes maximizing your
probability of winning now.
We go into another section here.
I have a strong link between the opening and the middle game.
If you add the extreme like Memrise, only a few moves of the opening, but don't know how that goes
into the mental game, it makes the whole thing less effective.
You're let down by your weakest links if you're let down by your weak links in the chain that you can't
carry on the good mental game in-game, then you're not going to be winning.
You got to avoid these weak links in the chain.
And ideally, anything you do sort of become aware of in the opening, you know how to follow through
to the mental game and even a view of in-game structures.
But essentially, though, your openings should be initially connected, at least ideally to middle
game plans, and you can quite often get that linkage.
If you just look at masta games, look at games, especially in your of poor morphing the romantic era
players pull Morphy out of hands and look at their games from and ends.
Try and get that linkage between the opening in the middle game.
If you want to see more modern players, you know, look at Fashir is my recommendation.
Not so much Kasparov because opening very also had a big gravitational pull for computer technology
improving in the Fisher era.
You know, computers weren't so powerful, so the openings are much more complicated later.
So I look at Fashir, which is a blend of basically Paul Morphy and Capablanca, kind of like another
one.
Basically those three players, if you look at end to end their games, Ansen Anderson of a not Alfonsin
of and Paul Morphy.
Capablanca, wrong.
Kind of like a.
Bobby Fischer, those are great places to study because opening ferry in the technicalities hadn't taken
off with the gravity of technology, you know, chess engines becoming more and more powerful.
You want to get that?
View of the link between the opening and resulting medal games and also there are openings and there
are openings, you can choose an opening which suits your particular style temperaments and maybe how
you felt on that day.
If you're feeling tired, you might want to just rely on a standard system that you know well more than
be adventurous.
So you have to know yourself on that particular day.
You know the answer for principle.
If you know yourself and the opponent, you need not fear the result of a thousand.
But also if you know yourself and your opponent, you choose openings which hopefully are not in the
opponents strengths and more than your strengths and how you feel.
And if you have that link between the opening of the mental game because you've looked at games and
trends, see also change of the way he's undertaking games end to end, you know, most instructive
games of chess on the China box generally.
Then you'll get that link is stronger and stronger.
So you don't want these things totally in isolation.
The sort of academic, if they're in isolation, if you just that opening and it's sort of academic,
if you don't really know the mental game, the linkage to the mental game.
So you don't want these things just in their own vacuum.
You want this linkage all the way through and you want to not have weak links in your chain.
And this is a natural way for you to maximize your win probability without sacrificing the golden goose,
laying those wins, those golden eggs, which we call wins in chess, essentially also specifically
in hope things.
There are also techniques for move ordering, which might give you a more comfortable position than
you would.
So think about move ordering as well in the opening.
And generally we're in the spirit here of maximizing win probability.
So any strategies you learn from any course, it's all pretty academic if it's not translated into wins.
Right.
You might think, is there one that this stuff is actually going to help me win?
Well, yeah, on the particular, you know, time control particular opponent, if you take account
of all these details.
So no, the opponent, no yourself and you take account of all those details, then you can actually
use everything you learn from a sort of win probability perspective.
How how does actually this opening lead to a win probability against this particular opponent seeking
try and work these things out?
So there's almost the probability perspective, a win portability perspective.
You've got all your knowledge and it's been put into this, your own probability.
Of outcome that you're thinking, well, against this opponent this time control, I think I have greatest
chance to win with this and this one playing or if I speed up and if I was going to run out of time,
that's brutal.
If you're playing online, then that's different from the fish and the sport.
If they weren't playing online, but online, you know, the clock is also another kind of detail.
But when you look at the in his over the bull blitz tournaments, he also did very his own things considerably,
depending on certain opponents like against McDonald's, how he played much more solid.
I mean, he's never played before in the normal time with trials.
So sometimes, you know, things morph into weird things, which you wouldn't expect even for the likes
of Fisher.
You know, he will adjust according to the details of the situation because he's seeing the win probability
outcomes so that adaptation does exist.
If you look at, you know, Fisher's blitz tournaments, for example, and he might be playing differently
again, in some ways, he might become very aggressive gambits.
Try not people out early, you know, with very aggressive gambit.
So the customization of one's play, depending on the details you take into account, all go into the
mix of maximizing the win probability that you estimate.
But the key ones here in this particular match are good piece activity counterplay.
Make sure you have counterplay value going for King atax.
It's a great way of knocking out the opponent even in the middle game before there's no end game.
Keeping the opponents on the pressure, not accepting a draw too early.
Even if you risk losing, it's a learning experience.
If you treat it as a learning experience, then you know you will learn more about a particular end
game instead of just figuring a draw.
Just just see the resources in the end game, you know, play it through unless it's become so apparent
as a draw.
But these these are general terms for maximizing the win probability without too much compromise, like
playing a good trap.
You don't want to compromise your position.
You know, good traps don't compromise your position.
You certainly might fall into that, but you don't damage your position.
If you want good winning tips, you don't want to compromise your future self, your development as
a great player in the future.
So there are some legitimate ways of doing this.
And if you're more dynamic, aggressive player, then these things are kind of very valuable, OK,
to think about.
That's so much.