Hi there in this election, I want to touch on specific points and a little bit more depth, so choice
of opening is one of them.
Not pretending to be XPath or any other modern grandmother by imitating their initial moves, especially
and understanding the purpose of movies and the general plans of the position.
So we're going to look at these in depth.
So first of all, choice of opening, believe it or not, there was a book called Chess for Tigers,
which I found very, very interesting as a junior player.
And I actually recommended looking at one's own opening statistics, the windrow losses of one's openings.
And I looked at the openings that almost statistically, you know, winning for me.
And I use those openings with great effect, two months.
And in fact, that was one of the things which contributed to me winning the lowest back junior under
18 tournament in 1999 was picking openings, which statistically I seem to have good results with.
And when you do that, you're kind of finding openings that do align with your strengths, your current
strengths.
There is a kind of longer term potential learning downside, though, that you're not actually experienced
in positions you're that weekend you might not have experience in playing against I'd queen spawns.
You prefer to have the position closed in a build up attack instead.
So sometimes you might miss out on learning opportunities for different pawn structures, different
concepts in chess, which might help you become a more well-rounded player and against even stronger
opposition later could help you, you know, scale up your results against even stronger and stronger
opponents.
So I would be a little bit wary about this method.
However, you know, there's a kind of you can have also a learning mode and so of where you definitely
want the performance both to maximize the results.
So generally sticking with if the result really counts for, say, your team or or other reasons, then
sticking to opening's, which simply statistically have worked well for you can can be a good thing.
But you might need to factor in the opponent, might be aware of what you play because games are in
databases nowadays, especially if you get stronger and stronger.
So the opponents might be preparing for you as well.
You got to factor that in as well.
But generally, this principle of looking at your most successful openings, if you really are playing
in those games, that really counts and not just learning kind of because you definitely don't want
to treat them as learning because on occasion then, yeah, looking at the high probability, you know,
the win probability essentially of the openings.
And if you look statistically the statistical analysis, you're actually taking a peek into your current
strengths, maybe your relative strengths anyway relative to your current opposition.
It's a little bit of insight there from a kind of black box perspective, just from the results perspective.
So, yeah, there's this big chest for Tigers', which also talks about handling specific types of opponents,
if you're playing against someone that's much stronger than you, generally, you want to keep the positions
complex and the opening's complex.
You want to take those like Heffalump up into, you know, very complex territory where they might slip
up.
You don't want to simplify it for them.
If you're playing against much weaker players, you want to generally keep it simple and straightforward.
So this kind of randomization of position, that complexity randomisation can be factored in as well
in your choice of openings.
So you might have specific openings.
You will play against much, much stronger opponents.
Just try and create a world wide tactical game.
And that's especially effective if you are becoming rapidly a tactical monster.
So you might want to make the games more complicated tactically.
So the choice of openings which suit your style generally do give you the best results in practice at
that time in your evolution.
But if you want future evolution, sometimes you just want to play.
I think you're really bad at and find out the underlying reasons and causes.
There could be something you really don't understand about certain types of position.
So it's good to find those things out if there are fundamental causes of bad at certain times of recession.
So another key point is not pretending to be gospel.
So gospel and all future grandmasters are playing very high tech openings sometimes, which you actually
it will be very difficult for you to kind of understand the actual plans employed, the middle game
plans, etc. It can be very, very complicated.
So sometimes you can get a lot more of this from the old Masters if you truly understand games.
And and so, yeah, Morphy, Capablanca, Fascher up and up until Fascher, all the Masters up until
you can learn so much more, you can look at the games end to end and really get a good idea of really
what's going on without reference to very, very strong chess engines.
So if you're going to have that kind of understanding, that linkage, understanding between opening
little game and game, you're not just imitating just a little bit.
It's like in companies, if they think, oh, they've got an amazing microdevices architecture and the
little company tries to copy that.
Actually, you know, unless you're a gigantic company, you can't actually make use of these technologies.
You can't quite often transplant from one context to another without knowing the whole workings.
The whole context needs to be there.
And in the same way, you can't transplant just the initial moves of trendy Grandmaster X, Y and Z
without really understanding the whole context.
But there's a track.
