 Okay, I think we might as well start, there might be some late arrivals to join us. Best in please stand up. So first of all, former FIDE World Champion, and he was a fantastic teacher. We had a seminar that were for three days, 35th Saturday, and Best in you were fantastic. And thank you very much for that. And also for being here tonight and offering us what I'm sure is going to be a fantastic lecture. And then playing in the Masters, for which we wish you the best of luck. Best in to fall off. Good evening, today I chose to show the theoretical, what we call theoretical you, between me and Anna, between years 2005-2008. All the games were played in the Queen's City and I was always white. So what happens more or less is that, for example, imagine you play in the weekends, in your chess club, in your whole city, against some opponent, and then you play games, some certain openings, and then during the weeks you try to improve and then next week you play a game. And this is more or less what is happening in top events, that I met Anna with the white pieces 15 years ago in 2005. We first played in Vaikaze, what is now Tata, in January. Then we played, I think, first it was in February or February was Linaris, then it was Monte Carlo, and finally in May, Sofia. So if probably you see that many, many times on top level there are many, many draws, and sometimes people complain openings are boring, and the games are boring, and one of the reasons is that in these all irrefutable openings and classical openings, they will stand forever. And the ideas that white have mainly, they are limited, they are not so many good ideas. And at some point if you play, you can show good idea every week, in certain opening, and that is the reason sometimes they just repeat same opening once and again in a period of a month or two, and nothing really is happening with some small improvements. Okay, so I will start with our first game, the one I played between me and Anand in Sofia in May. It was played in May, and before that I tried always both in Vaikaze and in Linaris, I tried first move E4. I don't look at the comments of this guy, Chomkin. I just need the moves. And both in Vaikaze and Linaris I tried E4 and Anand played the Petrov defense, and in Vaik, black was completely fine, just a normal quick draw, nothing really happened, and then I was pressing in the Petrov in Linaris, I was very close to winning, but then Monaco I tried something else. It was probably a blindfold game, but the thing is that we played in the sixth round in Sofia, and then I just lost the round before to Ponomaru. By the way, I recommend this game, because there are events that I will always remember. For example, the first time I played in Linaris, it was 1994, and that's the famous Linaris when Karpov, he beat us, like he made plus nine, I think, 11 out of 13 games. I will always remember that tournament, I will always remember the one in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria in 1996. I think it's probably the strongest event in the last 30 years or something. It was Kasparov, Anand was second, I shared third with Kramlik, fifth and sixth were even Chuk and Karpov. So it was like top six ratings, double round drawing, I will always remember also Amsterdam, but for personal reasons. And also this one, in Sofia there were very, very good games. The one I said already, Ponomaru, he beat me, it was, I would say, a brilliant game. I recommend everyone to see it. The second, the next game after this one, was the one I won against Mickey Adams, but in fact I was extremely lucky, because he played brilliantly, and he was practically winning, and then he spoiled in the time travel, and not only spoiled, but he finally lost. But it was also a very good game. So this game is the sixth round. I just lost to Ponomaru, and we had a free day, you know? So I was kind of making, I had like in the first five rounds, four draws and one lost game, so I desperately needed to win, because if I was running out of white colours, you know, I had to meet in the last three games, seventh, eighteenths, ninth round, I had only one more white left, so if I wanted to show good result, then it was almost desperate to, I was desperate to win, and I don't remember Anna's result, he was plus one maybe, so I needed to beat him if I wanted to have a good result. So first game in this Queens Indian. One thing about the King Queens Indian, obviously it's a solid opening, and, okay, it is very obvious what I will say, but it can be avoided by, for example, by two moves. Knight g3 obviously, and the other way to avoid Queens Indian is g3. So of course there's nothing to be afraid of, simply it makes a bit more difficult for those who want to play, to study the, to prepare the Queens Indian, because you have to also study all the Nimso lines and also g3, which is Catalan. You know, people sometimes they ask me about some openings, and, okay, it's totally impossible to choose an opening and not to study some concrete lines, for example, and I've been thinking that maybe after e4, e5, let's say the Petrov is the simplest way, because it gives very few options for white. It's simply, you can either you go for Petrov, or second move, let's say, bishop c2, try to