0:03

Hello,

0:05

everyone, and welcome to another World

0:07

Championship Edition bonus pod.

0:10

We are joined by an illustrious guest,

0:12

the I am Andres Toth. By the way, you should check

0:14

out his chessable courses. Fun fact,

0:17

they're the presenting sponsors of

0:19

perpetual chess, presenting chess education

0:22

sponsors and Andres is one of my personal

0:24

favorite authors, especially good

0:26

for intermediate players great at breaking

0:29

down complicated concepts

0:31

and telling harsh truths to

0:33

us struggling amateurs. We

0:36

should give a little bit more info about

0:38

our guest. He is a YouTuber, a commentator,

0:41

Twitch streamer, a teacher and a return

0:43

guest and he is staying up super late

0:46

over there in Canberra, Australia, April

0:48

22nd for him April 21st for me, round nine

0:52

has just concluded and let's welcome Andres

0:54

back to the pod. Welcome Andres. Thanks for

0:56

staying up.

0:57

Yeah, thank you for having me again. I don't

0:59

even know Ben how many times I have already been

1:01

on your podcast, but it's always an honor to

1:04

come back and I hope that I will be able

1:06

to say something new every time I come.

1:09

Yeah, well, we've got plenty to talk about this time,

1:11

Andres, so I don't think it will be a struggle.

1:13

And I know that the perpetual chess

1:16

Patreon subs that you were requested

1:18

and we've got a few good questions for you. But

1:20

if you don't mind indulging me for

1:22

a second, Andres, I'm just going to go big

1:25

picture on the match just for a moment

1:27

for anyone not following it super closely. So

1:30

as we record round nine just concluded

1:32

they shook hands about 10 minutes ago. So we're

1:35

not watching the press conference nepo now

1:37

leads five to four. In my opinion,

1:39

it's been an incredibly entertaining chess

1:42

match. The chess itself has been very

1:44

entertaining. We got a little drama

1:46

after round eight, as we will discuss, we

1:49

had five decisive games in a row up to

1:51

round seven followed by two compelling

1:53

draws. We've had unexpected openings,

1:56

raw emotions, twists

1:57

and turns. So it's

1:59

been a lot of fun. Andres, when

2:02

you look ahead to when you'll

2:04

think back about this match, what do you

2:06

think your first recollections will be, at least

2:09

up to this point?

2:11

One of the best matches that we've ever

2:13

had, I think, is easily

2:17

going to be my first thought. And I don't think

2:19

that it will be an exaggeration or,

2:21

you know, just something

2:23

that I'm saying in the

2:25

heat of the moment, because I think that

2:28

the free match, the

2:30

entire chess world, was not

2:34

super excited, let's put it mildly,

2:36

about this upcoming world championship

2:39

match between Nepo and Dink,

2:41

purely because the chess tradition

2:43

has been for more than a century

2:46

that the world champion defends

2:48

his or her title. And this

2:50

time around Magnus decided to sit out

2:53

and not to partake. And so everyone

2:55

had a bit of an aftertaste in their mouth about

2:57

this upcoming match and whether this is really

3:00

a world championship match. Such

3:02

questions were raised. And I think

3:04

in general, as a result, the

3:06

overall interest was somewhat

3:09

limited. And I

3:11

think that something that looked

3:13

like, you know,

3:14

just another match that,

3:17

you know, probably will go down in history like

3:19

any other, has turned into potentially

3:22

the most entertaining world

3:24

championship match in the past

3:26

decades. But I would go out on a limb and say

3:28

that ever.

3:31

But I mean, I'm saying it right after round

3:33

nine, and we don't know what's awaiting

3:36

us. But if I had to evaluate it after

3:38

nine rounds,

3:39

oh, we had a jolly good ride.

3:42

Yeah, I couldn't agree more. And we should mention

3:44

Andras has been recapping these games on his channel.

3:46

Definitely recommend listeners check it out. They're

3:48

always educational and entertaining.

3:51

And yeah, where we last left you

3:53

guys was after round four,

3:56

when

3:58

Ding had just sort of picked himself

3:59

up off the mat. It looked like it might

4:02

be getting late early in

4:04

the immortal words of a yoga yogi bearer

4:06

when he got off to a kind of rocky

4:08

start, but then he held the fort in game

4:10

three, one in game four. Suddenly

4:13

we said we have a match and it turns

4:15

out he wins five games. I mean, we have

4:17

five decisive games in a row. I actually

4:19

wrote in my sub stack last week about this idea

4:21

of momentum because it looked like Ding had turned

4:24

the tide after round four. But

4:26

what we've learned in this match is that there is no

4:28

tide turning that

4:31

whatever you try to predict, good

4:33

luck, because we just don't know what's

4:35

going to happen. But as you say, it's been very compelling.

4:38

Now, one thing I've seen mentioned online,

4:40

Andres, is people are

4:43

enjoying sort of the unpredictability

4:45

of the match again, sort of the humanity on

4:47

display from Ding in particular. But

4:50

people, some especially stronger players

4:52

are saying the match has not been as high quality

4:55

in terms of the level of the play. What

4:58

do you think about that, Andres?

5:00

Look, I'm a bit of a fan sitter in this regard

5:02

because really there

5:04

are two sides to this coin. The one side

5:06

to the coin is that we are getting an incredibly

5:09

entertaining match with

5:12

undoubtedly high quality chess,

5:14

but that is expected as a bare

5:17

minimum, in fact, from a world championship.

5:19

Right. So we expect the absolute

5:22

best chess from the competitors.

5:25

And so high quality is just

5:27

a given. We don't ever

5:29

question that.

5:30

And of course, do not forget

5:33

that we as the viewers, and I do

5:35

think that even, you know, high

5:37

level grandmasters fall into this trap,

5:40

we get to watch the engine, the evaluation

5:43

bar go up and down. We immediately

5:45

get fed all the information that the

5:47

players are not privy to. They have

5:49

to work it out themselves. So I

5:52

think we tend to jump to conclusions way

5:54

too soon when it comes to the quality

5:56

of every single game, every single move that

5:58

is being played out.

5:59

because we have the assistance and we immediately

6:02

see what's right, what's wrong. And so

6:04

it's easy to judge. So I

6:07

don't necessarily think on the one

6:09

hand that the quality is necessarily

6:11

that badly lacking. I

6:13

think that part of it is the

6:16

fact that the games are extremely competitive.

6:19

I think that the styles,

6:21

which I didn't see, by the way, coming at all, but

6:23

the style somehow clash in a way

6:26

that the two players continuously

6:28

create fights that are sharp,

6:30

that are difficult to navigate,

6:33

that forces them to spend more

6:35

time than usual on the

6:37

clock, especially DING. And so we

6:39

have got these extremely tense moments

6:42

day in, day out, game after game, that

6:45

inevitably forces the players to

6:47

make small inaccuracies, small mistakes.

6:50

And yes, I do

6:50

know that NAPO's

6:53

QH4 and DING not taking on D8

6:55

could go down in history as a double blunder.

6:58

But I think that's the only real

7:00

example of both players

7:02

slipping. The overall impression nonetheless

7:04

is that, in my opinion, is that it's

7:07

high quality chess.

7:08

On the other hand, I must add

7:10

to this though, that

7:13

now that I brought up Magnus and

7:16

his choice to not to play the World

7:18

Championship match, I think

7:20

that this match

7:22

adds yet another piece

7:25

of evidence or reason

7:27

to say that Magnus is the goat, because

7:30

there is no way on earth

7:33

that Magnus Carson would have played

7:35

the World Championship match with five decisive

7:38

games back to back. No way.

7:40

Not unless he won all five of them.

7:43

Well said. Yeah, I think Laurent

7:45

Fresenet on Chicken Chess Club said

7:48

that the winner of the match, air

7:50

quotes so far, was Magnus a couple rounds

7:52

back because he comes out

7:54

looking even better. And before we get

7:56

back to the match discussion, I meant to

7:58

mention at the top for listeners, So the three

8:00

agendas that we're going to discuss again, keeping

8:02

Andres up late. So we'll try to keep it short, but

8:05

obviously we're talking about the match right now, we're going to go big

8:07

picture on the match. Then we'll spend a few minutes

8:09

on the controversy from yesterday regarding the

8:12

leap prep. And then our final

8:14

segment sort of will be about chess improvement,

8:16

because I do think there've been tons of lessons that amateurs

8:19

can take from this match. And it's one again,

8:21

getting back to what Andres was just saying about

8:23

the sort of lack of humanity, the

8:26

superhuman

8:27

abilities of Magnus, I think make it

8:30

a little harder to learn from the matches. Whereas

8:32

here, I feel like we're, we're seeing so many

8:35

sort of swings and instructive

8:37

moments that, um, that I,

8:39

I want to discuss that, but first let's continue

8:42

big picture discussion of the match. So the

8:45

openings approach has been super interesting.

