Hi there.
So if you follow the introduction lectures so far we've talked about the accumulation of advantages,
but what sort of advantages are easiest to accumulate?
Well, we can call them static, i.e. relatives, relatively permanent in nature as opposed to dynamic
advantages.
So we really want to collect static advantages and ideally from the opening choice for that to actually
encourage and support the accumulation of static advantages.
So static advantages by nature often don't require masses of operations to have to calculate.
They are things like better pool and structure for longer term advantages which persist deep into the
game.
We can have within the scope of improvement as well other things which are not going to go away too
easily.
Like the bishop pair that could be another example.
Or the installation of a dangerous form.
-- could be a longer term advantage.
Now Nimzowitsch also talks about things which you might think are just in the realms of tactics like
the pin, but a pin can persist for quite a few moves, so that could end up being an advantage you
could build on basically like any other positional advantage.
So anything which is persisting, which even might not even sound positional, we want those kind of
advantages that we can build on accumulate positional players.
They tend to be good defenders.
If opponents are playing with more dynamic pawn structures and aiming for maximum piece play to try
and make sure they have vicious attacks or vicious tactics, the if you're a positional player, you
really sometimes need to be a good defender and to try and destroy the counterplay or minimize it.
So to safe levels and if the dynamic compensation kind of evaporates so to speak, then all the opponent
is left with is structural weaknesses, which you can then target, probe and increment the advantages
again.
So that is a thing to continually face when a positional player plays a more tactical player out for
maximum peace activity generation.
We have to accept that we might have to defend for a bit or carefully control the counterplay, try
and absorb it, evaporate it just to leave them with more static structural defects which we can build
on and accumulate.
So.
So the dynamic players, they prefer direct attacks.
They're looking for active positions, maximum pace activity, often at the cost of material and pawn
structure.
And it's like burning the bridges of the position is quite a committal thing to go in for attacking
and tactical chess quite often, and it might not be that lovely gradual improvement graph that we see
of positional players.
We look with engines how the the evaluation is just gradually improving.
Non controversially, there might be elements of controversy creeping in in more dynamic players, but
the static players, they're building, building building on these static advantages for longer term
positional advantages.
So either with great crowning attacks, great crowning tactics, or just winning end games.
So the doors are open for multiple ways of winning if you're a positional player in general, regardless
of the style of play, playing the position is key in chess, regardless of tactical or positional play.
So we also have this idea that our openings from the very opening we play, we can prefer a static viewpoint
versus a dynamic viewpoint.
So for example, me as an attacking player for a long time, a long, long time with the black Pieces,
I'll love playing the King's Engine, the fence, D4 Knight f6 the King's Ninja defense would give me
interesting attacking potential later.
I thought it was the way to play for a long time.
So the King's defense because often you get amazing pawn storms.
So here this is a well known position where the center gets closed and later with the black pieces,
you look forward to pawn storms on the king's side.
And as an attacking player, kind of, yeah, chose my openings based on what I wanted goal focused
based on wanting attack.
But if you look at the more positional players like comp often Adams they have a kind of shared opening
repertoire to one D4.
They're often playing aiming to play the Nemtsov engine.
So often Nimzowitsch themes are Indian and also well equipped.
If you're going to want to play this, you have to be well equipped to the Queen's Indian territories.
So both comp often Adam specialized more in this because they're not wanting some king attack, which
is like burn the bridges.
No, they want this incremental advantage approach.
So it's a whole approach, a whole philosophy of chess to be able to be building.
Advantages incrementally and as white as example, against the French defense.
Some world champions like Bobby Fischer preferred C three and this can often lead to imbalanced positions.
Well, we've kind of burnt our bridges in terms of pool structure, but we get the bishop hair and Fisher
would often win this dance choir.
BISHOP But it's, it's kind of not so structurally focused as the preference of Adams or Karpov, which
is basically the Tarrasch variation.
And quite often isolated Queen's pawn situations might result where black has an isolated pawn in the
center on D five.
