Hi there.
In this lecture, I want to talk about my positional heroes, which I based this course on largely.
And the course is evolving, so more and more game examples will be added as the course extends.
It's a very fundamental course, so I see it as important for my own chess development to get as many
good examples as possible in the key areas of positional patterns.
So the first layer of this course is actually British GM Michael Adams.
And you might ask, well, he wasn't a world champion.
He was close to becoming a world champion, actually.
And one of the Friday knockouts.
He's consistently been over 2700 for many, many years.
I've seen Michael Adams play in real life and he became a personal hero.
I've also played him in casual games.
I even had a one day game against him in Lloyds Bank Masters of 1993.
I just admire how he plays so calmly and crushingly positionally, crushingly, and has great versatility
as well.
Brilliant tactician and just piles on the pressure of games, which he really elegantly pulls on the
pressure.
It's just caused so much admiration for his positional style.
And I tended to do YouTube videos comparing him actually to even newer networks, how he can get the
counterplay out of opponent's positions, leaving them with no decent counterplay and, you know, just
crush them quite often, actually much quicker than you expect in some of the British championship games,
which we see in this course.
So, yeah, I'm a personally I'm personally a big fan of Michael Adams.
The second layer is a more traditional example for positional courses is Anatoly Karpov.
So he really did focus on positional chess as distinct from Garry Kasparov.
In fact, I felt there was a kind of switch in world champions, often between static world champions,
dynamic static, as in more interested in the longer term aspects of the position slow steady versus
the dynamic aggressive.
So like sporran for Alekhine, they're more interested in the dynamics of the game.
So each world chess champion did bring something special to the table.
Botvinnik, for example, was known not just as a great positional player but also deep opening preparation
and valued the performance training for the performance.
He had people blowing cigars in his face as training.
You know, smoking was a thing in those days, but each world chess champion basically did bring something
to the table in general.
Now, of course, you know Steinitz actually, Steinitz, between Steinitz and Laskar, they created
the positional foundation.
So you might think, Well, shouldn't I have had more Steinitz and Lasker?
I will use Steinitz and Lasker game examples as appropriate.
But I wanted to put an emphasis on more modern positional chess, which factors in the issues that we
face today in the Steinitz and Lasker era.
Quite often players seem to underestimate the damage done by reckless pawn moves like pull moves are
irreversible on the chessboard compared to other types of moves you see quite often in Lasker wins,
people are self-destructing, and I wanted a more modern view on positional chess.
Now my third layer is actually nimzowitsch nimzowitsch through my system.
This book called My System, which I recommend.
There's a new algebraic edition and it's very, very readable and it's funny and it has some very,
very important positional, I would say, patterns.
I wouldn't get strictly carried away calling them principles or laws of positional chess, because it
really depends on your positions, how you apply the patterns.
I think patterns is more encouraging you to think for yourself to be in the driving seat.
So Nimzowitsch apparently was a big influence on Tinker and Petrosian, who became known as the Master
of prophylaxis.
So with prevention prophylaxis, Petrosian hardly lost any games.
He had this kind of invincibility reputation.
And it's interesting that Karpov in Gibraltar interviews basically says he's Petrosian style, but playing
for a win instead of a draw.
So can you imagine?
You're very hard to beat, but also you're kind of relentless in trying to beat the opponents as well.
So it's a kind of a low risk way of winning.
So for Karpov, but the root influence, if we look at the roots, Nimzowitsch has influenced many modern
grandmasters through his teachings.
Now, further layers, this is an evolving course.
I will add great game examples from other positional players, including Capablanca, Smyslov, Petrosian,
Kramnik and Carlsen as appropriate.
So the course I see is as an evolving course, but I'll give you a really good powerful start point
for this course.
So I really think this is a high priority course to master and these layers of positional players.
I have the belief we will learn a lot of things, perhaps not even seen in other positional courses.
We will learn some key patterns.
So the course will have lots of game examples through the great positional players of all time.
Now, you also see sometimes because we're focusing on carbon atoms, we can also see even opening similarities
and preferences.
For example, Karp often admins both liking the nimzowitsch and the fence, so they respect Nimzowitsch.
Basically, if they like the NIMS of Indian offense, you know, that's that's a heads up to Nimzowitsch
is my system.
A lot of players will avoid the nimzowitsch engine play, not afraid for the Queen's engine but also
carp often Adams like against the French defense to play the tarrasch variation.
So this doesn't lead to as much structural damage, usually for white as the main line.
What's called the main line was the main line widower.
So this quite often leads to double pawns.
Now positional players like Adams and Karpov often don't like having their pawns messy.
They like building on the static advantages, the advantages that are more easily to accumulate.
And yeah, we see by focusing on these two players, we do see some parallels, which in my view helps
reinforcement of positional patterns and opening ideas as well as we go through games from end to end.
I like seeing games end to end, so we pick up a lot of hints and tips through the openings, middle
game and end games.
But of course, you know, the focus of each lecture has a positional point quite often, which I'll
amplify.
So we also have these animal metaphors, Karpov and Petrosian, known as boa constrictors.