8:48

Um, what do you think of, uh, how Ding

8:50

has approached especially, uh, the

8:53

continuous surprises that he is springing?

8:56

Look, um, I'm a bit of

8:58

an old school guy, um, and a

9:00

bit of a traditionalist. And so

9:02

many of his choices came to me

9:05

as a slight shock. I would even go as

9:07

far as say that I would disapprove some

9:09

of them, uh,

9:10

for his level that is, um,

9:13

but at the same time, it seems to

9:16

work. Uh, the, the fact that Napo

9:18

can never come to the board with

9:21

having, uh, a really, really good

9:23

idea about what might hit him in that particular

9:25

round seems to work a treat

9:28

and that Ding keeps on saying this. And

9:30

I keep not believing it, but I think

9:32

he obviously is genuine and honest

9:35

that he literally makes up his mind about what

9:37

he's going to apply when he arrives at the

9:39

board and that just throws

9:41

in an element of randomness that usually

9:44

works against the player who does it because

9:46

you want to be well prepared. You want to be in your comfort

9:48

zone. You would like to know what's going to be on

9:51

the board. And so this randomness

9:53

is just an extra flavor to this match that

9:55

has never been seen before and obviously

9:58

again, the greatest winners of this.

9:59

are these spectators for

10:02

sure because we are being entertained. I

10:04

mean it has been London, English, Nimzo,

10:08

4H3, it's like the thing

10:10

has brought them through the kitchen sink

10:13

at Napo and I wouldn't

10:15

be surprised if

10:17

you know more came out of,

10:19

there was more where this came from. So

10:22

it's very interesting. I would have never

10:24

thought that a strategy like that could work on

10:26

the highest level of chess. It might

10:29

not as far as the final result

10:31

is concerned but if we are honest with

10:33

ourselves right now in the middle of the match

10:36

we can safely say that being

10:38

strategy and approach to the match

10:40

as far as opening prep is concerned

10:43

is no inferior to anything else

10:45

we have seen in the past hundred years and

10:47

by the way this was somewhat expected I

10:49

guess from the point on when we knew that

10:52

his number one helper and second

10:54

in the match is Rihard Rapport.

10:56

Let's be honest with ourselves it's

10:58

not exactly known to be the greatest

11:01

mind of opening theory on planet earth.

11:03

I mean he is one of the greatest geniuses for

11:05

sure of current chess but opening

11:08

theory has never been his forte.

11:10

I'm

11:11

not even sure if his interest to be honest.

11:13

Yeah your fellow

11:15

Hungarian have you had any personal

11:17

interactions before as he was climbing up

11:19

the ranks? No I mean he's so young

11:22

that he would have been

11:24

very very young when I left Hungary.

11:27

The only connection that we have

11:29

between the two of us

11:31

which is quite interesting by the way is the fact that

11:34

he was coached for a short period

11:36

of time by last or was a my former

11:38

coach

11:40

but that's pretty much the only connection. I

11:42

have never even spoke to Ritchie

11:44

at all and I'm afraid that you

11:47

know now that he changed flags that

11:49

little connection that we had both of us being

11:51

Hungarians is also a little bit slipping

11:54

out of the way. I mean he hasn't changed his nationality

11:58

but he changed federations for the

11:59

chess purposes. Yeah,

12:02

now representing Romania, which is a

12:05

chess

12:06

powerhouse. And we should have mentioned our friends

12:08

at chess schools now give Nepo a 78% chance to win

12:12

this match. I was slightly tilted

12:14

towards Nepo at the beginning of the match. I have to say,

12:16

given the way the match has gone on, if

12:18

someone offered me four to one odds, the ding

12:21

would win. I would take it because it's been

12:23

solved. Yeah, you know, I also, by

12:25

the way, express my view

12:27

on this to chess. They

12:30

reached out to me before the match to say a

12:32

word about what I think. And I said to them

12:35

that I think that

12:36

Nepo should be the favorite,

12:38

not necessarily by a large margin, purely

12:41

because of his match experience.

12:43

Yeah. And the fact that he has already exposed,

12:46

he has already been exposed to this environment.

12:50

The whole shebang is not

12:52

new to him the same way how it was new to

12:55

ding. And we could see,

12:57

excuse me, how

12:59

overwhelmed and emotionally exposed

13:02

ding was.

13:04

I don't think he is anymore, but

13:06

he certainly was in the first

13:08

couple of rounds. So that

13:10

was definitely a telltale sign

13:12

that we saw, you know, a veteran

13:15

who was already trained to this type

13:17

of warfare against someone who was brand

13:20

new to the arena.

13:21

Yeah. I certainly looked at times, as

13:24

I mentioned earlier, like ding has been teetering.

13:26

And every time I watch, you know, I'm

13:28

mainly rooting for drama at this stage of the

13:30

match. So like we

13:32

just concluded round nine and it was

13:35

just that night and pawn and game nights on

13:37

the same side, you know, the table

13:39

base and the engine are yawning the whole

13:41

time. But I'm like on a knife's edge when I

13:43

watch just because you can feel

13:46

again, the humanity of ding. And

13:48

he played splendidly. It didn't, you

13:50

know, in hindsight, it won't look like

13:51

there's any reason for concern. But

13:53

as you're sitting there watching until it's over, you

13:55

worry there's going to be some slip up.

13:58

Yeah, exactly. Exactly.

13:59

It's definitely my point. My view was

14:02

that I think it's a dark horse.

14:04

It's definitely not to be written off.

14:06

But if I had to put money before the match on

14:08

anyone, it would have been Nepo. And in fact, still is.

14:11

Yeah, yeah, he's a favorite for a reason. Well,

14:13

Andres, as I mentioned, we've got some questions from Patreon

14:16

supporters of the pod. I do feel like

14:18

this has struck an earth with those. Obviously,

14:20

some people are checked out given the lack of Magnus

14:23

and the other geopolitical circumstances.

14:25

But those who are following it, I think, share our

14:28

impression and have been really enjoying it. So first

14:30

question is from Daniel Hee. And

14:32

he asks,

14:34

when doing opening prep, how do you

14:36

strike a balance between choosing the objectively

14:38

best moves in the position versus analyzing

14:40

in-depth some moves that are slightly weaker

14:43

but unexplored? Since your competitors

14:45

all have access to the same engines, it would seem

14:47

practical to me in a game to sidestep

14:49

the prep and enter a relatively fresher

14:52

position where your deeper analysis

14:54

will shine.

14:56

Obviously, I'm

14:58

guessing that this question is exclusively

15:01

directed at the very top level. Yeah,

15:03

that's I guess as well.

15:05

And in that case, I

15:08

would have to agree. I do think, and

15:10

part of me is a little bit sad about this,

15:12

by the way, that

15:15

we are in a new era of chess

15:17

where I don't

15:20

think it's objectively feasible anymore

15:23

for opening

15:26

experts, theoreticians, to try

15:28

to find opening variations that yield

15:30

an advantage to white. And I think that

15:32

one of the reasons why Magnus

15:34

has been so, so successful

15:37

for so long is because he was one

15:39

of the pioneers of recognizing this.

15:42

And instead of aiming to get advantages

15:44

out of openings, he aimed to play

15:47

positions that he felt comfortable

15:49

with, that he knew that he liked

15:52

the position, he liked the nature of

15:54

what was happening on the board,

15:56

irrespective

15:57

of the objective evaluation as a matter of time.

15:59

of fact the Grand Master Peter Heinen

16:02

Nielsen, who we can I

16:04

guess claim to be the head of team

16:07

Carson, even admitted that, that

16:09

they actually specifically worked

16:12

towards more, the goal was

16:14

to find positions that Magnus enjoyed

16:16

rather than finding an opening edge and those

16:19

two very often did not overlap at

16:21

all. So I do think that this is

16:24

a fair question and in sight

16:26

of what Dink has been doing, I

16:28

mean the 4H3 is

16:30

something that I would rather forget. But

16:33

even the London, I mean you know where I stand

16:35

and in fact everyone who listens to me for longer

16:38

than 20 minutes know where I stand with the

16:40

London. But look he

16:42

pulled it free, he pulled it off,

16:44

he got a clear advantage and

16:47

I'm gonna say it, so hang

16:49

on to something because you will be shocked. I reckon

16:52

that was the best game of the match. Yeah

16:54

that was beautiful. Yeah I don't

16:56

know. The

17:01

new is the old is what I'm trying to say,

17:03

so instead of you know trying to constantly

17:06

find new ways, I think the

17:08

time has come when players need to accept

17:10

the fact that perhaps we need to play

17:13

equal

17:14

and just have fun with that rather

17:16

than trying to seek

17:18

you know the so

17:20

evasive plus equals which

17:23

is probably no longer there in almost any opening

17:25

really.