avoid it, but if you go, for example, e4, e5, knight c3, knight c6, black has to prepare against the Italian, the scotch, and of course the Spanish. But I'm not recommending Petrov, but simply it's kind of practical thing. Okay, so knight f3, g3, bishop here, so the idea of the check is to misplace the bishop on b2, on d2, to put it on d2, because after b3, obviously, the natural square could be on b2. So check, this is known. And now knight c3, okay, in the next games we'll also deal with the move, bishop g2, and now okay, the other move, okay, black has two moves, castle immediately, or c6. So c6, and now take take, bishop is 7. So this was more or less what we expected and the whole, you know, the whole day and the whole night before that round, my second that he plays here, Ivan, he was helping me for that tournament then, and he was trying to make it work, the idea we had against Leco in like couple of months before. I won a game on blindfold in Monaco, and it was something like this. In fact, it was similar idea, you know, but in fact it was, I think, completely fine for black and the reason he lost, it was obviously not because of the opening, so we kind of expected that Anand might repeat. So he went for bishop b7, you know, and now this was the idea that, okay, that would be nice of course to play c5, but it's losing a pawn, otherwise we couldn't make it work. So for the whole night, Cheper was trying to make work this idea, but the morning after he said that it was nothing, like black was completely fine. So, okay, it is very typical that, for example, I would say in this kind of situations, castling is almost always a bad idea because let's say, inclusion of h6 and h4 doesn't really help. It's not almost never good idea to take the knight, and white has all this typical stuff, you know, I can cast a long, and then bishop attacks from d3 to h7. So it is a very typical way to attack, and of course it's also like h6 is inviting white to take, or let's say I can also take on h6, and then bishop h3, but it is very natural to open with c5, you know? So Cheper, in the night he couldn't make it work, but finally like maybe one hour or two hours before the game, we found this idea, h6, we had some small checks and calculations with the computer, which was much worse than now, of course, computers. Okay, all these takings are not so good because then somehow I can go like this, and then, you know, recover the bishop, and then it goes very quickly, white's attack. So it was expected that, for example, these kind of situations were also h6, h4, and then my next move is already going to see the attacking on f6 and k you made. So these are very typical motives for white, so we kind of expected that h6 was the critical, and then that was the idea, and I have to admit that, of course, we got really optimistic about this position because it looks like I want to give check on e5, and sometimes I also played d6, opening both the d's file and the diagonal, and it really looked very dangerous, so we were very optimistic, and I have to say that we stopped, and we were not very critical, but over the board, of course, things were not very simple. Anand closed, he didn't give me, okay, it's a very natural move, you know, you stop d6, you stop e5, and of course, okay, this is what, of course, we expected, 9h4, and again, it looked like all these takings are not so good because of bishop c3 and many mating effects, so white wants to play queen g6 check and knight f5, then, of course, I can place my bishop on c4, and he, more or less, you know, in this position, Anand, he actually, more or less quickly, he reacted, and it's a very logical reaction, if you think so. He simply covers the f5 square, so black doesn't allow white knight to go to f5, and it is very logical, I don't remember what we looked at, but we were not really critical and a bit over optimistic. So after bishop c8, I thought, okay, you know, white is pawn, queen down, piece down, so if I play developing moves like bishop c4 or queen g6 check, somehow I made some calculations, and I didn't like my position so much, and of course, you know, the thing is, finally I realized that the only chance to continue my attack and the initiative was to have my knight on f5, and that's the reason, that is how I could find this move, it's a bit strange, okay, obviously, that would be much better to place the other rook to e1, but I thought it was not, I was not in time. So after rook e1, okay, knight e6 is natural, and now I put my rook on e6, and again, the main idea is to, I realized it's more important, all the exchange, the material is more important, and I desperately needed my knight on f5, and of course, the calculation I did, you know, it's a very interesting position, the calculation more or less, what I did during the game, this for example here, something like this, that black is not able to take for the moment, because then I give check, and then I take, and this was more or less all I could do, but that's also what he should have done, you know, and it's white is not, it's just very unclear position, and even now, computer, I don't remember, finally from time to time I put this position, it's very complex, but he made this mistake, obviously I have to