Hi there.
In this lecture, I want to introduce the idea of being practical in Chasse and why this is important.
So what do we mean by being practical?
Well, in a sense, being practical is respecting the constraints that we have.
We have solutions that are practical if they respect the constraints.
For example, what if you needed to have a car which is easy to park?
You don't want to spend hours and hours parking.
You might choose a little car or one which has good fuel consumption ratio four gallons.
You know how many miles you can go for each gallon.
So you want cars that are economical.
They're not using too many resources.
They're not damaging the planet.
Maybe they're electric cars.
Ideally, in the future, all cars are going to be as we it seems to be going, you know, more and
more cars will be electric.
So we talk about being practical sometimes in terms of the resources made, use of our solutions in
general to things if they use a lot of resources, in other words, if they're not really respecting
the constraints and constraints is a more fundamental type of resource.
If we're not respecting the constraints, then it's not so practical.
And in chess, there is an element of practicality because we play with chess clocks, for example,
we have to play moves within reasonable amounts of time and we can't calculate as well as computers.
We have to factor in our fallibility.
We're going to miss things.
There's going to be flaws in our variations.
So how do we cope with the complexity of chess within the time constraints of having to play?
The idea of positional play as a kind of practical tool actually is very, very interesting.
If we consider, for example, a player like Capablanca for many years he went unbeaten and his play
was very much intuitive and this was shown in his speed of play generally.
He was very, very fast in playing moves and that actually meant, you could argue he wasn't really
calculating that many variations.
So that's like an extremely practical like electric car compared to, say, a huge calculator of variations
like Kasparov.
And so how can we be so practical in our chess?
Well, if you check my camera blank course, you'll see a lot of games.
So I've got two courses at the moment on Capablanca, but a lot of games he would, it seems, cash
out, even small advantages through simplification.
And if you think about it, simplification is a practical tool.
In the same vein as minimizing the opponent's counterplay, the two are linked.
If we simplify positions, we reduce the complexity, we reduce the number of pieces to actually be
involved in the variations we're calculating.
So we reduce complexity.
And that's a very practical thing.
And it's more ideal when we've got this more intuitive advantage that we saw from the slower aspects
of the position, i.e., for example, the pawns.
So we could say that great positional players, they can leverage the more intuitive advantages which
we can visually see in the position and which are not going away that easily.
And they kind of being practical there.
They're respecting the constraints of chess.
And Karpov also was very, very efficient.
He wasn't always trying to find the very best moves in the positions because he realized early on that
could lead to time trouble.
And time trouble leads to blunders.
So being a practical positional player is a very interesting proposition.
So we can say simplification is often very practical because we're using less resources, calculating
the complexity for many more pieces on the board, not giving counter players practical.
So we might miss key moves as human beings.
So if there's a choice between a smaller advantage or a bigger one, but the bigger one involves having
to calculate a lot more and there's more complexity, there's a lot more things that could go wrong.
Maybe we should be satisfied, satisfied with moves with a lesser advantage, which are less difficult
to calculate.
So as long as our moves keep control to some extent or slightly improve our position or, you know,
there's this long, long term advantage we can say intuitively so we can play these moves knowing they're
actually quite effective or very effective.
And we don't always have to play the most accurate moves in a given position.
We're not computers, and if we did try and do that, it's not very practical, as in we're going to
use so many resources for our head, we're going to exhaust ourselves, we're going to use so many resources
on the clock.
We're going to exhaust our time resource.
So respect.
Saying constraints is really important.
So positional play has been seen by some as if we look at the clouds for predicting it's going to rain.
We can see, oh, it's thick clouds.
It's going to rain soon.
Did we use instrumentation?
Do we have a lot of things to measure, measure pressure, etc.?
No, we can sometimes be intuitive and it's what we see with our eyes rather than using our sensor technology
in chess.
That would be like calculating specific variations, specific moves, resources.
If we can just see what's potentially going to go on, that's great.
It's very economical.
It's very practical skill to have in chess.
Perfect moves designed for perfect.
You know, the tactical nuances of positions to navigate can lead to try and travel later.
And as I say, you know, human calculation is not as reliable as computers calculating.
So ideally, we want to aim for clear variations with no counterplay, often practical choice or simplification,
to cash out our small advantages and when end game sometimes.
So here is an interesting game example Frank Marshall, known as a great attacker and tactician playing
against Capablanca, who's known for his more intuitive, driven play and being able to cash out with
simplification any small advantages.
So Capablanca is like a role model for Karpov and Magnus Carlsen in a way.
So in this game Capablanca with the black pieces.
Place her 94.
He doesn't mind simplification and he's got something in mind here.
So Bishop takes E seven.
We have Queen 67 and now 95.
And here night 64 is played.
And there's more simplification.
It takes e4d, takes E, four, E three.
And now it's our free check.
So this is a very good move in any case, as well as encouraging more simplification.
If 96 had been played, then Marshall could have taken on six.
And this position is going to be maybe a small edge for white.
And there's nothing in the long term here to look forward to as well.
The way Capablanca played it, he's simplifying.
And there's also something to look forward to in the long term.
If we look at the possession, we could look up at the clouds in this position and see that there's
a free to pull majority.
Capablanca consuls here we have Rook FC one, which leaves that long term prospect in the possession.
If we don't try Queen Tang's B seven, then Black would still be okay taking the queens off and this
position at least as a passport.
Now it's still a 2 to 1 majority over here.
So this situation is also it's approaching even perhaps why it should have played this way.