17:26

Yeah exactly and I feel like

17:28

as you mentioned the NIMS the

17:30

game with 4H3 in order to avoid presumably

17:35

the semi-terraash

17:38

was more indicative than

17:41

any that he's just like you know what I just want to

17:43

surprise him. But then of course in

17:45

the NIMS Osamish that we had in

17:48

yesterday in game 8's unforgettable

17:51

game he actually went down a very theoretical

17:53

line and Nepo

17:55

proved quite well prepared for

17:57

it and Fabiano has the

17:59

same

17:59

discussed sort of the contours of Daniel's

18:02

question on the broadcast as well. And

18:04

he sort of

18:05

also said, you're not going to get an advantage.

18:08

And something like the the highly

18:10

theoretical line that

18:13

that thing unveiled, we're not likely to see it

18:15

again. He expects thing to continue to jump

18:17

around, which with white

18:19

leads to sort of freewheeling type

18:22

scenarios. Coming into today

18:24

with black, it was a little

18:26

dicier because you feel like he's

18:29

he's drawn, you pretty sure Nepo's going

18:31

to play E4 and his his

18:35

choices seem more limited, which

18:38

gets us to our next Patreon question. But first, do

18:40

you have anything to add to that?

18:42

No, I'm not really old. I must add that the fact

18:44

that he played E5 and E6 as

18:46

well, who already made his

18:49

opening repertoire probably broader

18:52

on the black side of business than most

18:55

the world championship final final

18:57

players ever, if you think about

18:59

it, because usually they stick to the one gun, especially

19:02

if it works. I mean, think about, for

19:04

example, Kramnik, he would have played a hundred

19:06

buildings against Kasparov if

19:09

he drew all the hundred of them. No problems. You

19:12

know, why? Why if it's not broken, why

19:14

fix it? But yeah, things seems to

19:16

have a little versatility

19:20

or he appears to be a bit more versatile even

19:22

on the black side, which I think is a welcome

19:24

change, really.

19:25

Yeah. And to your point, we'll

19:27

get to the leak prep story momentarily.

19:30

But the Berlin was in that was

19:32

in the 72 games. So coming

19:34

into today, I was wondering a little bit. I

19:36

mean, he's already played sort of classical

19:39

Roy Lopez as black. He's already sprung

19:41

the French. And then the only other thing in

19:43

that file was the Berlin. But listen, the Berlin

19:45

is, you know, it's such

19:47

a high percentage of the games for a reason. It's

19:50

got a solid standing. So

19:53

it didn't deter ding from playing it. But anyway,

19:55

more on that in a minute. But the next Patreon question

19:57

is from Noah Zucker, and it's related to what we've been.

20:00

discussing, which is question number

20:02

one, why haven't we seen a Sicilian

20:04

in a recent world championship match or a

20:06

King's Indian attack for that matter? So we'll

20:09

start with that and then he's got another one.

20:11

Right, the answer for that is very,

20:13

very plain and simple. The

20:16

risk reward ratio is just

20:19

not

20:21

acceptable for anyone who

20:23

thinks clearly, realistically

20:26

about what a sound strategy

20:29

is for any player in a world championship

20:31

final.

20:32

Like you really need to narrow down your

20:35

opening choices despite

20:38

everything I said before about how we

20:40

are not chasing the advantage and

20:43

we are happy with the equal.

20:45

On the flip side of that coin you must

20:47

realize that

20:49

the goal is the equal,

20:52

at least for black. And the Sicilian

20:55

has never been an opening that was known

20:58

for, you know,

21:00

guaranteeing equality

21:02

and in fact bringing balance

21:04

into the game. The Sicilian is all about imbalance.

21:07

It's about trying to beat white

21:10

at the risk of losing a game. It

21:12

has been and it will always

21:14

be the choice of the players who

21:16

would like to win a game with black, but

21:19

knowing that they take a sizable

21:21

risk. If you think about it, if I'm not

21:23

mistaken, the last time when we had the Sicilian

21:27

in a world championship

21:29

match, I may be wrong, but my

21:31

recollection is Anand Kasparov.

21:35

I don't think we saw recurring

21:37

Sicilians. Fabiano, I don't think. No, we had the

21:39

Sveshnikov in Magnus Fabiano.

21:42

Yes, that's right. The Sveshnikov did come

21:44

back, but even that I think wasn't played as

21:46

much as Kasparov played the Dragon against Sanhan.

21:49

I think every black player by Kasparov

21:52

was a Sicilian, or at least a fair few

21:54

of them. I may be wrong on this, but anyway,

21:57

it's just not worth it.

21:59

asking, you know, a World

22:02

Cup finalist team to play with five strikers

22:04

and two defenders.

22:06

The risks and the rewards are just not

22:08

in line to make it work. It's

22:11

obviously it would be an immense crowd pleaser,

22:13

but we we tend to be a little bit selfish.

22:17

When as crowd we want our players

22:19

to, you know, just go out guns and plays

22:21

and just do whatever we

22:23

would like them to do.

22:25

Yeah, and I think that's true of the NIDORF

22:27

in particular, like when I interviewed our correspondence

22:30

world champion, John Edwards, he said

22:32

the NIDORF is on firm's theoretical

22:34

standing, but there's just so many landmines

22:37

that I think that from a practical perspective,

22:39

even Nepo himself,

22:41

you know, NIDORF adherent

22:44

is not venturing it in the world championship,

22:46

despite it being so well suited to his style.

22:50

And to know a second question about the King's

22:52

Indian attack. Well, it was in the

22:55

it was in the games that that were

22:57

played on leech us. So maybe

23:00

Ding was planning on playing it. And since

23:02

it's with white, there's, you know, the surprise

23:04

value, the value

23:06

of the surprise value might go down a little. Obviously, it's a

23:08

good opening. So maybe we'll still

23:10

see it will be definitely interesting

23:13

to see any predictions on what what

23:15

what did what ding will uncork next as white

23:17

Andres.

23:19

Ah, look,

23:21

it's very hard to guess, because we

23:23

have already seen so many random things that no

23:25

one would have seen to come. I mean, when he played the

23:27

London, everyone literally fell off their chairs. And

23:30

I should get it aptly observed that chess

23:32

has never been as low as now. Love

23:35

it. Yeah.

23:38

I would be very surprised to see the King's

23:40

Indian attack. I

23:44

what I think is likely to happen is, is

23:46

that thing is gonna go back to his beloved English,

23:48

which is still by the way, by world

23:51

championship final standards, and

23:53

offbeat choice. Just

23:55

for the record, I would like to put it out there.

23:58

Yeah, yeah, that's a good point. Okay,

24:01

so I want to talk about the leaked prep story a little bit.

24:04

I don't want to spend a lot of time on it because I

24:06

tend to think these things get overblown. First, a

24:08

brief overview. So

24:12

yesterday, game

24:14

eight, Ding did spring

24:16

a bit of an opening surprise, particularly with

24:19

this Rook A2 move. I believe it was on

24:21

move nine, although I forgot to double check that. But

24:24

anyway, some intrepid chess

24:26

fan was playing through the Lee Chess

24:28

Explorer, and a game popped up that turned

24:30

out to be between two

24:33

sort of little

24:35

known players who, it turned

24:37

out, had only played against each other and had played 72

24:39

games against each other. And

24:42

the games began taking place

24:44

in February and continued

24:46

intermittently until they stopped two weeks

24:48

ago. And many of the openings

24:51

that have been played, the London in

24:53

particular, the H3 line,

24:56

and one

24:58

more, I'll have to check which

25:00

one, all appeared in the

25:03

World Championship match. So Hikaru said 100%, this

25:06

has to be Ding and presumably

25:08

Richard Rapport playing. There was also a chess.com

25:11

account that was played previously.

25:15

Funny enough, it got shut down for fair

25:17

play violations because an anonymous

25:19

count shows up. And if you're playing at

25:21

the strength of Ding Liren, you might

25:23

get shut down. So that's when they got

25:25

switched to Lee Chess. So

25:28

obviously, this was quite a controversy because

25:31

it, you know, reveals

25:34

some plans. Andres, I know you didn't

25:36

even mention it, I believe, in your most

25:38

recent read. No, I didn't. No, I didn't.

25:41

So what do you think of it? Look,

25:43

it's very, very strange. And the reason why I didn't

25:45

mention it is because

25:47

AI like to stay

25:50

a stately from

25:51

drama in general. But

25:54

too, because there's not a lot

25:56

of things that I can say about this

25:58

that would be.