take, and now black is in big trouble somehow, because it's not so easy to find a useful move, and black can almost never want to take, so he made b5 to distract my bishop from the diagonal, but of course now somehow the idea of the move bishop e7 is to prepare the taking on e6, and then of course somehow you close the diagonal, but it just doesn't work, because here after taking I took, it was not the best move, but I think it was also good, it's not dubious as the comment, and check it is this more or less what I, this is something easy to calculate until now, so queen d4 is only move, and then black tries to repeat the moves, but I was lucky to, that here white is much better, for example in this ending, and it's a pawn up of course, but so eventually after knight f5 I could save my, white is pawn down, and white won, so I will not show all the game, so after winning this next day I was very lucky against Miky Adams, and from minus one I went to plus one, and eventually I won the tournament, not without black, so, but of course the thing about this game was that we knew that for example if black wants to avoid, okay first of all the position is very unclear, so it's not like white refuted, it's completed this line, and another thing was we knew this, we knew before the game that if black wanted to avoid all these sharp lines, c5 immediately was a bit more precise, because for example now knight g5 allows black knight to go to c6, so it's different, and if black takes, if white takes on c5 then b should be 7, and b should be I think knight with a 7, and these games, and it was played later on I believe, let me just show you, yeah for example in the game of Malahadku, but I think c5 was later on played already several games by Gristuk, and Magnus played also c5, the year after, you know, the year after it was, my game against Arland was in 2005, and this is time 2006, so again I won a game, but it was not even close to refutation of the Queen's Indian, so it was expected that some four months later in St. Louis the World Championship, Arland would repeat again the Queen's Indian, so of course it's difficult to, I mean you have to be naive to believe that it's possible to win two times with the same idea, and in this case we went for this long, long, very old tabia, you know, and here okay, there was just I think, I think there are many games already from the match, from the first matches of Kasparov and Karpov, there were already many games in this line, and then Karpov-Kamski played also, and here B2 take c5, c4, so take, and after Qg4, Bg5, White would be winning if it was not for the move Nd3, so more or less there was this game, I remember Bakro, you know, that I thought it was Bakro, some important game, that he went for Bb5, and then put the pawn on c7, and then it was a question, but from what we thought this was kind of a mathematical draw, it looks very dangerous, but apparently Black holds, it's not enough, because White also pushes his pawns, and then move by move, it looks like Black holds. So our idea was to play differently, and it's not better than, I mean, it's simply a new idea, it's not better than what I did there. So it looked to us that, okay, Black is exchanged down, White is exchanged down, but of course the bishop on d5 is very strong, and obviously the pawn, so we thought that, okay, there were some practical problems for Black to play this, it looked like White had no risk, and it was not so easy to defend with the Black pieces, but first of all, okay, objectively, the position is much closer to equality, it's dynamic, you know, it's not like, let's say, what they call dynamic equality, and Anand, very quickly again, he made a good reaction, h5, the idea of the move h5 is to, because at some positions the queen might go to g4, and of course it's also good to stop White's pawn to h5, you know, so, okay, nothing really happened, for example, I guess, I was more or less, for example, here, I can't play bishop f4 because bishop f5, e5, but okay, we were more or less doing nothing, and I would say Black equalized, so here, for example, if I take Black takes on c6, you know, and then it becomes pretty much equal, so that was not my intention, but now I took, and I took also this pawn, so again, situation is pretty equal, rook a6, you know, and I would say it's not a brilliant game, but the quality was quite high, I mean, not so, also no mistake, and here I think he made, started to make some mistakes, and especially here, queen a7 was very, very big blunder, because after queen d3 I'm attacking both, or g6 and on d5, and Black is already in big trouble, not only because White is returning, winning an exchange, somehow, for example, if Black plays king g7, then I can push my pawn on a4, you know, and otherwise that would probably not be such a, so easy to win, but with, after, for example, in this position, let's say after king g7, if I take, take a4, even some of the opposite square endings, if in, let's say after queen d4, that could be lost, and it is probably lost, because White is able to create two past pawns, one on this side and the other mage, so White would be able to, you know, to advance his king, and then Black has to keep the defense of this flank, and also this pawn