Ponziani Opening

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."

http://www.chess-and-strategy.com/2013/01/echecs-carlsen-harikrishna-au-tata.html

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.  

He had the worse game for most of the opening after say  the 6th move.

He was fighting an uphill battle but won anyway. In any event hopefully we will see more analysis except for my comments and the 22. Qf3  Nb5 line.

I  ran my computer on the whole opening and it suggested he was average minus for a very long time. 

I do have improvements so he could have  been more like average plus...

Carlsen just played the Ponziani at Tata steel and got a comfortable position and won quite convincingly.

I saw an interview with Carlsen several years ago by a chess reporter who really knew his in one obscure opening, he stumped Carlsen on several book moves Carlsen thought he had memorized.  Carlsen shrugged it off saying he still had lots of work to do.  

  On the even brighter side, I'll bet the team ranks swell considerably.   

At first I was stomped when some suggested that Carlsen won despite his opening.  A agreed with this but added that Carlsen did not play the best moves and got criticized again.

I believe  super grandmaster Carsen has a average minus from the way he played this opening and later close to a loss game but as he is a genius, he came back and won.

Here I will give one line where I think  super grandmaster Carlsen might have done better and by that I mean he might have got an average plus out of the opening rather than an average minus [and when you think of it--that is a big difference]

White might be better there than he got in the game, but with only heavy pieces left does it really give him better winning chances?

It  would give him better chances than an average minus.

Supergrandmasters know how to exploit all positions including ones with only heavy pieces left but say a better pawn structure. 

However, he is a genius, and hard to tell if the principles of chess apply to him...[this is a compliment]

Wow, that looks better indeed.

Only would I not play 12. Bc5: but 12. Qe2 instead.

Black might continu with 12. ... Be3: 13. Qe3: or 12. ... 0-0 13. Nd2 Nd2: 14. Qd2: Be3: 15. Qe3: and you have a better pawn structure or 12. ... Qe7 13. Bd4 and black is invited to help you improving your pawn structure.

Ponzi , at what move # in the game do you think Magnus was close to lost/losing ? 

Of course the principles of chess apply to Carlsen. This discussion is all a bit Hans Berliner. [that's not a compliment].

move 23.  but my definition of close to being lost is that with perfect play by both sides a result would happen. 

If I say a game is theoretically lost--I mean with perfect play on both sides-the one side would lose.

Hans Berliner, I believe, thought White should win from from the opening position. He is the only grandmaster who thought such a thing [as far as I know]

I put that position on a couple of my beasts and they give black less than half a pawn advantage .  Are you getting something different from your engine(s) ?  As  a player I would much prefer white in that position as the white position is much easier to play and black has to suffer a lot . I think white has enough compensation for the 2 pawns .  I played the Ponziani for a spell back in the 80s and did ok with it but did better with the Spanish so switched back . 

I get about 1/2 pawn advantage for moves about from 9 to 23 but then delving more into the 23rd move and some more moves after 23  I get more. But you may be right that the White position is easier to play.  Black has to gradually expand on the queenside. 

I am only saying that for most humans/chess players this variation can be made easier to play with an average plus.

If somehow he managed to get into the position down 2 pawns with reasonable compensation then more power to him and what can you say about a 2865 player [approx] who has obtained the highest rating in the history of mankind on this planet?

There is a whole lot of new theory on the Ponziani which makes it more playable than back in the 80s and 90s. Of course the Spanish is a great opening.

Warning! This puzzle is from a Ponziani

This is a very hard puzzle and I do not expect anyone to get it on the first try!

Fortunately for Ponziani lovers were have abandoned 6. Bc4 but I certainly will look at your game so far [with my trusty computer].

Did you try the very hard puzzle?  [ I think even  a super grandmaster might not get the whole sequence on the first try]

Play the Ponziani gives 9. Nc3 in your line but I have not looked at either

9. Nc3  or  9. Be3  Bb4+  10.  Nc3  f6 [!]

I didn't get the 1st, 4th and 7th move on the first try (1st move was so hard, did you count that whole combination already there?), very tricky indeed.