26:01

you know, not judgmental, because

26:03

let's be honest with ourselves, how

26:05

amateurish this whole

26:07

story is, if it's true. And

26:10

I slightly lean towards

26:12

believing that it's them.

26:14

Yeah. And if it is them,

26:16

I mean, leeches has a function, in fact,

26:18

multiple functions where you can make

26:21

it private.

26:23

And let's be honest, it's not a very well

26:25

hidden function, right?

26:27

That website is mighty good and very well designed.

26:29

And it's very user friendly, two

26:32

more clicks. And those games are not accessible

26:34

to anyone.

26:37

Right? So I'm just thinking like, there

26:39

would have been so many

26:41

ways to do this,

26:44

to avoid a complete

26:47

utter fiasco like that, like how

26:49

could they? It just seems

26:51

so silly. So

26:54

yeah, I was lost for words,

26:56

to be honest with that. So part of me really

26:58

wants to believe that it's actually not them, hoping

27:01

that they wouldn't make such a rookie mistake.

27:04

But, you know, I guess,

27:06

yeah, the the

27:09

the signs are pointing to the direction

27:12

that it was them, I guess lesson

27:14

learned. But yeah, you can't make

27:16

such such rookie errors before

27:20

a world championship final. I mean, it

27:22

might be your only one in your life.

27:24

You take so many so

27:27

so much more serious precautionary

27:29

measures than that. It's

27:32

really unfathomable to me.

27:34

Yeah, although are you sure you can play an actual

27:37

game that's not archived? My understanding was

27:39

you can play it through a study. But if you want

27:41

to have the clock going that it will get

27:43

our well, I was supposed to thinking about the study

27:45

function. Yes. Okay. But but like,

27:48

why would do, you know, such

27:50

giants of chess like Rapport and ding pay

27:52

out the game with a clock? Yeah.

27:55

And and they're like, what's the point?

27:58

I mean, and

27:59

and there's certainly

27:59

our workarounds like John Hartman was

28:02

posting like you know you can since since

28:04

lee chess is open source you can get someone

28:06

to sort of mimic the code and then play on

28:08

a sort of thing. Look

28:11

it really is just a matter of

28:13

I don't know what to call it professionalism

28:16

slash just invest a bit of time into this

28:18

whole thing.

28:19

Yeah and and I sort of agreed

28:22

with your decision to to

28:24

not cover it I mean I do I find

28:26

it amusing more than anything. Yeah that's

28:28

my stance exactly it's amusing sorry to

28:30

cut you off there but that's where I'm like it's

28:33

amusing. Yeah and I did want to

28:35

highlight a couple

28:38

more points both Anish Giri

28:40

and Fabiano Caruana

28:42

said that they they felt that this story was

28:44

going to be overblown so

28:46

I think it's exciting for the fans. Anish

28:49

highlighted the point that because it's later

28:51

in the match that helps there's a

28:54

lot of these sort of a lot of sort

28:56

of these surprises have already been sprung

28:59

so as we mentioned something like the King's Indian

29:01

Attack maybe that would make him less inclined to play

29:03

as as we mentioned he still played the

29:06

Berlin but

29:08

yeah definitely a bit of an own goal

29:10

as you allude to Andres and

29:12

you know adds to sort of the legacy of

29:15

leaks in chess history which

29:17

is always you know good for

29:19

a few clicks but

29:22

as the Peters

29:25

on the Chicken Chess Club put it it's

29:27

you know if you're offered like half a point or

29:30

to have your prep leaked in this way

29:32

like obviously you take the half a point

29:34

in a heartbeat like the the practical value

29:36

of what happened is is

29:39

not that great and you never know maybe it leads

29:41

you to play a different opening and it works out in your favor

29:44

so but did

29:46

did want to address that story. Now

29:49

Andres again super late where you are but

29:51

I did want to talk some chess improvement because

29:54

I I made my top three lessons

29:56

from the match for amateurs I found this to

29:58

be again usually accessible

30:01

and instructive, but what about you? I

30:04

don't want to put you on the spot for a top three,

30:06

but like what has struck you as something

30:09

that amateur players can learn from this match?

30:12

Yeah, you're definitely putting me on

30:14

the spot because for the time being, I'm

30:17

following you, there's, you know,

30:19

enjoying it for myself. I'm trying to

30:21

be a little bit... Well, I'm ready if you need... Every

30:23

now and then. But

30:26

look,

30:27

one thing that is quite amazing

30:30

to me, but maybe it's more typical to this match

30:32

than usual, and probably I will

30:34

sound a little bit like a broken record, is

30:37

that

30:38

many a time we reached positions

30:40

reasonably early on, but definitely by

30:42

early middle game, which

30:45

were very, very rich and calculation

30:47

heavy.

30:48

So calculating exercises,

30:50

I

30:51

definitely, I think are

30:53

the ones that I would say that

30:55

this match offered in abundance.

30:59

It's quite amazing. Like if you think

31:01

about,

31:02

for example, the Nimzo game, it had so

31:05

many fascinating variations where

31:07

the white king side attack could break

31:10

through on the H-Fib, but it just didn't

31:12

because of amazing defensive resources.

31:16

Another thing that I really like to observe

31:19

nowadays, and I'm probably parroting

31:21

a lot of fiber to coaches

31:23

than what I am.

31:26

Maybe it was Jacob Haggard who said

31:28

this, but it might've been somebody

31:30

else is that recently in the past,

31:33

I don't know how many decades or years, chess

31:36

players got

31:37

so much, much better at

31:40

defending. Like it's not

31:42

the attacking chess that excels so

31:44

much, it's not where you see

31:46

the real improvement anymore in top

31:48

level players, but the way how they hold

31:50

positions. And perhaps this is the worst time

31:53

to bring it up because so many decisive games

31:55

and so many mistakes

31:57

made, but nonetheless,

32:00

Even if you look at, for example, the Nimzo game that

32:03

really went south for Nepo, there

32:05

were beautiful defensive moments there when

32:07

Nepo played really well. Eventually, he

32:09

slipped up in the defense, but still,

32:12

it is remarkable to see how

32:15

precisely they play

32:17

irrespective of its on the attack or on

32:19

the defense. And that, I think, is quite inspirational.

32:22

And again, there is material to be

32:24

found there, for sure. Though, obviously,

32:27

because of the depth of the positions, it

32:29

may be a challenge to many,

32:31

including me. Yeah.

32:33

Well said. And on your calculation

32:36

point, Noah, in the perpetual

32:38

chess discord, was he was really

32:41

– and I think Noah's – forgive me if I'm off

32:43

a bit, but I believe Noah's rated around 1,200 online. And

32:47

he was trying to understand

32:50

that critical moment that you alluded to

32:52

in the unforgettable game eight, where

32:55

Nepo left his rook on pre. And

32:59

there was discussion about, was it a bluff or was

33:01

it not a bluff? Because as

33:03

you showed in your recap, at first glance, it

33:05

looks like there's a perpetual, but there were some beautiful

33:08

and creative ways out. And Ding only thought

33:10

for a couple minutes and just didn't

33:13

even do his due diligence. And

33:15

Noah, I think, with the engine there in

33:18

front of him, struggled to understand the

33:20

psychology that went into that. So

33:23

what would you say about someone who

33:26

struggles to understand

33:28

how a world-class player could miss

33:30

that line?

33:33

Look, first of all, anyone who calls it a bluff,

33:35

I mean, come on, get real. That

33:37

whole variation. And

33:39

first of all, so what you need

33:41

to understand, it has got so many layers to it,

33:43

is that that particular motive that

33:46

Nepo went for when

33:47

he checks a king with a queen,

33:51

you know, along a line

33:53

and then along a diagonal and back to a line

33:56

and the king is protected by two pieces.

33:58

It's almost like a mechanism.

33:59

technical puzzle where you move the blocks and there

34:02

is always a way to get in or get out. It's

34:04

a stock standard motif. There are thousands

34:07

of examples for this, both in queen

34:09

endings and also in puzzle

34:12

books that feature perpetual

34:15

check examples. This is a

34:17

very well-known motif. It was

34:19

an absolutely incredible

34:22

one in a million

34:24

misalignment of pieces

34:26

that allowed white to sneak out

34:28

of the perpetual check. Now, as soon

34:31

as the engine shows that you have to do it,

34:33

it's like, oh yeah, easy, easy.

34:36

If you don't see the engine there,

34:38

I don't blame Ding an inch

34:41

for not spending more than two

34:43

minutes because two minutes was perfectly sufficient

34:47

to calculate the line and plundering

34:49

exactly the same thing that Nepal blundered

34:51

and established that it was a draw.