is almost useless, so again, after this, here I was completely winning and I missed, but I was completely winning and I missed, but still, you know, I didn't feel so unhappy, because it was the second round, and it was important, obviously, because I considered Anna to be the favorite, okay, my main rival for San Luis, for the World Championship, but then, because the game was so long and I'm a bit younger, I thought it was, you know, like, okay, like the outcome, the final outcome was not so bad, I mean, for a long event like World Championship, then it was 14 rounds, you know, I thought it was the one, the younger players have more some advantage, and long games eventually would benefit me. Okay, that was in September 2005, and then next year, I think, I was playing E4, we didn't play so many games in the year 2006, and I think both games I played E4, I lost badly in Sofia with White, Anna was playing, I think he was playing the Marshal, and okay, in that case it was, I was avoiding the Marshal variation of the Spanish, and then in 2007, again in January, played the Queen's Indian again, so this time I didn't play Knight C3, so we went for a game for this line, and it's very strange, because honestly I don't remember what my idea was to play if he repeated, I don't think I would have repeated what I did in San Luis, but at the same time, if I had any idea, I don't think that would be a big deal. But this time he was the first to deviate by Knight F6, so here after E4 taking, because for example the move B5, if I'm not wrong, it's Anand himself that won a good game against Adams by very typical sacrificing, it's a very typical sacrifice, and then he won a game with the White, I think he took with the mission, and then the idea is to advance the pawns, it is very typical sacrifice, and he won that game, and eventually I think White is better in this kind of positions, so he took, OK, D takes, and I played A4, OK, so my idea is to stop the move B5, and immediately he played Knight D5, and I took, he took D6, otherwise I think White would be even worse, you know, take this is kind of forced, and here Black has to defend his pawn, and I didn't really expect exactly this line in Vaikanzé, because I couldn't really remember my preparation because it was like around six months before I looked at this line, and it happened, so I remember there was some Indian player involved, but after the game when I had to comment I think I said some, maybe it was Ganguly what I said, I thought that it was Ganguly playing with the Black pieces, but it was in fact the game Sasikirian playing White against Motilev with the Black pieces, and I remembered we had something, but I couldn't really remember what our preparation was for this line, but there was something that we didn't like for Black, and I'm very proud, I couldn't remember but I was able to find the best move, which is B4, so the idea of this move is that if White, for example, plays the natural move, Queen E2, Black plays C5, and when this pawn is exchanged, for example, then sometimes the B3 pawn is weaker, so my idea was that after the B4, that every time that Black plays C5, then I take my, with the D pawn, and I already create my pass pawn, so it is huge improvement for White to have the pawn on B5 and not on B3, because it's not attacked, and of course it also gives the perfect square for the knight on C4. So, and here, after B4, I was just looking now, because from time to time I look how computer improved, and sometimes they show good ideas, but back then I think, I don't know which was then the best computer engine, but it was not really showing this move. I guess otherwise Anand would have known it. And okay, so what happened in the game that he played Queen D7, and putting on the Queen on D5, so now it looks like Black has two pawns for, you know, and should be fine, but the same time position is really passive, because rooks are much, somehow, they're in a situation only to defend, but they're not active. And of course it's not so easy for Black to create a counterplay. Every time he tries to open a file, I would always respond with G4, and then this pawn would become weak. So, okay, H6 is, and of course, for example, A5, this pawn is weak again, and of course the pawn on E6 is weak, and I have perfect squares. So H6 looks the typical useful move. So I attacked rook E8, and I moved my queen to C2, with the idea to put my rook on E5. So now rook D8, it looks like Black plays all the natural moves, but suddenly his position became very critical after Queen D2, and it's also true that the problem is that Black is passive, and White has many, many useful moves. I can put my pawn on H4, for example, you know, to always, for forever, stop the move, G5, I can put my bishop on F4, maybe then E5, and then try to put my knight on F4, and it's perfect coordination for White pieces. So Queen D7 back, I made a useful move, just a waiting move, because I didn't want my king on the light square, just in case, you know, and bishop F4, he was, Anand was just waiting, and I was improving. And so this, during the lunch, today we spoke a bit about Nimsovich and something, some of, about the over-protection, or either prophylactic. So in fact, A5 is not really a big, a