Forums
Most Recent
- The 50 move rule shouldn't exist!
- Why most players on chess.com deny rematch?
- 10/18/2017 - Oll-Stohl, Manila 1992
- Players remembered only for famous losses
-
Philidor counter gambit literature?
IM pfren
- Another new stupid rule in chess
- 10/17/2017 - The Ultimate Decoy
-
Is this position resignable here?
IM pfren
- A draw I had against a Grand Master on here
- Username
Forum Legend
- Following
- New Comments
- Locked Topic
- Pinned Topic
I know s/he's 2800 but in the Caruana-Carlsen ...Qd8 game, white played really, really badly. I shouldn't need to explain why. Such a game provides no indication of the soundness of Qd8: almost as if white was trying to throw it.
The result doesn't really matter.Both could play better and could play worst.
I'm sure we all could improve on Caruana's and Carlsen's game from the comfort of our couch and with the help of our engine.But Caruana had his reasons to play like this and he even got an advantage.
Maybe the fact that Carlsen choose to play it means it is a perfectly playable line.
Maybe.......
Carlsen never played something unsound in classical chess.
Yes , Karpov is way past his prime , still , remains a player that understands chess better than anyone.Maybe the fact that he choose 3...Qd8 and not the other 2 means something.>>>
It's playable .... after all, it's Bronstein's line. It was considered playable but maybe only by the elite of the elite. However, the general rule should be that the soundness of a line cannot logically be illustrated by an example in which the opposition plays badly, and I hope you can see that Carlsen's opponent played really poorly in that game. White gets a lead in development and a proper use should be made of that lead, instead of giving black targets to aid his development. I'm not even convinced that 4. d4 is particularly useful against Bronstein's line. Certainly, h3 was against all the principles of correct development. I didn't even like Nf3 and it just got worse and worse.
I've taken a look all the way through and white never held the advantage. What white had was more space combined with some initiative. It's an old principle that too much space is a weakness when there are insufficient means to defend it. Carlsen took full advantage of this hollow centre and, in my own opinion, outplayed Caruna all the way through. Carlsen plays rather like I do, but just about 4000 times better.
I know s/he's 2800 but in the Caruana-Carlsen ...Qd8 game, white played really, really badly. I shouldn't need to explain why. Such a game provides no indication of the soundness of Qd8: almost as if white was trying to throw it.
The result doesn't really matter.Both could play better and could play worst.
I'm sure we all could improve on Caruana's and Carlsen's game from the comfort of our couch and with the help of our engine.But Caruana had his reasons to play like this and he even got an advantage.
Maybe the fact that Carlsen choose to play it means it is a perfectly playable line.
Maybe.......
Carlsen never played something unsound in classical chess.
Yes , Karpov is way past his prime , still , remains a player that understands chess better than anyone.Maybe the fact that he choose 3...Qd8 and not the other 2 means something.>>>
It's playable .... after all, it's Bronstein's line. It was considered playable but maybe only by the elite of the elite. However, the general rule should be that the soundness of a line cannot logically be illustrated by an example in which the opposition plays badly, and I hope you can see that Carlsen's opponent played really poorly in that game. White gets a lead in development and a proper use should be made of that lead, instead of giving black targets to aid his development. I'm not even convinced that 4. d4 is particularly useful against Bronstein's line. Certainly, h3 was against all the principles of correct development. I didn't even like Nf3 and it just got worse and worse.
The moves that you don't like are the main moves , played by several top grandmasters , among them Carlsen and Karjakin!
Seems neither of the 3 (Caruana, Karjakin and Carlsen) have any idea about the "principles of correct development".
Also Navara , Fedorchuk , Salgado Lopez , Sethuraman , Mamedov , Delchev , Guseinov and others 2600+ GMs that have played these moves seems to also ignore the principles about "correct development".
But these moves have been played more by top GMs than all other moves.Is it possible that none of them knows what he is doing?Or all play deliberately wrong?
Played in another tournament recently, with 2 more attempts to get into the Scandinavian ...
One kid took me right to the mainline and I chose 3...Qa5. Haven't analyzed the game, but I am sure I was losing while he was aggressively pawn-storming down my kingside, but somehow I maneuvered a couple minor pieces where they could defend better, snatched a pawn with an opportune knight capture-check on a pawn, which forced its defending pawn to recapture and remove the defender of his knight (tactics!) while capturing it immediately, then somehow turned it a win after 70-some moves and lots of trading down (kids don't like endgames?!).
