Hi there.
In this lecture, we see James Plaskett against Michael Adams in 1997.
This is the British championship, Round four.
So default nice F 693, E six.
So Adams is not playing any risky opening like the king's engine, the fence.
This is very solid classical approach.
We see g3d5, Bishop G two.
So we're in the castle land opening now.
Both sides.
Castle C for D take C four Queen C to a six.
Queen St c4b5, Queen C two, Bishop B seven.
So that really wants to sometimes exchange off the finger.
Can a bishop We have Bishop rd 296 so put in pressure on D four we see rook D one So this is an interesting
temporary pawn sacrifice by James Plaskett.
We have nine saints d four Black dares to take on default.
Adams takes on default.
So 964 Bishop takes G two and then we have Bishop a five.
So this is a very interesting situation.
So here we have Bishop.
E four.
Queen St C seven.
So what has White achieved, though, after these exchanges?
It seems black controls the CFO and white is lost.
The nice council and Bishop.
It does seem a bit sad.
Won't opening here lack of advantage e5 We have knight beefy Bishop c two with tempo so rookie one if
rook c one white's in big trouble.
Bishop takes be free looking at the rook and this position is just horrible.
After rook c one check b4.
It's just a horrible position, so black would be clearly better there.
White's just destroyed here.
Positionally so rook e1c thinks an alternative does seem to be Bishop takes be free for tactical reasons.
So this kind of situation it looks as though well we've just activate the rook but b4 offer e5 and it
gets actually dangerous for white hair.
This is a very tactical approach.
So for example here bishop see 5f6g5 very, very tactical approach, but it should reap benefits.
We can see it starting to reap benefits here.
There's tactical approach that Black's got significant interesting things going on after Bishop C one
bishop takes half to Black's actually better.
Yeah.
It starts to be a horrible position here potentially.
Okay, so that's way off though.
That is kind of speculative for humans to think about.
So this looks like more sensible.
Rook six Simple and strong Knight.
BD two FC eight Bishop C Free 937 Rook EC one Bishop drops back to G six So very very comfortable looking
position for black and off Bishop a five f6.
So putting a rock to that bishop if it wants to go back to C free, we have one pair of rooks coming
off, another pair of rooks coming off.
And so this end game, what's going on here in this game, Black has the bishop here and we have King
F seven, E four.
Now you might think this next decision is a little bit strange structurally.
Guess what Adams plays here.
So this is kind of interesting here.
An interesting test of judgment, trade offs.
OC Adams actually does play five to try and unlock the Bishop potential, even if it's an isolated pawn.
How exploitable is this isolated pawn?
So it's a bit of a trade off.
But if we judge the position concretely, how is this pawn actually a weakness?
Here we see king of one, King six Is it actually an exploitable weakness?
So black essentially, Adams has essentially liberated his late squire, Bishop Knight, by improving
the knight.
Now going to see sex that's more central, a free G5.
And this looks as though Adams is wanting to fix the pawns for the end game.
So I move like G four sometimes in Bishop G five, trying to fix with one pawn, fixing two freezing
strategies every stops that H 593 but now gg4 is interesting.
We have e for and here 94 forces Bishop takes DD four because otherwise free is going to drop.
So Bishop takes the four, E takes might be four, which is an inaccuracy it seems.
It seems here.
That's yeah.
White's under pressure but it is potentially there's better moves here but we see with Knight for quite
a commitment looking at a six trying to get rid of Black's dancing where Bishop it does seem a little
bit scary this position in general but yeah night before probably doesn't help.
Bishop takes b4 he takes King D five this end game after nine of six.
This is a much more definite mistake.
Goes immediately into kind of lost possession.
If 92 this would have been a better move.
G takes her free King takes her free.
Black does have a small edge, but there's work to do with this move.
Knight Have six check.
We have King C four.
And in fact, of the 96h5, there's a magical move here being played to do with this pass pawn.
I wonder if you can guess what it is.
Planks play for 100 points.
In fact, there's two moves that are very strong anyway.
But this is one of the king bee free.
Forget about the b pawn.
The King wants to assist the dangerous pass pawn on king.
Thanks B for just the record.
This is also bad for why she takes a free king.
Takes King B free G for this scenario with D free hair at that point is really dangerous hair.
So, for example, here, this is just going to be winning for black.
So here, for example, that's just winning in its own right, that endgame.
But this seems to be much easier to play.
Just go for the bypass, taking B4, accelerate the king going down the board to support the d pawn
and Plaskett actually was convinced he resigned her move.
39 if f thanks g for Bishop thank you for simply wins the Knights.
That's a winning position.
If King RD to then the king is overloaded, she takes her free.
The knight can't really help f to the free check.
And this is totally hopeless because now King C two here D one quitting if King d1g takes F free F two
again, it's just overloading White's position.
Well, it's just overloaded that.
So yeah, very interesting stuff.
So King be free ending the game so very interesting game.
Very interesting choice of opening very solid, not taking risks in the opening with more wild openings,
just solid classical play and against the Catalan.
This approach of dc4, you might think, well, this is attacking chess.
What is this?
Is it worth simplifying?
Getting rid of the Catalan bishop?
In a way, it does seem to imply that, yeah, just get rid of the Catalan bishop as a priority.
That's a good piece.
Could we say that this is a simplification strategy?
Trying to get rid of a worse piece for a better piece?
And there's also a cost to that better piece.
You know, the loin square weaknesses.
So yeah, it's interesting.
Nine times D for just getting rid of the Catalan bishop and this invoicing, this kind of simplification.
It does seem as though Black's got a more simple kind of risk free position here.
Without that Catalan bishop Black's got.
The bishop are here, Black has got the edge, it seems here off to Bishop C two and just builds on
that edge from the opening.
So yeah, kind of very professional game without too much risk taken with wild crazy openings or openings
which imply you have to attack or not.
And if you if you attack, it's like going to be two results.
Either you lose or you win.
No, this is slow and steady just from the opening.
So it's kind of admirable.
So I hope that these Adams games, they rub on us, rub something on us.
This idea that we can be slow, steady, play solid openings and grind in the end game, look out for
the end game.
And it's a bit like Capablanca, his huge enthusiasm.
Capablanca has huge enthusiasm for pass pawns, king activity and trying to crush pieces, the opponent's
pieces, trying to make your pieces much better than their counterparts.
So it's a slow, gradual accumulation of advantages with the bishop here not minding the pawn there.
So the white square bishops are a bit of a pain here.
And yes, not minding the bishops dropping off the board at some point or one of them.
Yeah, this is just absolutely brilliant now for black and it's completely lost.
So yeah, I've really amazing game.
Just shows major technique, absolute technique, riskless technique, beautiful stuff.
If you're a fan of Capablanca, you have to be a fan of Adams as well.
And Karpov.
Okay.
And so much.