good move always, because it creates weakness for the pawn on A5, but what would be very good for Black, if it was possible, was to exchange one pair of rooks, then the White's advantage would be much, much smaller than the now. So immediately I stopped this, and I think it was not even the best move by the computer, but it looked like the most, how to say, psychological, the most unpleasant move for my opponent, because it's like saying, forget about this move, about changing the rooks and playing A5. So after rook A8, I improve again my position. I'm not sure about this move, because sometimes there was some small tactical idea with B5, and maybe I don't remember if it was C5, so maybe it was not in this position. Bishop c3, Qd6, and now again I tried to, I tried to already improve the position of this, my knight, so Nd3, Nf4 is coming, and then of course, one would be hanging. So it's obvious that Black cannot simply wait. He played B5, Qc5, and now after Qd8 I played Nd3, and he resigned, but I think it was clearly premature. White is better, but I don't think it is completely over, and I've seen many turning around in all through my life. But it's also true that it is disgusting to play this kind of positions. So it was a big win for me. In 2007, in January, and then in a month, we played a game in Linares. This game I think was played in Mexico, the first part of the Linares tournament, and then it was taken back in Mexico. I think Chucky was also there. So we repeated the same, and honestly, what happened is I can say that after, after I played A4 and Nd5, after taking, I told Vishu, you could just take and it looks very, very good for Black, because if, for example, White has to play R1, Rc8, and then Rc1 is not possible because of Bb3 and Bd3, so I said I have to play like this, and it looks very good, Black has two pawns, like for example Bb4, Black wants to play f5 or Qg5, and it looks really strong compensation. I even thought it looked to me that Black is even better. So this morning I checked, and in fact I was completely wrong because there are two moves. First of all, here White can exchange the bishops, but even stronger is if White plays, okay, it's a computer move, it looks ugly, it's also true that White is exchange a piece up. So Nb1 regroups, and I, in the future, I can put my knight on c3 after Bd2, and it looks like White is better. So honestly, what was Vishu's idea after A4 here, I don't remember, but probably because we didn't both correctly, I didn't repeat the move A4, and this morning I looked a bit, it looks like White is slightly better, I don't know, maybe he had some very deep idea, but in that case I took, which is also a good idea, good move, and after B5 for example, now there are new games with knight c5, which looks very natural, and this, so for example here if Black, I think there's been games with Qd3, and I think Qe5, so there are new ideas for White, so I don't really like this idea with Nf6 and taking for Black, but in the game in Morelia, it was a very quiet game, for example here, it looked to me, I think that was kind of preparation, we believed that White has some advantage, but it turned out not so much, somehow maybe I didn't play precisely, so it was a very equal game, then it went like this, and then here it was a draw. So that was in 2007, and then in 2008 I think I was also playing some games, first move against e4, but the crucial thing happened in the summer with my wife, she was my girlfriend, we went to Mallorca, and then Paco Vallejo was helping me, so it was not really a big training session, in the morning I was working a bit with him, and then afternoon we were going for the beach, it was very light, like around a week, and like half holidays and half work, but the most important thing is one morning he worked in the night and he told me I think I found a very good idea, so what happened that was announced, for example, and that was in, I think it was in August, and then we had the final of the Grand Slam in Bilbao, at the beginning of September, I think even Chukchi also played, and then again it was Quince Indian, but this time I played the move Quincey 2, in fact it was Vallejo who made it popular, I think it was in Torino 2006, if I'm not wrong, and the idea, it's a completely new idea to sacrifice a bone, and it is very, very dangerous, and I think Anand, what happened was that he played in Bilbao, and immediately after, already as a world champion, he had to defend his title in Bonn, immediately after the match, so it was obvious that in a way he was hiding his best preparation, and he was not paying attention maybe to this, and so the thing is that after Quincey 2, the idea of Bako Vallejo was that white sacrifices a bone for an initiative, and now there are so many years after, I think finally black found how to defend, but there are many tries for white, and black has to know exactly what to do, so okay, B7 can be a bad move, so now castling is losing immediately because of Qe4, so black has to play either, I think, move the knight, or Qc8 to protect the bishop, and I think also Qc6, so Qc8 then was popular, and it was considered like the best move because after, for example, e4, white could, black could go to c7, and after, but