34:54

And so he just checked

34:57

what he thought Nepal calculated

35:00

and assumed to be correct. I

35:02

mean,

35:03

you don't, your first assumption is never that

35:05

your opponent blundered. Your first assumption is that

35:07

you made a mistake and your opponent outsmarted

35:10

you, especially on this level.

35:12

Yeah. Right. So when

35:14

queen age four lands and it leaves

35:16

the rook hanging, your instinct is not that

35:19

they blundered the rook. Never. The

35:21

instinct is that, oh, Bhagat, there is a paper, you'll check

35:24

and I missed it. And then he checks the line

35:26

already

35:27

on the back foot mentally because he think

35:29

he had me, he has missed it. He confirms

35:32

that he did miss it and he goes on

35:34

with life.

35:35

And so yeah, that was

35:37

not even close to being a bluff in

35:39

chess. No way.

35:41

Like on this level, you don't bluff

35:43

to begin with. Definitely

35:46

when there is as much as a hanging rook

35:48

at stake, but yeah, to go back

35:50

to the top players,

35:53

as per example, are not

35:55

immune to bluntering.

35:57

It's extremely rare, but they are not immune to bluntering.

36:00

immune to it. I mean, every single game that

36:02

is decisive, by definition

36:04

has to feature a mistake. Now, sometimes

36:07

that's not a mistake, but a blunder, which

36:09

is an exaggerated version of the mistake.

36:12

So when we see five back-to-back games

36:14

with decisive results, and we

36:16

are, you know, celebrating that,

36:19

wow, classical chess is so much fun

36:21

again. I

36:22

mean, there is a price to pay guys, like we

36:24

can't have the cake and eat it at the same

36:27

time. We can have 12 throws

36:29

and have 99.9% accuracy in every single

36:32

game, or we will have five back-to-back decisive

36:35

games, and there will be a blunder in them.

36:38

And once again, we already spoke about this, that

36:40

that doesn't necessarily mean that the

36:42

quality of this is so awful. It's

36:44

just a lot of things working out in a

36:46

way that these games are more severely

36:49

contested than others.

36:52

Beautifully said, yeah. And that

36:54

actually ties into

36:56

my number one chess improvement

36:59

takeaway, which was the importance of clock

37:01

management, because... I'm so

37:03

glad you brought that in. Yeah, thank you. Let's

37:06

talk about that. Yeah, I mean, I

37:08

have a lot to say, because let's just know I struggle

37:10

with this myself, but it was

37:12

a background to Ding overlooking

37:14

that, because he had about 20 minutes on

37:16

the clock at the time that he was presented

37:19

with the opportunity to take the rook. And

37:21

he had the blundering

37:24

in extreme time pressure had

37:26

cost him the prior game. So I think he was

37:28

just trying to be practical. He moved in

37:30

only a couple minutes. And I mean, that

37:32

showed the wonders

37:34

of psychology. But I did think that there was... I

37:37

agree with you that people are making... I mean,

37:39

whatever, I'm like, you know, 2000. So what do I know?

37:42

But people are making it sound like it's easy

37:45

to see that line, but...

37:47

which I don't agree with. But I

37:49

did think the one lesson people

37:51

can learn from that, and this is something the aforementioned

37:53

Jakob Aagard has talked about, is the

37:55

importance of identifying critical moments.

37:58

So maybe there is something to be seen. said,

38:00

where Ding says, you know, this probably

38:03

doesn't work. But listen, if I can get

38:05

away with taking this Rook, the game is over. And

38:07

the other thing importantly, if I go for another line,

38:10

I just have a small edge. My position doesn't look

38:13

fantastic. So it's not like he had another

38:15

easy win in front of him at that stage, although

38:17

he had missed some wins earlier. So

38:19

I do think one could make an argument for

38:22

him saying, you know what?

38:24

This probably doesn't work, but

38:27

I'm going to spend seven minutes looking at everything

38:29

because because if it does

38:31

work, the game's over. So it's a huge equity

38:33

swing. So that's the only thing I would add about that particular

38:36

position. But then Andris, there's also the broader

38:38

topic of time management.

38:40

Yeah, well, look, not that I want

38:42

to have the last word on this, but what I want to tell you

38:45

there is also if you consider Queen

38:47

H4 as the move hanging the Rook.

38:50

To add another layer of disbelief on

38:52

Ding's end. I mean, if

38:54

it was a blunder, I mean, think about

38:57

what an absolute shame that

38:59

would look on like that would be. Yeah.

39:02

What a way to lose. So that again

39:04

increases your sense of surely

39:07

this is correct, because if it was wrong,

39:10

it would look like a club player

39:12

from up the road. And he is the world's second

39:14

best chess player. So you almost

39:16

don't even calculate because he just quite

39:19

Queen H4 hang Rook. No one does

39:21

that on twenty eight hundred level.

39:23

That is right. So there is

39:25

a level of trust between

39:28

these players when it comes to such

39:30

things. Of course, you should never trust

39:32

your opponent ever. But there

39:34

is somewhere a fine line

39:36

that you need to draw. And I think that Ding didn't

39:38

necessarily cross that line.

39:41

But, yeah, time may have been

39:44

an issue. Interestingly enough,

39:47

Ding has been struggling with time. I

39:49

think that it's not necessarily

39:52

coming only from

39:54

the fact that he has the propensity to

39:56

get into time travel. A lot of people

39:58

overlook the fact.

39:59

that young

40:02

Nepomnishi is one of the most

40:05

annoying people to play against

40:08

on planet earth when it comes

40:10

to psychological pressure,

40:12

close pressure, pressure,

40:15

pressure overall. You have to pick one

40:17

guy you don't want to play against. If

40:20

you are prone to feel, you

40:23

know, under any kind of pressure, don't

40:25

pick Nepo because he is playing

40:27

really fast with an tremendous

40:30

amount of self-confidence. And

40:33

so you are sitting there, it's constantly

40:35

your clock ticking

40:37

and the guy is chucking, really

40:40

annoying, mighty good moves at

40:42

you. You constantly feel on the

40:44

back foot, you know, it doesn't matter if you're playing out

40:46

a three on three king and pawn ending that even

40:49

then you feel like the guy has the pressure

40:51

on you because he just

40:53

on the go all the time. And

40:55

he combines that extremely annoyingly

40:57

and to my mind, by the way, this is definitely something

41:00

that needs fixing, is

41:02

that two third of the time he's not even

41:04

there. You're playing a ghost. Yeah.

41:07

The guy plays a move,

41:10

goes to the restroom, ding response,

41:12

he often doesn't even come back,

41:15

which by the way, to my mind is really,

41:17

really a big no-go and we should not,

41:19

not we, but I don't think that is right.

41:22

For the viewers, for the respect

41:25

of the opponent in general, I disapprove

41:27

of someone knowing that it's

41:30

their turn, their clock is ticking

41:32

and they choose to stay in their restroom

41:35

and analyze their position as in, sorry,

41:37

calculate their response whilst

41:39

looking at the screen instead of going back

41:41

to the board. In my opinion, is an awful

41:44

way to popularize chess.

41:45

I think there is, there

41:47

is a really serious amount of damage done

41:49

there to what overall

41:51

chess should look like

41:53

to the wide audience, but

41:55

that's a completely different thing. I strongly

41:57

agree. Wasn't even asked.

41:59

My solution to that, by the way, I tweeted about

42:02

this, I wouldn't allow them to have a screen in the

42:04

in the restroom with the position.

42:06

Yeah, I don't think they should have a restroom. I mean,

42:09

bathroom, sure. But but they don't need Oh,

42:11

yeah, even that is that is a fair point.

42:13

But I'm willing to, you know, negotiate,

42:16

but I'm, I'm not going further than you want

42:19

your restroom fine, you can sit in there, but no

42:21

screen. So if it's your clock ticking,

42:24

do you buddy? Yeah,

42:26

yeah, that's certainly a step in the right direction. Because

42:28

although they don't need the board to

42:31

calculate, they do need to know it's their

42:33

move. So well, exactly. And you

42:35

know, like, there is that element of uncertainty,

42:37

like, you just don't know when they move them. And

42:39

when it comes to you constantly looking, you know, from

42:41

the door, have they, right, they move them, then

42:43

all of a sudden, there is no point in sitting in the restroom,

42:46

you will go back and, you know, spend your time

42:48

there. But if we go back to the original question,

42:51

yes, that the the

42:53

pressure that Nepal puts on his opponent,

42:56

by

42:56

his style,

42:58

is already tremendous, and it shows on

43:00

the clock. Another thing

43:03

that is very, very interesting, and I actually discovered

43:05

this, Ben, in a

43:07

lesson today that I had with a student

43:10

that I will now prefer not to name, especially

43:12

because he's rather known in the chess community,

43:14

too. As I was analyzing

43:16

his game, and I looked at his time consumption,

43:19

I found out,

43:21

and this is very interesting, by the way, to

43:23

refer back to the way how Nepal plays,

43:26

that almost every time when he spent

43:29

more than X amount of time, it doesn't

43:32

matter what X is that let's go with more than eight

43:34

minutes on a move, it was

43:36

a mistake.

