Seems the last puzzle, 4. Bc4+ is objectively better in that it gains the same exchange but develops the bishop and connects the rooks sooner. But 4.Qb3+ has more chance to devastate the oponent, i.e it gives black the chance to drop his queen.
If anything, Hari avoided the best lines for black in order to just play a normal game. Unfortunately for him, that plays right up Carlsen's alley. This game had very little contribution to Ponziani theory.
If Kramnik had played it, it would have been great news for Ponziani aficionados. But since it was only Carlsen, who's known for playing all sorts of dubious openings, it won't be a major story.
Still the game was very instructive. It taught us that to achieve your type of positional bind, you are free to play whatever nonsense you wish in the opening, and speculatively spare a couple of pawns like peanuts. This is a somewhat dubious practice, which shouldn't really work, unless your name is Magnus...
I have rest my case a long time ago with him. The guy is simply enough a genius, and he has some difficulty hiding it.
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.
from vote chess games - now complete...
another from vote chess
another from vote chess
Are these puzzles too hard? They are all originating from the Ponziani Opening here on chess.com
Seems the last puzzle, 4. Bc4+ is objectively better in that it gains the same exchange but develops the bishop and connects the rooks sooner. But 4.Qb3+ has more chance to devastate the oponent, i.e it gives black the chance to drop his queen.
another Ponziani Opening puzzle [from vote chess]
The last one's pretty easy.
Here is a game sequence from earlier in the above game
It's a shame 4.Qxf7 isn't winning because of 4...Nf4!
Carlsen played the Ponziani today and won!!
Here is the game Mr. Ponz![Cool]( "Cool")
I don`t think Harikrishna had any reason to complain about the opening - he was outplayed in middlegame.
If anything, Hari avoided the best lines for black in order to just play a normal game. Unfortunately for him, that plays right up Carlsen's alley. This game had very little contribution to Ponziani theory.
I still like the Ponziani as a surprise opening.
If Kramnik had played it, it would have been great news for Ponziani aficionados. But since it was only Carlsen, who's known for playing all sorts of dubious openings, it won't be a major story.
Still the game was very instructive. It taught us that to achieve your type of positional bind, you are free to play whatever nonsense you wish in the opening, and speculatively spare a couple of pawns like peanuts. This is a somewhat dubious practice, which shouldn't really work, unless your name is Magnus...
I have rest my case a long time ago with him. The guy is simply enough a genius, and he has some difficulty hiding it.
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.
Amazing.
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.