after a3, black was going to c6, and now there was some game after Nc3d5 here, here, and then eventually black was holding, so what finally Bako Vallejo found was that if instead of first Nc3, black, white plays Bg5, then black wouldn't be able to take on f6 with the knight, he doesn't have time for the move Nb7, so after Ng5d5, Nc3, okay, I'm threatening to recover my pawn with an advantage, and d4 is not, is a mistake because I think the move Qb5, and if the queen goes to the d8 file, there was something like Nd4, something like this, Nxd4, Bg2 and Nx6, so it is natural that black takes, and of course this was, if I'm not wrong also, e4 sometimes was very strong, so taking is natural, and for example this also gives some advantage to white, because of my pawn structure and somehow the black king is a bit weak, I have many options, but even without king side initiative, white has the d file and some positional advantage, so Nx6 looked better than immediate castle, because the knight on h4 is not as good as on g5 somehow, for example here I kind of also recover, I don't like the comments of Bosnia obviously, but okay g6 is almost, the very typical defense and we all know that the knight on f5 is very dangerous, so you better stop preventing it, take castle, but again here I have some positional advantage and I control the d file, so Nc7 looks very logical also, because it's obvious that the knight is not so well placed on a6 and Qd7, Nx6, and I played the natural move, Qe4, so black has problems with a bit of coordination and again it is, sometimes the pawn structure, it is sometimes the initiative and sometimes it is that even the ending could be worse and of course the biggest problem, black's problem is the d file, because for example Rd8 it's not possible, because I take and my queen goes to e8 with check or to e7, so Qe8 is a mistake, because I think here what was announced idea was to play Nd4 and this is what I considered as best defense, but then after the game he told me and he was right that he considered this position as lost, but maybe still it was a better option, because as we know some white has a very good initiative and white dominates the d file, but at the same time I have very bad pawn structure, so even and also it is also true that many rook endings are drawn even with some pawns down, so again white is much better, but I think it was a better option for black compared to what happened in the game because after the move c4 I played a natural move Qh4 and then I mean I could have taken and it's probably also very good, a clear pawn, but I thought Qh4 was even stronger as for example here white wants to play Rd7 and sometimes double, so Nc5, Rd7 and then he played Rd8 but already black is in big trouble because for example as it happened after Rd8 I just moved my rook and then he has to move his queen and for example to c6, but the problem is that this pawn is very important and black is not able to take on f7 because I'm winning the rook on d8 so he resigned and it was a big blow for him so eventually I won and this was in 2008 and since then he's played very very few games with the queen's Indian it's not like I wouldn't say white refuted that line but apparently after this game he didn't like it so much anymore but again it was very interesting what happened in Bilbao because I think first the second round maybe I played against Chuki and it was some game in the Nimsu I'm not sure if it was the second round but the thing is that in this line I was black so we went to this ending and it was a draw and then of course I played also with Anand it was a round robin I won that game with white in the queen's Indian and with black he played something very simple I played Karokan and it was an equal game and we exchanged main pieces it was a draw but what happened was that for example it turned out that Anand had a very good idea here for white but he needed it for the World Championship match in Bonn and it was something like this and I don't know if it was something like this and then Bishop d2 and then he played or maybe it was first Bishop d2 and then he played h3 which was then a new move let me just see I'm not sure and exactly and then it was a new move h3 and it was a very strong idea and finally I think he didn't win that game but he was very close to winning it so what I'm saying is that he simply kept that idea for the World Championship match and in a way I don't know what would have happened if he played it in Bilbao against me but sometimes you realize how lucky you are when because your opponent needs his best ideas for more important events I'm sure that you would perhaps take some questions from the audience on anything that Wesson has shown us tonight or perhaps on another subject that he hasn't touched on yet so put your hand up and I'll give you the microphone maybe who would like to ask Wesson the question don't be shy come on I must be some questions just about his career or anything someone no one in the room wants to ask Wesson the question Paul Paul which player is playing at your level which player frightens you the most which player is you afraid obviously well now obviously it's very obvious that Magnus is for the moment the strongest but all through my