43:37

When he hadn't, when

43:40

he had an obvious, you

43:42

know, defensive measure, or

43:45

anything of that kind, he would not

43:47

spend too much time. So there were a few

43:49

interesting psychological factors

43:51

there. So, for example, in the early opening,

43:54

he was very clearly ahead,

43:56

and he had a mighty obvious move, spent 10

43:58

minutes on it.

44:00

Right when he was up and

44:02

he knew that he had the upper hand when

44:04

he was already down And

44:06

he knew that he was gonna lose he

44:08

started playing faster

44:11

And I told him that mate it

44:13

should be the polar opposite when you

44:15

are up When you feel that you are

44:18

in the driving seat when you feel

44:20

like you are in command

44:22

That's when you play a little bit faster. That's when

44:24

the position plays itself So, you know,

44:26

you can safely play moves that they

44:28

just look good and they will reward you and

44:31

when things are getting dicey That's

44:33

when you need to you know Put your feet

44:36

down and go like I need to now dig

44:38

in and start thinking and figure out

44:40

how I get out of this mess and

44:43

he's entirely switched it around started

44:45

thinking awful lot went up a piece and attacking

44:48

and

44:48

Very quickly playing when you

44:51

know, the tide has turned and

44:53

a little bit. I feel the same we think too that

44:56

sometimes there is an unnecessary amount of time

44:58

spent in positions where he could

45:00

actually just play the move that he's thinking

45:03

and calculate and and

45:05

do things in his opponent time because

45:08

I would hazard to guess that in

45:10

a large number of cases

45:13

The move that he's considering playing let's say by

45:15

minute eight

45:17

Is going to be the one that he's going to eventually

45:19

play after thinking another 15 minutes

45:22

Now obviously you will need to double check you

45:24

need to go deep The level of their

45:26

calculation is not even on the same planet

45:28

as mine But the general principle

45:30

is the same he has the skills

45:32

That is required to

45:34

see enough after raid or

45:36

at least be Good enough to say that

45:38

and that's by the way annish said something

45:40

along the lines too that

45:43

like it's basically just a A

45:45

never-ending loop that

45:47

you sort of get yourself into that

45:49

You always want to get to the very end of the line

45:52

But when you are playing on a level of chess that ding

45:54

and nepal

45:55

do you will not get there? You

45:58

because it's impossible because they will

46:00

throw the best moves back at you. So it's not

46:02

like you know you are calculating lines

46:04

where it's a force made. No, you're calculating

46:07

options

46:08

where almost all of them will lead to an equal

46:10

and you just need to pick one that you like. And

46:13

so if you are a perfectionist and you try to see

46:15

to the very end,

46:17

then you will in the end come back with nothing

46:19

and you just constantly go in this circle of

46:22

having free candidates, none of them I like,

46:24

let's recalculate, hoping I will find something

46:26

better. And in the end you spend

46:29

three times as much time as you should have and you're

46:31

going to still settle for a move that

46:33

you have already seen 20 minutes ago perfectly

46:36

clearly.

46:37

And so the move first think

46:39

after policy however foolish

46:41

it may sound definitely does apply

46:43

after

46:45

some time spent on accurately

46:48

measuring up the consequences.

46:50

This definitely hits close to home Andres,

46:53

but let me ask you one more question on this

46:55

sort of psychological theme

46:58

because I agree that Nepo

47:00

seems terrifying to play against, uniquely

47:02

terrifying even among the top

47:05

players. But in the way you describe

47:07

his style, which is also how I think of his

47:09

style, oozing confidence and just

47:11

moving quickly, it actually makes me

47:13

think as an amateur player Andres, I

47:16

actually encounter this with some frequency

47:18

playing kids. Even if they're lower rated

47:20

than me, they often they just

47:23

don't, they're not, you

47:25

know, they don't have the scars that

47:28

adults have accumulated. So they just have a sort

47:30

of carefree attitude. They're standing,

47:33

they're looking all around the room, they're playing

47:36

quickly and as you say it can be disconcerting

47:39

and a lot of us adults have to deal with that. So

47:41

do you have any advice for when you are playing

47:44

against someone who in Dings case

47:46

is Nepo, in our case might

47:48

be a precocious nine-year-old kid. How

47:52

do you approach it? How can you slow

47:54

yourself down and stay focused on the game?

47:59

expected from me, I'm going to be very blunt

48:02

about this method, because I think that that is

48:04

going to be the most useful piece of advice.

48:07

If I see anyone playing at an incredible

48:09

pace, which I do all the time,

48:12

in my students games, mostly

48:15

by done by their opponents. And

48:19

I do see that it's a tendency, right? So it's not like

48:21

one or two moves, but they're blitzing out like up

48:23

to more 15.

48:24

What I'm telling my student is that I guarantee

48:27

you that among that 15 moves,

48:30

there will be at least three absolute

48:32

lemons guaranteed, because

48:35

they do not have the skills that Nepal

48:37

does.

48:39

They do not have the experience that Nepal

48:41

does, they do not have the coaching that Nepal

48:44

has had. And the list goes on forever

48:46

about the difference between those two. Now,

48:49

obviously, their opponents are also

48:51

lower rated. So they are a son

48:53

of how to appropriately respond to

48:55

such provocation is also much

48:57

more limited. But my piece of advice

49:00

is, in that case is that your mentality

49:02

must be that whatever this guy

49:05

is doing is wrong, because there is no way

49:07

that you can play good quality chess

49:09

in that limited time. Having

49:11

said that, there are two ways that

49:13

you can really badly respond

49:16

to this. One of them, the most common

49:18

one is that you pick up their tempo,

49:20

and you start blitzing out as well. And

49:22

since they are far more used to that kind

49:25

of warfare than you are, it's far

49:27

more likely that the mistakes you are going to

49:29

make are going to be of greater

49:31

consequence than what they have been

49:33

doing. The other one is

49:36

that you panic,

49:38

or you are desperate to find

49:40

a hole on whatever they are doing. And

49:42

you spend way too much time

49:45

on trying to punish and defeat these people.

49:47

And you're basically going to fail

49:51

in trying to do so. So my

49:53

best piece of advice would be probably to find

49:55

the golden middle way.

49:58

Definitely try to single out the

49:59

move all moves that you

50:02

feel are bad. And when you hit

50:04

that point, when they played a move fast,

50:06

that really looks off.

50:08

That's when you need to start thinking really

50:10

deeply and start punishing them. But

50:12

until then, try to find a golden middle way

50:14

of not too much, not too little. But

50:17

when a move looks very amiss, that's

50:20

when you need to start thinking and you know,

50:23

try to beat them.

50:25

Okay, yeah, the board. Yeah, and

50:27

even Nepo, as you say, we're not playing Nepo.

50:29

But I mean, Nepo, it's a double edged

50:31

sword for him. Obviously, he'd like, you

50:34

know, blitzed out night ticks

50:36

f2, this amazing drawing sequence in game

50:38

eight. But, but when Ding leveled

50:40

the score in game four, a

50:43

large part of it was where Nepo allowed Ding

50:45

to sack the exchange on d4.

50:47

And, you know, so and, and

50:50

Anand called that move like inexplicable

50:53

or something like that, like, so even

50:55

Nepo, like, if you stay alert, and you manage

50:57

your time properly, he'll

51:00

give you chances that other world class players

51:02

won't, but you never know when

51:04

it's coming. And you got to manage

51:06

your time properly so that when it comes,

51:09

you can spend enough but not too

51:11

much, you know, so it's a simple

51:13

but not easy, or whatever it may

51:15

be. And the final chess improvement

51:18

lesson I highlighted, and maybe

51:20

you won't agree with this one based on what you said. So

51:23

we had number one, just time management,

51:25

generally number two, sort of the

51:28

psychological aspect of chess and how to deal

51:30

with a confident opponent. But

51:32

number three was I did find it interesting, bringing

51:35

it back to the leaked games that they

51:37

the way that they decided to learn this opening,

51:40

to learn their openings was to play so many

51:42

training games. Now you

51:44

mentioned earlier, Andres, that at their level, maybe

51:47

they don't need the clock. Do you for your students,

51:50

is that something when you're learning an opening? Do

51:52

you tell them to get a lot of reps in playing it?

51:55

Yeah, absolutely. I think that the best way to learn

51:57

openings is 100% training

51:59

games.