You just pick the old Masters first, especially in your early development, pick the old masters for
the romance era and slightly beyond.
So Morphy, Paul, Morphy, Alfonsin.
And then, you know, Capablanca is great for positional play and Fisher is great as a sort of mix between
Blank and Morphy.
Astana's is kind of amalgam, but anything beyond that, it's going to be difficult actually to pick
up games end to end.
And in my view, so.
If you can really understand the purpose of moves and the general plans of positions, this really helps.
So not just reams of to memorize because, OK, you might play the role of has you put your bishop in
seats, you might want to have ideas.
Why why do I do this?
And you're in the same boat as thousands of other people.
Just about having a clue why?
Well, you know, one reason it keeps the tension in possession is an exchange of early on C6.
You've kept the tension.
You might want to liberate that bishop later on Dayglo.
You might have a whole wealth of plans based on liberating the bishop that you've just touched in on
Seeta.
So these kind of Milgrim ambitions and things to be aware of kind of justify the whole thing playing
in such a manner.
However, it might be more easy for you to pick up systems and gambits, you know, because the initial
stages, you're weeks and months of chess player becoming a tactical monster is a far higher priority
than in the first 20 minutes of royal past.
And the thing is, the royal has.
Is the most analyzed opening going, it's got tons of different variations, you could spend a whole
lifetime just learning all these variations, it'll be a waste.
You really need to know the fundamentals of chess.
So stick sticking to maybe easy systems or gambits have at least got more broader holistic points there.
If you're trying to focus on your tactical mastery fast and playing opening systems that you know the
basic plan as well of or you play a game is that, you know, going to lead to open more open tactical
positions.
You know, you've got a point with the openings rather than just trying to demonstrate they can just
be a parrot.
You're not in my courses, I don't treat you like a parrot and rest in peace.
Polly, I didn't have a parents call.
Polly rest in peace.
Yes, parents are, by the way, very, very nice pets to have in general.
Not flying around, biting people's ears off yet.
So as an aside, anyway, I don't want you to be an opening parrot basically in this cause.
You want to understand the moves, the intentions, the wider implications.
It can't just be imitating.
It's bad reason just to imitate Bob that he played this.
He's backed up by tons of technology because Bob was one of the pioneers of chest space.
He knew exactly what he was doing, certain opponents.
He'd have recipes made, you know, indef preparation, world class preparation, which, you know,
any any more.
The grandmasters also they're now leveraging things like chess space.
The professionals use chess space, huge engines on the task.
And we're talking about INDEF engine.
It's not even the engineers you get online.
We're talking about major indef powerful engine analysis of these openings.
So if you think you're imitating sports, you are you just being a para only for that tiny little subset
of game to get the benefits.
Really you need to understand games and ends and it's up up until Fisher.
Maybe you'd benefit from quite a few of the most as I've mentioned.
But beyond that, beware of what you're getting into.
It's not what it seems.
Technology has a massive impact on chess and the way it's played.
So we're talking very, very detailed preparation sometimes in some of these Kasparov wins.
I used to think like that.
I'll go through Kasparov's wins and learn something.
I'll save you a lot of time.
Use Fishermans that most efficient.
Instead, computers weren't so dominant in the Fisher era.
Capablanca instead morphine's that most of those free players, in fact, Morphy, Capablanca and Fisher,
who's like a revision basically of morphing like combines those free players and you'll see good improvements
in my view, get annotations.
Of those three players understand the link between the opening the MG and even the endgames holistic
perspective, and there's no weird mysteries that you're not saying because it's all being like actually
computer generated sequences that exhaustively prepared for certain opponents and a certain tournament
at a certain time.
The more and more advanced you get.
Yeah, the more and more specific preparation will be to to the extent it's like a specific opponent,
a specific time.
But as you start your journey, it's more about the fundamental circle's to get right and the end to
end and integration of the opening will go to anger and you'll get that from the classic monsters.
In fact, there's a book, unfortunately, it might still be in the script.
So hopefully they've translated it to algebraic.
But there's also, you know, 500 lost games of chess.
There's China's most destructive games of chess.
Look at these games.
And to end, this is pre computer era stuff.
It's got a lot going for it.
It's much easier to understand the games.
And so that's my point.
OK, thanks so much.