So boa constrictors have this habit.
It doesn't matter how large the prey is, they kind of paralyze the prey and can win.
And Adams was nicknamed The Spider by Garry Kasparov because he has this great maneuvering style, which
in my view, works just like the boa constrictor style.
So this kind of restrictive style, until the opponents haven't really got much to do, is a really
great effective style.
And if you ever play, for example, the Lila neural network, even on giving Lila only like 10 seconds
of movie, you'll see that there's this idea that you get run out of moves.
You might not be blasted tactically because Lehrer's not even calculating that much, but positionally
to be absolutely positionally crushed, at least the positions.
You're quite sad and not very optimistic about any tactical chances at all.
So this positional style is a very, very powerful style.
And nimzowitsch, we have to give him credit for actually creating the language of positional chess.
That's why he wasn't a world chess champion.
But he was a world title contender.
Maybe he bragged a bit too much and Alexander Alekhine didn't give him a challenge match.
And maybe morally you could argue Alekhine should have because Nimzowitsch had won some great moments.
But Nimzowitsch his most important contribution is within the hyper moderns.
They found useful exceptions to establish theory.
So, so many ideas revolving around the censor that you don't need to necessarily occupy the center.
You can pressurize it from afar.
Think Ito bishops and some really interesting concepts in my system, like over protection prophylaxis
and emphasis on rooks on the seventh rank.
So sometimes the exams are which overly categorized like rook on the seventh perhaps, but in general
he created a language we could talk about positional chess, especially blockade.
When we blockade pawns with like a knight blockade, different types of blockade.
The most effective type of blockade nimzowitsch is favorite.
Blockade is like when there's double pawns in a knight blockading say on C4 later, if the light square
bishops got exchanged off.
So that was kind of nimzowitsch favorite blockade.
But basically the language set out by Nimzowitsch has persisted and has become highly influential for
positional chess thereafter.
So you might think, Well, why wasn't it Steinitz and Lasker?
Laskar was really using a lot of the theories of Steinitz to great effect, being world champion for
so many years.
But sometimes people felt that Lasker had such a universal style, it was difficult to actually say
he was a positionally oriented player.
He was kind of the first universal player.
According to Vladimir Kramnik, the first 2700.
Steinitz did talk a lot for his magazine writings and the ink wars He had a lot to say about, and that
was the rise of the scientific viewpoint on chess, about accumulating, accumulating advantages and
the elements of a chess position, how to evaluate positions.
And so that was an absolutely vital foundation between Steinitz and Lasker.
It's an absolutely vital foundation.
And of course, it's it's there has to be game examples from from Steinitz and Lasker as well.
So och positional players in general love to accumulate the more permanent and therefore advantages
easier to accumulate if not just drifting away, taken away from you so easily.
We're talking about kind of investments on the chessboard that you can rely on later.
So you install, for example, double pawns in the opening.
You've still got it 20 moves later this this impact on the opponent's pawn structure and related week
squares.
So it's kind of investments on the chessboard that can't be taken away that easily.
You could see it like that.
And it has to me a strong component of put yourself beyond the fate of war.
He talked about the the effects of fighters in the past.
They put themselves upon the feet before going on to the attack.
And we see that on the chessboard time and time again in these game examples.
So defense or strengthening first before indulging in wild attacks or tactics.
And when endgames are reached, the advantage is often win games as well.
So I'm going to show you now my most enjoyable loss in my lifetime was against.
It was a privilege to play Michael Adams in the 1993 17 Floyds Black Masters, and I'll take it from
Adams perspective.
So I played D four, Adams played nine, F six.
We have C four.
And on this occasion, Adams chose the Benko Gambit.
So we see quite dynamic gambits quite often from Adams.
And the Bank of Gambit was a tool of choice in many of his Lloyds Bank master games.
So very, very exciting already.
You wouldn't think a positional player would make use of any gambits, but Adams did.
So I played B six.
I'd written an art school around the time on the Barnet Chess Club website about B six, a kind of counter
against the bank card game.
So the idea would be to usually aim for this maneuver with 9c4 with tempo and cuts out, try and limit
the opponent's activity.
We have 9c3g6 from Adams, E, four D, six Bishop E to Bishop G seven.
So so far I haven't played too badly with the white pieces.
Now after 932, Bishop takes e to Queen, takes E to BD 79c4.
We have Queen C seven and now I move, which usually you see if if anyone even grandmasters play the
move f four quite often they end up losing.
There's been Feingold's mention that you shouldn't use the f pawn that much if you if you play with
the f pawn, you're asking for trouble.
But I did play with the f pawn.
And the thing is, it does weaken the possession quite fundamentally.
In the long term.
A better bet, it seems, would be Bishop G five and this keeps White's position more solid and white
should be able to claim a small edge here.
But now with F4, I'm going downhill here.
I've also deprived, of course, the Bishop G five associated pressure by locking in the bishop we have
might be six and now this simplification actually causes stress for the person with greater space because
there's a responsibility with a space advantage.
And this means that White's extra space.