51:59

every day of the week. This is like

52:02

I have made a YouTube video about this in fact,

52:04

a fair while ago, where I expressed

52:07

that in

52:08

my book,

52:11

the number one, and in fact,

52:13

and I'm going to expose myself here

52:15

to probably a fair bit of heat, the

52:17

sole purpose of playing blitz

52:20

is to practice openings. Yeah,

52:22

I think a spender players, yeah,

52:25

and you can take that knowledge to

52:27

play what I like to call the real chess

52:29

for which I'm again going to attract a lot of heat.

52:31

But yeah, exactly. I

52:34

like to be a little bit controversial,

52:36

also known as right. Hope

52:39

you saw by the way, Levon Aronian's tweet about

52:41

Oh, yeah, he's been he's been strident. Anyway,

52:44

go ahead. I'll find you while

52:46

you continue please so that those those

52:49

those are not sure what

52:50

real chess is they can refer to a little bit of

52:52

a higher authority than myself. But back to the point,

52:55

definitely, and the reason

52:57

why blitz is the ultimate tool, by

52:59

the way, for practicing openings is because

53:01

blitz games are short. So they guarantee

53:04

you high frequency, right? So imagine that

53:06

you learn any opening, let's go night

53:08

off, right? You play 10 games back to

53:10

back in the night off templates games,

53:12

right?

53:13

If you play three minute blitz, that's one

53:15

game, six minutes. That means that in 10 games,

53:17

that's an hour, you played 10 games

53:21

in an opening.

53:23

There are a bunch of players, club level players

53:25

out there who learn an opening, and

53:27

then play that opening twice in two

53:29

months.

53:30

I give you a scenario where you played 10

53:33

games in an hour.

53:36

Imagine the immense potential

53:38

of learning there, provided

53:41

that you then take the time, which is by

53:43

the way, again, the only way to go about

53:46

this. And you go through the games, and

53:48

you sort of look at at least what

53:50

went wrong, what went right in the opening, what were the

53:52

plans that we should have followed, yada, yada,

53:54

yada. In general, there is not a lot of point

53:57

analyzing blitz games, but at least

53:59

for opening

53:59

purposes there is a point in my opinion

54:02

to check them

54:03

at least until how long we knew theory

54:06

when what did we do with the game once we got

54:08

out of book these two questions are

54:11

perfectly fine to ask in any blitz

54:13

game yeah and so

54:15

yes 100 i think the training games

54:18

are definitely a crucial

54:21

part of of learning openings

54:24

i think that the two best things you can do with an

54:27

opening after you learn some openings is to

54:29

look for anchor games which is a

54:31

very well known pet peeve of mine i have

54:33

spoken about it on my

54:36

youtube channel a lot and in fact all my chessable

54:38

opening courses have

54:40

anchor games associated with

54:42

every line and the other one is just practice

54:44

games and there the volume

54:47

matters so much more than the

54:49

quality like much rather play 10 blitz

54:51

than one one rapid

54:53

when the purpose is memorization

54:56

and understanding both

54:59

both i

55:01

would like to emphasize both

55:03

to be able to remember and

55:05

to understand what you're doing much better

55:07

to play you know a large volume of

55:09

games and then go through them

55:11

well said yeah and anchor games being of course

55:14

illustrative games from strong players

55:16

yes that's right model games is the

55:18

official name in my chessable courses yeah

55:21

um and let me follow up on that Andres because

55:23

i i broadly agree with you but i

55:25

often encourage players say rated below 1500 instead

55:28

of playing blitz to play rapid just because

55:31

i do think with the clock ticking it can be a bit

55:34

overwhelming do you do you agree with that

55:36

advice or will you say i

55:39

think that it's a bit of a personal taste it's

55:41

a bit of

55:41

a um you know

55:44

preference of individual players

55:46

because obviously there are players out there who don't like

55:49

playing blitz they think that the quality of their play

55:51

is too bad and therefore it's not really usable

55:53

for the greater purpose um

55:56

so yeah of course you can turn it into rapid

55:58

game it's all a matter of how much

55:59

you have. If you have time, you know, to play three,

56:02

four, five rapid games for the same opening, go

56:04

for it.

56:05

Okay. But usually I find, especially having

56:08

spoken to you a lot about, you know, adult

56:10

improvement and improving

56:13

in general and coaching theories

56:15

and what to do and how to use your time wisely.

56:18

What I find is that time is the

56:21

only commodity that people don't

56:23

tend to have. So when I say play

56:25

five rapid games for one opening, like,

56:27

yeah, thank you. And then I will be 200 77 years

56:31

old, when I've learned my night off

56:33

or divorced. Yeah.

56:35

Probably both, actually. Yes. And homeless

56:39

and yeah, the reason

56:41

life might be it's all worth it. I reckon

56:43

you if you master the night off. I mean, that

56:46

was right. Right. Exactly.

56:48

Jokes aside, that's what I'm saying.

56:50

Like, you need to adjust it to your personal

56:52

circumstances.

56:54

Excellent. All right. Well, Andres, we

56:56

do have two more chess improvement questions. If you're up

56:58

for it, I know it's super awesome.

57:01

Thank you. So this day is down to good

57:03

already or not. Excellent.

57:06

So one more question from Noah, which

57:08

is, he says, seems like this world championship

57:10

matches a battle of calculation versus intuition

57:13

with the former losing more often due to

57:15

something called time trouble. And obviously

57:17

we've touched on this, but he says, what do you think

57:19

the world championship tells us about how much emphasis

57:22

we should place on calculating

57:24

as opposed to pattern recognition

57:26

and shallow, more

57:29

shallower analysis? Look,

57:32

I would like to warn

57:35

against trying to draw. I

57:39

hope I'm not going to often know how to say simplistic

57:42

conclusions

57:43

when it comes to one is very good at intuition

57:46

and the other one is very good at calculation because

57:49

we work with what we see on the clock

57:52

and we work with what the commentators tell

57:54

us. We don't know what's going on in

57:56

here for Ding and Nepo. Like

57:59

I have no.

57:59

idea

58:01

whether Nepal calculated in today's game 200

58:03

lines, 110 or 2000. You don't know, I don't know, nobody

58:08

does. So it's very, very difficult

58:11

to gauge how much calculation

58:13

goes through in a chess

58:16

game. And I generally

58:18

like to err on the side of

58:20

calculation.

58:22

Right. I'm a very big believer

58:24

of chess intuition. It has played

58:26

a tremendous role in chess history.

58:29

In fact, we can easily say that the

58:32

absolute epitome of chess intuition

58:34

is the gold. If we accept Magnus Carson

58:37

to be the gold, he

58:39

is the embodiment of chess intuition.

58:41

Everyone says that Carson understands

58:44

chess better than anybody else without

58:46

calculating anything, which is in my opinion,

58:48

the very definition of intuition.

58:51

But that doesn't mean that he doesn't calculate.

58:54

And my view is that

58:57

a better calculator will always be

58:59

the weaker calculator, irrespective

59:01

of remaining skills. So

59:03

I would like to very kindly

59:06

warn against drawing conclusions

59:09

that if you have got the right intuition,

59:11

then calculation is no

59:13

longer that important.

59:16

Well said. And yeah, I 100% agree.

59:18

And I think, especially with

59:20

club players, you see them, I believe,

59:23

Dan Heisman calls it hand waving, where

59:25

instead of actually providing a variation for

59:27

why you for why you play to move, you

59:30

just like try to fall back on some

59:32

principle or something like that. And

59:34

yeah, I call that the telling stories.

59:36

And they are telling me that, oh, I wanted

59:39

to do this. And then if that happened, and

59:41

I'm like, yeah, no, give me a boost. Look, the

59:43

long story short is in that I had a few

59:46

arguments

59:46

about other coaches

59:48

and other chess

59:50

personalities about this. My view

59:52

is I have never not once

59:55

in my life come across a student,

59:57

whether it be junior, adult in-person,

59:59

or not.

59:59

Provence, name it whatever, whose

1:00:02

weakness was that they calculated

1:00:05

too much and not too little. I

1:00:07

am yet to see that person and I'm

1:00:10

inviting anyone now to point

1:00:12

that someone whose greatest weakness

1:00:14

is that they calculate too much. I

1:00:16

will be the happiest coach when that day happened.

1:00:20

I'm yet to see it.