My adult opponent answered 1...d5 with 2.c3!? which I don't even know if that line is covered in any books, but using general opening principles, the answer was quite obviously 2...c5!! which led to an easy forced win roughly 45 moves and 3 hours later. In this game, he had a queen, knight, bishop in my territory on the kingside against my castled king while I had open files on the queenside with my rooks and knight having taken over while he was trying to mate me. The engine says I could have won a tad faster with 2...Nf6 or 2...e6, but we all know engines don't know strategy or opening principles like a well-read class E player knocking on class D's door.
All this to say... in my 2...c5!! "Scandi[navian]", my queen stayed on d8, and later in the middlegame I was tempted to bring her to a5. Now I am starting to wonder if it is wise to view Scandi games for all of the major move 3 line for Black (3...Qa5, 3...Qd6, and 3...Qd8), even if I choose one for playing, since there may be some transpositions with certain types of positions favoring the queen on any one of those particular squares? But even just inputting moves into ChessBase or COW without trying to study/analyze them takes too long. Tactics alone seems more practical for study, but I do not like playing "[I] HOPE [s/he makes an obvious blunder that I recognize in the first 25 moves]" chess.
Your 2...c5!! is actully a bad move that doesn't punish the weak 2.c3 and allows white to enter Sicilian Alapin.
What's wrong with taking the pawn(2...dxe4)?He can take it back but you can take advantage of it to gain some tempi.
@DeidreSkye![null]()
I made a mistake, not at that point in the game, or else it wouldn't say "!!" on move 2, but in my last post... it was my third move that the engine says I should have moved ...e6 or ...Nf6 after 1.e4 d5 2.c3!? c5!! 3.d3!? (my opponent loves those spring-loaded latently aggressive attacking pawn moves, grabbing more of his own space), but instead I played 3...Nc6!!
Usually I like to sacrifice my opponent's pawns, but in this case, I saw beyond the crap-tactic play of a typical 1100 player and tried to understand his/her psychology... he wanted out of the Scandi and wanted the early tempi and open lines more than I wanted the temporary pawn, so I settled for a Queen's Gambit-y looking thing (I have never played the QG, D or A, but I know you don't block the c-pawn with the horsehead-bust) that would throw him off his rocker since he was this "attacking chess" type (who loved moving pawns to the 3rd rank and minor pieces to the 2nd rank), but then he went crazy in the middlegame and brought all his pieces to my kingside after I grabbed one of his pawns on the queenside with a RRN v RB on b2. Well, eventually, he had his knight, queen, and bishop on my third and fourth ranks in front of my castled king, itching for me to advance my g-pawn to "fork" his queen and knight, so he could respond with a knight check and bring his dark-squared bishop into the fray (at h6) to try to BBQ --get it? endgame humor-- my king. So instead I traded my defending knight for his offending knight, he tried to open up my pawn cover with a piece sacrifice, but then I trapped his queen with a well-timed g-pawn advance ... He kept the game going until I traded down to a KQBPPPP v KPPP endgame (no books cover that particular position to my knowledge, hence you can't just rely on opening theory and need to study tactics and endgames).
After the game, he was gracious enough to say to me "If you hadn't trapped my queen, I would have mated you easily."
Your 2...c5!! is actully a bad move that doesn't punish the weak 2.c3 and allows white to enter Sicilian Alapin.
What's wrong with taking the pawn(2...dxe4)?He can take it back but you can take advantage of it to gain some tempi.
Wait a minute... If I took that pawn on move 2, then he would be the one doing the Scandi-ing!!
Play 3...Qe6+! Then after 4. Be2, go pawn grabbing with 4...Qg6 trying to take on g2. This may sound stupid, but you are neglecting your development and creating unsound attacks right away. Neglecting your development is bad, but your opponent will think you have studied it and will react passively. Then do unsound attacks! As soon as you've gotten your opponent scared of your opening preparation, launch a RAR attack! You opponent will be very confused by your unorthodox play, leading him to achieve a winning position but using up all the time on his clock. Once he has 1 minute to your 1 hour, steamroll him!
Don't forget to move VERY fast. BANG the pieces as loud as you can!