Yeah, it's is it a liability?
Potentially.
If there's less pieces to manage that space, you end up with potentially just weaknesses.
We have E five so I'm trying to gain space, but again, am I being left with weaknesses?
I wasn't too convinced with my position already.
And the funny thing is about this knight going back to E!
This is a thing about positional players.
Sometimes it looks like almost anti positional, but there's a net gain if this knights maneuvered to
the center.
So you've got to think about the net game is improving now the piece so C seven Queen F two and also
of course it's a lovely feature to have the pawn on A six supporting Knight.
B five We have Rook ABA.
I've analyzed this game in great depth.
Later on in the course.
I just wanted to highlight in general some points of this game.
So this was an inaccuracy, ab1, B free.
And I still might be able to claim equality here, but with this move I'm making things slightly worse.
Queen b4 Rook for one.
Rook b seven We have Queen C to 95 and I'm left spectating here this positional maneuver and you might
think again.
Hang on.
Isn't it kind of anti positional in that Adams's pawns might be doubled so 94 Knight d4 he plays this
anyway despite the apparent effects you know the pawns are temporarily doubled e takes e tanks but does
it actually matter because the bigger point here.
Blacks call this bishop without a counterpart.
Blacks caught this potential to now make use of this e file.
And of course this is an interesting pawn, but this e file could be good and often only f to Queen
a five.
Also this kind of disconnected pawn on D five.
So does it actually matter?
Overall, we have to think about the overall obsession when we think positionally.
Overall, it looks as though is this an anti positional decision what Adams played.
But actually I'm the one with a more exploitable weakness this disconnected pawn on D five which is
being hit now.
So yes I'm being positionally outplayed overall it's the overall that counts Quincy four Rooks seven
Queen B free rook C five.
And I try and potentially gain some compensation.
I played Queen F3 and now we have.
Queen cites a two.
So maybe, you know, there's some slight tricks if he took b4 and then trying to lure the queen in
a bit of hassle.
Yeah, but, you know, he's avoiding that.
Just playing queen takes a two.
I play nightly free Rook cci.
And now night before and I had this level of excitement.
I'm going to get a night on C six, but it's how effective it is.
Is this not really that effective?
The Queen goes, The C four is not particularly effective.
Sometimes we have to judge nights not just in how they look, good positioning, but are they actually
concretely effective.
And the thing is, overall, this is the running argument about this game.
Overall, Black now has significant pressure on the e-file.
We see rook free and now a lovely move to try and gain authority on this e-file and hold DD for quite
comfortably.
Can you see what Adams played here.
A very lovely move dispelling any notions really that I'm going to get DD four as well.
Five and it means that there's going to be rookie forward supported rookie for for doubling rooks and
this of course supports D four.
So this is really I'm getting positionally crushed here now so rookie for authority on the e-file is
a bad sign.
If rooks enter on the ranks they're going to cause havoc for me and a lovely subtle weakness provocation
move here Can you see at some points.
You know.
Bishop six So my second rank is being weakened with another committal pull move and our rookie free
rook takes three, Rook takes three going for the rook.
Activity to go to my king.
Queen H one.
This is rather embarrassing.
Embarrassing.
Now, if Queen F2 rookie two wins my queen So Queen H one Queen C to Czech King H three And now just
Bishop takes F four and I have to resign now.
Although I was crushed, it was just an honor to play such a strong player on their way to becoming
a super grandmaster later.
But Adams had already, you know, he'd actually won.
One of the additions of Elisabeth Moss as we see some noise about Masters Games in general in this course.
It's really amazing playing style, in my view, how advantages are being built systematically with
minimal risk, minimal counterplay.
So yes, he's a positional chess hero of mine.
I think in general it's nice to be a well rounded player, although I like to attack and I like tactical
chess.
Seeing this other other aspects of chess, it shows that chess is such a rich game and you can play
a play with like a boa constrictor style, just removing counterplay from the opponents and thinking
about the overall balance of elements just because things might visually look bad, like double pawns
or visually look good.
You've got to think about this overall picture of what's happening on the chessboard and the opportunities
and what what is the exploit ability factor that was able to exploit the authority on the e-file, create
targets and win material with devastating effect.
And it's not just a spectator in the end.
So and so what about the double pawns?
So yes, a great game and really did inspired me and inspire me.
And it has been an inspiration to check out many other games of Michael Adams starting in Lloyds Bank
Masters and also British championship games.
And, you know, he can crush British grandmasters quite often less than 50 moves.
We'll see.
So, yes, a great positional hero of mine.
So there you have it.
In this course, we do emphasize Adams Carpe off, Nimzowitsch and then we'll look at other classic
players.
So, Steinitz, Lasker.
Of course, I kind of take for granted that they aren't the foundation of positional chess, modern
positional chess.
But then later Capablanca Smyslov, Petrosian, Kramnik, Carlsen and Nimzowitsch is in there.
He's an influential plan because of his writings.
In my system.
So I hope that's an interesting introduction for inspiration for the positional heroes in this course.
Okay, that's very much.