career I think one of the problems was sometimes that when you play someone with Kasparov and with the black pieces he was so creative he just didn't know what to expect and sometimes the problem was just to get to survive the opening and now it's easier I think now what Magnus does is even more difficult because he doesn't win so many games as Kasparov did he was not getting so many advantages compared to Kasparov right at the opening he wins his games later and it's I think he deserves a lot of credit for that but of course all these guys they are very good it's difficult to say the question Hello I read an article recently in which Carlson explaining how AlphaZero have changed his style a little bit I think you'll say that I'm not sure I hadn't read it properly actually as AlphaZero had the effect on the old games or in the other Grand Mars games that you know of AlphaZero Veslin what do you think about AlphaZero's effect on Magnus and on chess Honestly I never worked with AlphaZero I saw only one that famous game it was also Queen's Indian from the match of AlphaZero against Stockfish but it didn't really I mean it's from my perspective it doesn't change anything I don't think it can be such a big style difference even in that game my impression was that the reason Stockfish lost was because probably they reached a position when it looked like two or three moves were equal so Stockfish was because I think the rules were that every day they had to make a move probably with more time even Stockfish would have realized that there was a difference between the options but the level was kind of it looked to me that Stockfish was resisting but it was maybe a bit worse but I couldn't see a big big difference honestly in that game but I from a human perspective I just don't see the difference between some computer that plays like 4000 rating or 4500 for me I just don't see the big difference and when we prepare it's a matter of sometimes of seconds if I have my laptop I don't think it's you find many more that big ideas with some stronger computer just a matter of some seconds in most of the situations maybe it matters it makes a difference in some very very complicated positions but I don't think my impression they are beyond humans capacity I don't think it's a big difference honestly but again I have never tried to work with AlphaZero and I didn't even know it was possible actually I'd like to ask you a question on the back of that question from the modern to the past in your career how much time have you spent much time studying the games of the old masters the classic games from the past what can you say to the audience today about the value of looking at games of Aliekin, Kappa Blanker and you know the players of the past as a kid obviously I did read all these books but not that profound studying the books because I'm sure that now in the modern games in the modern tournaments they've been also very good example of model games but again I've repeated during the seminar the differences that in the past there were many games where there were many games where one of the players was not really putting a good resistance and that is the reason that all these plans are very visible in a game but nowadays if you want to put your all your pieces on the best squares I don't think your opponent will let you so easily like it was in the past games and that is the reason people say this is a classical game because there was not so good resistance I believe but again I think now there are very good games and you can see all the plans strategical ideas there and in modern games as well but it's also true that for example in Blitzworld championship nobody wrote a book and maybe there are good games there but we have these books like the Brunstein book probably several more but honestly I'm not a specialist in this question because for many many years I just don't buy books and really I'm not really a specialist but of course as a kid I did buy and I read my system of names of each but honestly I don't remember much how do you train to improve and can you give us a few quick tips on how to improve once chess? Well it's not a secret but one thing I would say that now my impression is that the trend is that every time the tournaments will be quicker and quicker with shorter time control and I don't think it's very possible so easy to make a big difference in the opening I mean the first 10 to 15 moves there are more or less the same for everyone so clearly a good way to improve and to make a difference is to be very good in endings to memorize the theoretical ending as long as it's possible and of course all this training especially calculation should be more important because 80% of the games are decided by or maybe more I mean it doesn't really matter exactly the percentage are decided by tactical mistakes so if you have if you can if you're very good in calculations even if you're worse then but you defend correctly it's not so easy to win and but of course that has to be combined with good physical condition because our brain it's not like this it's not linear it goes like this so so if we are able to be stable you know to have a high high level average level that would be good but calculation and ending quick