1:00:21

Great point. All right, one last

1:00:24

question, chess improvement related, and then we'll

1:00:26

just briefly tie up the match and look

1:00:28

forward. So from Ali Campbell,

1:00:31

thanks for supporting the pod, Ali. He

1:00:33

asks, he's identified a problem with his chest

1:00:35

where he's having trouble how to fix it. He

1:00:37

often loses because he plays moves without visualizing

1:00:40

the position after his move and checking for

1:00:42

possible tactics. I'm allowing for

1:00:45

my opponent in general,

1:00:47

his calculation isn't bad. So

1:00:49

if he remembers to check, he does reasonably

1:00:51

well,

1:00:51

but actually remembering to follow the right

1:00:54

process, every move is something he

1:00:56

struggles with. He can do it 90% of the time,

1:00:58

but the few moves of the game where I lose focus

1:01:01

are often enough to change the result. Any

1:01:03

tips for improving this skill?

1:01:06

Oh, that sounds to

1:01:08

me like very random. Yeah,

1:01:11

it sounds to me like saying that

1:01:13

anytime I look around before I cross the road, I'm

1:01:15

safe, but when I don't, I get hit by car.

1:01:17

Like, yeah, yeah,

1:01:21

chess in a nutshell. Yeah, yeah. I

1:01:23

mean, like, you know, I don't want to make him

1:01:25

look silly or anything like that. I'm

1:01:27

saying it with all respect, but the

1:01:30

greatest enemy of your own move

1:01:32

is whatever is going to hit it next, right? Like

1:01:35

I always tell my students that

1:01:37

there should never, ever be a

1:01:39

point in their game when they play

1:01:41

a move

1:01:43

on their turn. Yeah.

1:01:44

And they don't know

1:01:46

what the, their most feared

1:01:49

response against that move is. I use that

1:01:51

wording because depending on

1:01:53

level, I like to use the wording of what

1:01:56

the and the opponent's best move is,

1:01:58

but of course, very often with

1:01:59

don't see what our opponent's best move

1:02:02

is. But if you have the mentality

1:02:04

of playing a

1:02:06

move and knowing what's

1:02:09

going to hit you next, even if you are wrong about

1:02:11

what's going to hit you, that means that you already have

1:02:13

that kind of thinking and that mentality

1:02:16

that before you do your stuff, you check what's

1:02:18

going to happen to you next.

1:02:20

So once again, going back to the

1:02:22

basic principle of if you play a move

1:02:25

without knowing what your opponent

1:02:27

is going to hit you with next, that means you're not playing

1:02:29

the game. That means you are totally in the

1:02:31

dark, like not even close. That's

1:02:34

that there is the version of chess, you know, when

1:02:36

you play in a fog, like you don't see the opponent's

1:02:39

pieces. I don't know what it's called. It was a big

1:02:41

thing on dot com for a while.

1:02:43

I can't remember what it's called. And that's the

1:02:45

analogy that comes to mind. I mean, imagine you

1:02:47

play a move and you don't know what your opponent is going to play

1:02:50

next. It's like,

1:02:50

how? Like, what did you

1:02:52

calculate? What is your plan? What

1:02:55

did how did you measure if your plan was effective?

1:02:58

Like that, that is one of the most

1:03:01

imperative, most

1:03:03

important skills or habits of a

1:03:05

chess player is to be constantly

1:03:08

questioning out your own decision. And

1:03:11

the measure of questioning your own decision

1:03:13

is to check your opponent's responses.

1:03:16

It's like table tennis with the minds

1:03:18

that you hit the ball, you know, it's going to come back.

1:03:21

When you hit the ball, you are already thinking

1:03:23

about where it's coming back. You're not thinking

1:03:25

about I'm going to hit it over. Yeah,

1:03:27

everyone knows that

1:03:29

you need to be already be prepared to know roughly

1:03:31

where it's coming back so that we are ready for the next.

1:03:33

That was a brilliant analogy. I'm

1:03:35

proud of myself. Well done. Yeah.

1:03:38

Tennis aficionado. So it. Yeah.

1:03:40

And I didn't even say tennis. I said people

1:03:43

or table tennis. So there you go.

1:03:45

Excellent. All right. Well, yeah. And

1:03:47

it's good advice. But yeah, as I sort

1:03:49

of alluded to,

1:03:51

it's that's the challenge of chess.

1:03:54

You're not unique. That's, you know, that's

1:03:56

what everyone struggles with to bring that 90

1:03:58

percent.

1:03:59

was that feels like I didn't have them at all. And

1:04:02

maybe that's the case. But sometimes

1:04:05

easy problems have easy

1:04:07

solutions.

1:04:09

Okay, well, Andres, this

1:04:11

has been great. Any final thoughts as we

1:04:13

sort of zoom back out to the match?

1:04:15

I mean, we've got five games to go. I've

1:04:18

been on the edge of my seat. Anything

1:04:21

for anything you're especially looking forward to?

1:04:24

Oh, look, just the match overall. I

1:04:26

mean, this this this match

1:04:29

has been a gift that keeps giving. And

1:04:31

I have already prepared myself by

1:04:33

the way,

1:04:34

not because of I'm pessimistic, but because

1:04:36

if I just can't see it happening, that it's

1:04:38

gonna carry on like that, that the

1:04:41

the rest of the match is going to sort

1:04:44

of calm down a little

1:04:46

bit and follow the

1:04:48

trends of previous world championship matches

1:04:50

of the past decades and centuries when

1:04:53

it's going to be far tighter

1:04:55

games with far fewer

1:04:58

engine bar jumped

1:05:01

jumping jacks up and down more

1:05:03

draws and a slow

1:05:06

finish is what I predict.

1:05:09

But side note, I hope I'm going to be wrong.

1:05:12

Yeah, I think that might happen if

1:05:14

ding can even the score. But if he doesn't,

1:05:16

I think he's got a he's got to throw the kitchen sink

1:05:19

at him with white. I mean, he's only even now he's

1:05:21

only got three whites left. Although he's

1:05:23

had his chances. You know, I mean, obviously,

1:05:26

we had five wins.

1:05:27

And although I wouldn't say that today's game was

1:05:29

boring, or you know, like, no, not

1:05:32

fitting the the trends of the game,

1:05:34

or sorry, the match so far. But

1:05:36

you could already see that today the fluctuation

1:05:39

was already significantly

1:05:41

smaller.

1:05:42

Yeah, yeah, there was no real point

1:05:45

in today's game from what I could tell, where

1:05:47

there was a clear cut advantage to be had by

1:05:49

either side. Yeah, although I don't

1:05:52

know, he's got rapport in the lab now with a few

1:05:54

whites left. Look, they

1:05:56

but then again, so see that this is the problem that yeah,

1:05:59

they can go crazy.

1:05:59

but crazy is double-edged to say the

1:06:02

least.

1:06:03

Yeah, it's a good point. And on a

1:06:05

final note, I mentioned earlier, Chesculls

1:06:07

had pegged NEPO's win probability

1:06:10

at 78%. I also reached out to

1:06:12

front of the pod chest by the numbers. And

1:06:14

he actually, because there have been a sort

1:06:16

of atypical number of decisive

1:06:19

results, he's running it differently, assuming

1:06:21

a different draw rate. So he said, it's 78%

1:06:24

if you assume a 50% draw rate, which

1:06:27

is more indicative of

1:06:30

past world championships. Or

1:06:32

sorry, 86% of

1:06:33

you assume a 70% draw rate, which

1:06:36

is more indicative of past world

1:06:39

championships. But 78% of you assume a 50% draw rate, which I

1:06:43

don't even think we've had. So it's

1:06:45

round nine. And we've had. No, no,

1:06:47

because we had five decisive games. And it's only

1:06:49

round nine. So it's like 40-something

1:06:52

percent draws. So

1:06:55

either way, I'd bet

1:06:58

on dang at either one of those prices, even

1:07:00

though, as you said, NEPO is rightfully

1:07:02

the favorite. All right, Andres,

1:07:04

this has been great. Really appreciate you staying

1:07:07

up late. Hopefully, we can chat again

1:07:09

sometime under regular circumstances

1:07:11

down the road. And be sure to check out Andres'

1:07:14

game recaps and his YouTube channel

1:07:17

generally, as well as his chessable

1:07:20

courses. As you can tell, Andres

1:07:22

is a great presenter who is

1:07:24

entertaining as well. Right, Andres?

1:07:27

Thank

1:07:27

you. Yeah, well, I don't like to be the judge

1:07:29

of my own work. So I will leave it to others.

1:07:31

But if you think so, I appreciate it. Thank you. Yeah,

1:07:33

and I appreciate it. And it was a pleasure to

1:07:35

be on the podcast, as always. I love

1:07:38

to come here. And yeah, I look

1:07:40

forward to chat with you again.

1:07:41

Excellent. Yeah, and, Jory, we've only

1:07:44

got five games left. I was already getting sad

1:07:46

when it looked like dang might not

1:07:48

hold today, just because then the match is less

1:07:51

thrilling. So I hope we can

1:07:53

come in for a thrilling conclusion. And thanks

1:07:55

again, Andres.

1:07:56

Thank you.