And yeah, so our own choices for openings kind of goal centric.
What is our goal?
Do we want to be a possession or attacking player?
And what is the nature of the opening choice?
Do we want advantages that are more static in nature which we can accumulate?
And do we want to avoid burning our bridges, so to speak, in any aspect like we do?
We really want a compromised pawn structure because our goal is not to be as keen to maximize peace
activity at any cost.
No, our goal generally is that nice increment of advantages.
So here as an example game, this is a game which I was really impressed with at the time.
It was published in a British chess magazine, Adams against Levitt in the Dublin Zonal Tournament round
three in 1993.
And we see Adams being so well versed in the trash, defends Tarrasch variation against the French defense.
So 92 And in fact, here's a bit of trivia.
The only game Fischer played with 92, he lost against Byrne and in fact it was a grim old version of
96.
So Fischer really didn't try the Tarrasch variation that much against the French.
But the more positional players.
Yeah, that are really, really Keane have this great desire for incrementing advantages.
Gradually they prefer this variation.
There's less of a structural compromise.
It's not so much about pace activity, although potentially you can get pace activity, of course.
So here Jonathan never played C five so both come up often.
Adams are scoring about 60% win rate or more with white in this variation.
So it's very interesting.
So we see gf3, C takes 9.6 D For now, Jonathan Levitt is very keen.
He knows he's playing against Adams.
He doesn't want an isolated Queen's pawn.
Sorry.
So he chooses this variation where y actually does have a certain activity advantage in the long term.
There is still something to look for to build on this free supermajority on the Queen's side.
And now it's quite concrete.
Knight B five to flatten concretely 97 check to thwart Queen and King.
So even though black has a solid pawn structure, there are little issues here like the C eight bishop
as well as this poor majority.
This bishop is not entirely comfortable.
We have Queen A and now C four welcomes the exchange of Queen's 95 is played.
If the Queen's came off, this is still a nice persistent advantage for whites.
This situation with Bishop takes a six.
For example.
Here White would have the bishop power, which is another kind of static advantage to make use of later.
So yeah, there are very nice variations.
So 95 is played though, 93, 97.
Again, if it takes e free, this is a great position to have.
It doesn't matter about the Queen's coming off.
We have a very large advantage here with casting Queensland with Czech coming up.
So 97 we have Bishop DD two, Knight takes B five, Bishop takes B five, Bishop D seven.
And Adams doesn't mind simplifying.
Bishop takes these seven, Queen takes these seven, and now Queen G for 96 and now castling.
Queenside.
So now, even though Black has played with a solid pawn structure, Black is lagging development goes
queen d4 We have Queen E and our Queen valk onto the attack.
But is this going to backfire?
Black's king is still in the center.
We have King D one, Bishop e seven and our Bishop c three pointing at g seven black castles and now
this invasive rook D seven and now Knight before.
So this is a very interesting move.
And Adams has to play precisely here to have the advantage.
If he doesn't is going to be in big trouble in this position because actually if you look at this I
two is it and so is D seven has Adams fallen victim to a horrible tactic?
Note that C two is protected.
So this is not a concern, but it's really about a two and E seven.
So a key move here for 100 points, very accurate move.
What would you play for 100 points?
Okay, it's Queen G four, so we're actually threatening.
Checkmate.
So there's no time to take the rook.
If we'd played Rook HD one Black has a very powerful rook Ada And yeah, we need to manage the counterplay.
This is a big problem.
The rooks like still hanging because it's hit by the Queen and the other rook.
If rook takes E seven, we get basically chap mated.
So yeah, we've got to play very accurately at time.
So Queen G4 is the very accurate move.
And if by the way to swallow that if rock takes.
Yeah.
This is also problematic.
This position is highly problematic.
So we're worse here as well.
Even if it's just the pawn op, it's still, it's a worse position for us.
So Queen G4, very accurate move G6 And you'll notice that hang on, this is also a kind of accumulation
advantage.