calculation and knowing the basic theoretical endings let's say several hundred positions maybe and to know to play them quickly not only to know them but to remember them quickly I believe it's very important now for practical reasons thank you Wesson Prusid you had a question yeah 960 no? 960 just 950 isn't it no it does it makes all the sense I don't think it will always follow for the near future you know the normal chess but it makes all the sense because you know you start thinking from 1 or 2 and but of course computers they would be even stronger compared to humans because in normal chess we with the normal setup at least we can put the resistance in the the opening because we've started and we we know many typical positions but I think in our a match between human and the computer in 960 would be almost like 100% win for black for the computer and also much quicker than in normal games but that's not the point it makes I played with Gary and I played with Wesson so and it is very big fun I like it but the only problem is that some positions I think that there was one position when it looked to me from why it had initially very big advantage for some reason you know it's always symmetrical but my impression that why it was much better from the initial position you know but I honestly like it so you like the chess at 60 another question here hi so this is with regards to your previous answer with being tactically alert during games so do you have a routine or regimen that you follow just before the round on how to stay tactically alert during the game like would you have some advice on how to stay on top of the tactical it is training but of course honestly you're asking me in the wrong moment because I'm not training anymore you know I'm not really trying to improve my chess now but but well I believe that you should because we don't know how long the game like in this for example tomorrow when we start you don't know if it would take 2 hours or 5 hours so you have to be used to save energy you know and maybe not get distracted too much concentrate before the game not spend too much energy and about critical moment I would say that almost always spending over half an hour is a mistake I don't think it can be a good idea but the critical moments for example when you have to it's a matter of very precise calculation about some when you have two options or for example when you have to play sharply and to risk or to change the pieces imagine and make a draw for example and this when the game is really decided but sometimes there's honestly it doesn't make a big difference if you put your book on C1 or D1 and it's not worth to spend so much time on it time travels in my case it's always always being a mistake and of course the differences during the seminar I've been saying that it's a bit a bit different when you train all these position studies and calculation study is that when you train and you have some position you have to solve at home you know there is a solution for the study but over the board you're not sure you don't know if it's winning but of course training is good because this typical sacrifices and stalemate studies of course you if you decide if you solve many of them of course it is useful but over the board it's different and it's also it's also true that when we train at home many times we have the ideal situation when you if you're tired you can take a rest you know but many times you play in a time travel in the last round of the last day of the tournament on the sixth hours hour and you're very very tired so competitive chess is different from the training but again I believe that also one has to try I mean even when you train at home and the neighbour has the radio you can have this situation also during the tournament it's not so bad it's never perfect in life it's it's I don't think this question has an answer but I would say it also depends when they played if you meet imagine Kasparov and with Magnus in the 80s I would rather take Kasparov because he was really creative and over Magnus he would have some quite serious advantage in the opening but with computers now in the 21st century because now you don't really you can't really make a difference in the first 15 moves or sometimes even 20 things would be completely different because Magnus he's very very stable he has maybe he's not as creative as Gary but also he's probably more stable his ending technique is probably better and let's say his calculation and dynamic is maybe not as good but also let's say if they have to calculate short lines Magnus almost makes no mistake but if they have to calculate imagine 10 lines line maybe then Gary will be more dynamic but it's difficult to say because first of all impossible to compare and I can speak more about Magnus and Gary because I've played them but Fisher he stopped when I was born so I've seen his games but they were brilliant but again we all now see what Magnus is doing it's really impressive but Gary's been watched number one on rating for 20 years and so far Magnus is halfway but of course he's young I mean he's around 30 now so probably he will get close but again it's very difficult to compare and I don't like this comparison ok let's see if we run of course