16001 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Agreed. He's absolutely amazing. I'm still waiting for him to prove he can win a match against Aronian, Kramnik or Anand. But what he's doing is unbelievable in this age of ultra precise-move orders that have been researched for months by silicon monster.
Here is the truth [as I see it] about super grandmasters playing an opening they do not know--in this case the Ponziani.
Game Nakamuro vs Rivero
Nakamuro lost in a very good opening variation [for White] because, simply, he did not know the opening and played a very bad move on his 6th move. There were several moves which would have kept his advantage.
Today's game by Carlsen. Unfortunately Carlsen while a genius--does not know how to play the Ponziani--at least in the variation of the game.
1. Carlsen won playing the Ponziani
2. Carlsen won but not because of the Ponziani
3. Carlsen did not know how to play this particular Ponziani variation and actually got a bad game out of the opening.
4. It was not because the Ponziani is "bad" it is simply that apparently when a super grandmaster plays an opening such as the Ponziani--he really does not know theory or the best way to play the opening and he relies on the probability that his opponent knows less than he does AND/OR that he is such a genius that he will win anyway.
Am, I saying I know more than supergrand master Carlsen? Of course not!
But I am saying that Carlsen does not completely understand the Ponziani--how could he? Surely he has not studied it in depth...And from this game it is obvious he could not find the correct moves in the opening.
How can you say that Carlsen did not completely understand the Ponziani without the implicit assumption you do?
And can you tell me where did he go wrong? I looked at his first ten moves and I did not see any unusual. Playing e5 is in line with the exchange of the bishop to damage the pawn structure of black. Black saves his bishop of the light squares from the exchange. I do not know if e5 and the exchange is a variant in the Ponziani, but I guess it is.
Loek, when I made the statement, I knew, probably some would jump all over me. First the game played by Nakamuro--he made a fundamental mistake on the 6th move and that is one of the reasons he lost. If he had made the best move and if he understood play from the best move--very probably he would have won.
Look at the game Carlsen played today. Do you really think Carlsen spent a lot of time on the theory of the Ponziani?? I think not--he was just using it as a surprise weapon and per the gamble I mentioned.
Do, I know more about how to play the Ponziani than Carlsen? The answer which may get me in trouble is Yes, of course--I have played and studied the Ponziani for years and even thou grandmaster Carlsen is about 360 points higher than me--that does not mean he knows the theory of the Ponziani better than I do.
Did, I say I "completely understand the Ponziani" NO! of course not--I did not say that---nobody-not even supergrandmaster Carlsen completely understands any opening.
Oh no, my question was not meant to jump all over you or to bring you in trouble. I wanted to ask where did he go wrong? Can you shed a light on that game?
I like modesty, but not when the statement becomes incorrect. It is possible that an expert with sufficient level knows more of a certain aspect of the expertise then an expert of outstanding level.
You make promising statements, but do not fulfill your promise by pointing to the moves, where he could play the Ponziani better. I am just curious, that's all.
Maybe I want to save the best moves [not played] for a time when someone uses the moves of the supergrandmaster in a vote chess game?
[naturally, I want Ponziani Power vote chess team to win and thus hold things in reserve for a while]
Or maybe I have a whole lot of Ponziani improvements and novelties I am saving for a second edition of Play the Ponziani?
To be sure, the better moves Carlsen could/might have made in this opening variation will come out. Even if I die today, they will come out.
I can tell you that supergrandmaster Carlsen played correctly through the first 6 moves.
May I please join the Ponziani Power group? Sounds like fun!
Yes, you can--please just send me a private message and I will be glad to get you on our team!
Sent! I can't wait.
Carlsen didn't play the Ponziani to get a theoretical advantage, he played it to get a playable position.
If he were facing someone he knew to be an expert in the Ponziani, he'd play the London, or an English, or just about anything else.
The argument that Carlsen didn't know the best theoretical line is completely beside the point. He may well know the best theoretical line. In fact, I'm betting he did know the key theoretical lines and avoided them on purpose! His goal was to reach a position where neither side had any significant experience and outplay his opponent.
Carlsen succeeded brilliantly!
Smylov, oh come on! You are saying that Carlsen played this bad line on purpose????
A supergrandmaster or any master hopes to get an advantage out of the opening and will not willingly play some bad line which gives him the disadvantage as Carlsen did.
Believe me, if Carlsen knew the best way to play this particular variation of the Ponziani--he would have played it!
I agree with Smyslov, Carlsen goes down paths that others don;t to make them play chess.it does not matter if he plays an opening that leads to =+ because as white we don't study those lines. Carlsen would not play that line if it were a two day per move game, but he put a position on the board that that he could be certain had not been analyzed by his opponent, but was not worse than =+, and Carlsen can spot most people on the planet =+. I bet he would not play that against Vishy or Aronian, or...
Kantifields, you are telling me that Carlsen delibertly played a variation of the Ponziani which gives him close to a lost game???
The position on the board was quite bad for Carlsen--certainly not =+.
Carlsen is a genius, but he is not a genius who will delibertly play into a position where he is almost lost.
That is not what I wrote. That is not even close to what I wrote. But I do think that Carlsen can win against almost anyone if they are playing in a position that neither have fully analyzed even if he starts off slightly worse.
He is that much of a genius!
Quite frankly even authorities on openings stop analyizung at some point and definitively state += or some other stamp. Those autorities could not pull off the finish against a top player over the board because after they stamp the side variation they don't look back.
Carlsen, in an interview after the game, believed he had an advantage out of the opening. He stated "I thought my game was excellent... I mean, I got a more or less normal variation with the extra move c3, which I think should be excellent for white. I mean, not that this variation is too great anyway, but with an extra move, it must be something."
In other words, Carlsen was playing the Ponziani by using theoretical knowledge about another variation (the Scotch, I think) to play with an extra move, c3 tossed in.
If he was "almost lost", as ponz said, that would be news. You should probably write an article for Chessbase to show that Carlsen was almost lost. Because Carlsen disagrees with your assessment.
I stand with my statement that he got a bad game out of the opening.
He was playing more or less the black side of an another opening where he had the extra move c3.
Some day we will get analysis of that opening or I should say the variation he played. [i think the other opening was the Two Knights Defense which goes 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. e5 d5
6. Bb5 Ne4 and now there is the extra move c3 thrown in if you play the black side.]
He is giving his first impressions and happy he won but the game will surely be analyzed completely and possibly also with chess engines.
Come on guys - how dare you to claim that someone knows Ponziani better than Ponz does? He just knows it and he even does not need to back up his claims with particular lines.
at move 22 Qf3 White has had a disadvantage for some time and
black could play 23. ...Nb5 I will admit it is very complicated.
4/17/2014 - Mate in 4
by RiyalNoxDescent a few minutes ago
Banned from a group
by Talonflame_Fan a few minutes ago
Why play chess?
by eehc a few minutes ago
by DieHardMango a few minutes ago
Can someone please analyze this game?
by Sprawlx 3 minutes ago
Playing mainline opening lines.
by Talonflame_Fan 3 minutes ago
will online eventually replace OTB?
by pawnstogo 3 minutes ago
Hurt Heal Chess Players
by dzikus 6 minutes ago
I need a darwing opening
by SocialPanda 6 minutes ago
Chess and Coffee
by TurboFish 7 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!