It does give an evenness to the possession, but.
Maybe black can do better than if Rook F.p. one is in play because that seems like an awkward move if
say, rook here.
Then this slight slip up actually gives technically a better position for black.
So anyway, Frank Marshall he wasn't tempted to have Queen takes B7.
So we end up with this long term prospect here in the position and we see Rook a bit so there's free
to pull majority is a great prospect intuitively and though it's not pushed immediately if be five maybe
Queen six as annoying is slightly annoying this position we're going we've wrecked things so we don't
want to invite playing potential damage to our long term aspects assets long term assets.
So Ruby eight we have Queen E for OC, so Quincy seven, Rook C for now, b5a3 now C four.
So Capablanca games often really flow logically.
They're beautiful really in their own right.
The simplicity makes them super beautiful.
Botvinnik has observed that of Capablanca games as well.
It's the simplicity and effectiveness which create elegance, which creates beauty.
So we see Rook 58.
Rook D one.
We see more simplification and ain't so.
What can a big tactician like Frank Marshall do here?
Not much because it's so simplified.
Keeping things simple is often even more important against tactical, aggressive, dynamic players.
But here, yeah, there aren't too many tactics.
In fact, we have here now an accurate move.
One of the most accurate moves it seems, in the possession which is actually Queen E five.
So you might think Capablanca didn't simplify here.
Well if he had played Queen 66, it is actually still possible to play this with Bishop H.
Free for anything to mate white.
And this position is still pleasant enough though for black, but Queen E five is even more accurate,
it seems, according to Monarch engines.
So we have Queen E for now.
Queen size E for Bishop.
Take C4 Rook D one, Shaq, King G two and now a five.
So yes, White's poor majority is just not going anywhere.
So yeah, we're looking up at the chess guy here.
We're saying, Oh, there's a big problem here.
Why is Black's majority threatening to create a passport potential?
So Rook two we have b48x8x Bishop F3 and now rook b one We have Bishop e2.
If rook d2 had been played here, then be free.
This position is very pleasant for black indeed, and in fact black considers C free Hare, Rook, C
one and Roxy two.
This is going to be very, very troublesome for white because there's things like Bishop C four.
It's not even about the passport here.
It's about winning material that with the king on the rook on the seventh rank with juicy targets.
So Bishop E2 was tried.
We have to be free Rook d2 here again.
If rook c free rook takes be2 this position, there's actually a crunching move.
Can you see it?
What is black play here?
Yep, the hook of the pass -- can be used.
That hook is very powerful.
Roxy too.
And it's just winning material.
So fun stuff.
So Rook dd two is played and we have Roxy one, Bishop RD one and now See Free.
This breakthrough is winning material off to be to Black is frightening to Queen and White's overloaded.
So yes, Frank Marshall is in a losing position a piece down now he plays on a few more moves so rook
takes D one rook C2 we have Bishop at five wrote B to C, one wrote Be free Bishop E four check free
if free we have rook to check and we can take out our free.
So this isn't good news at all.
Being a piece down against Capablanca so f4h5g4h takes g for Jack King.
Take g for Rook Takes age to rook before f five check reinforcing the bishop And here.
Yeah, it's all over.
It has been all over for a while.
So Rook takes ea free check against four King g7c7 check king of six.
So here a major threat now to finish off things.
Is Bishop G too difficult for wanting to do anything?
Rook D seven Bishop G to check King G seven End of game if Rook D seven check King H six.
There's no stalemate opportunity.
Yeah.
Or anything.
And so C for, you know, cage free is checkmate.
So anyway, the point of me showing you this game, I mean, there are many, many beautiful games of
Capablanca, but he shares that practicality in my view, that quite often we don't need to calculate
like crazy.
In any case, we can see the longer term patterns in the position pull majorities.
We can see a long way off.
They're like looking up at the sky to see is it going to rain.
We can into it a lot from the pawn structure.
And if we base our play and ideas on the pawn structure, that pressure to use a lot of resources on
the clock, desperately calculating variations as accurately as possible, knowing that we're flawed
in our calculations, all of that is risk can sometimes be minimized through this positional kind of
practical mindset, which the great positional players had.
So Capablanca, in my view, is an absolute delight.
The crystal clear, super elegant games with simplification, especially against Frank Marshall.
There's a lot of fantastic games.
He's really left Marshall without any tactical opportunities and just simplified cashing out advantages
on numerous occasions and that's just wonderful to play through.
Obviously it wouldn't have been fun for Frank Marshall, though, for his style to be nullified.
But okay, so we have this idea of being practical.
You know, it was once something I found the mysterious word, you know, what does it mean, practical?
You know, you can look at ARP, but in chess terms or in general terms for me are great way of looking
at things that are practical in real life is how how many how many much resources do they use?
Do they respect the constraints that we have?
You know, there's no point inventing something which uses tons of resources, which it's difficult
to get hold of.
That would be impractical.
Practical solutions respect the fundamental constraints.
And we're playing practical chess.
We are respecting several different types of constraints.
The use of our clock chess clock, the use of our brain not being too exhausted, calculating resources,
use for calculation all the time.
So yes, this is a very practical, human intuitive way of playing, to use our eyes eye an eye for
these longer term advantages or plans based on the slowest aspects of the position, the advantages
which are not disappearing that quickly.
So this is a really great effective way of playing chess that's proven time and time again by the great
positional players like Capablanca, like Karpov, like Magnus Carlsen.
Okay, I hope you enjoyed this so much.