These weak squares we have now Queen d4 again renewing your idea of trap mating either on seven or eight
Queen size A two king c1f6 and now Bishop takes B4 is played and this is very well calculated seeing
that the second the seventh rank is really quite lethal.
We have Bishop takes b4 queen a one check is pointless after King D two the Queen would be attacked
by the rook.
So if Bishop takes b4, Queen takes P4.
The funny thing is here Queen E seven is devastating.
There's no defense on g7h7 Queen takes H to friends, although it protects H seven.
There's Queen G seven mate threat.
So this is hopeless.
We just go with Queen G seven rather than Queen H seven.
So Bishop takes b4 was tried and now C free this very, very calm.
C free.
So black was threatening actually a checkmate here because the bishop covering D two but this is a play
move which destroys the counterplay offers a rook on h one which d centralizes the queen.
And now actually the key point is queen takes before you might think, okay, although white is threatening
Queen E seven, why can't black just play rook Ada?
And this is this is why this game had a profound impact.
Guess what Adams plays here, which is absolutely winning.
But before we even get into that, if Rook half seven, we would take on F seven and then take on B
seven and win the rook knight up.
So rook 88 and maybe black for a moment felt the danger was over.
But we have actually got these static advantages from earlier.
These pawns are kind of weak, and Adams just plays an absolute brilliant final cute finish here.
Guess what it is for 100 points.
And you can start to see more why I'm so inspired by the games of Adams, as well as Karpov and other
positional players.
You know, it's because I was reading a lot about his amazing games embrace chess magazines over the
years.
But here, you know, Rook, 68 is played and the point is it's good that the Knight covers Rd1 one
here.
Otherwise Black would be frightening.
Queen D one Checkmate.
But the point is Queen E seven and Black's defenseless Black had to resign at move 27 if rook for eight
then Knight G4 is such a crushing move threatening h six and protecting the pawn as well.
So for example here knight H six check piece up.
And the thing is, if instead of Rook Cafe, if Rooks won't just play Knight G four and there's a big
idea of Knight takes F six mating.
Basically, and it's protecting a two as well.
So if rook Queen F one knight takes F six check and then Queen takes H seven, it's really kind of amazing
wins play through that.
Adams didn't need to mess around with the winner of variation, you know, accepting a double edge,
potentially double edge position which you know the likes of Petrosian have enjoyed playing the winner
and all sorts of weird and wonderful ways.
But you know, basically this kind of situation, yes, it's the preference of other world champions
like Fischer, but for more pure kind of I would say more pure kind of positional players.
It does seem, you know, as an example of even from the opening, this preference for advantages you
can accumulate, the kind of imbalances here are not so controversial.
We're not actually giving black structure to work with.
We're aiming for more accumulated advantages and there's enough there.
And the temporary advantages were also, in a way converted to more permanent ones as this idea of converting
the temporary lead environment, embracing its change of Queen's hair.
And it just seemed to persist all the way through.
So this is really a very interesting game of very little risk and castling.
Queenside is is cute here, amplifying the lead environment.
So a very, very cute game.
I hope you find this game inspirational as well.
So the main point, you know, to recap, there's a more static and what I mean by static, more accumulated
ball element preference for positional players and that's reflected in that opening choices.
So, okay, we could see an opening as a way of getting certain imbalances, but the positional players
will try and make sure that out of the opening they're not damaging their structure.
Usually they don't want to trade off longer term aspects for just peace.
Activity is kind of burning the bridges to some extent.
When we when we do that for maximum peace activity, if we use variations like the winnow of variation
and accept double pawns.
But this variation for the positional player, it does seem like an ideal vehicle of choice to play
the tarrasch line.
So for a long time this wasn't even popular.
Historically, Tarrasch himself, apparently, by the way, didn't play the terrace line much.
So it's really been popularized by the great positional players like Kopp off and Adams.
So Adams in particular, if you know, if you want to research the Terrace version, he's got so many
amazing games to demonstrate that.
Och, I hope you enjoyed this lecture is inspired by its food for thought, I hope.
Hence very much.