what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?

beautiful, rich post aronchuck. This is precisely what I have set out to do, in fact. I have made a list of masters I want to study, in the order of their historical place. Your post is beautiful. My curriculum (I have actually been working on writing up a chess curriculum that is basically tactics, then master games, after a few dozen master games adding some basic endgames, then more tactics, strategic principles, then more master games, and more endgames. Your post is beatiful, enthusiastic, lovely, 

I am still working on getting my life set up to support my chess. Besides working a lot, I am currently strung out a bit on a girl who doesn't want me as much as I want her...I think I need to get back to loving the chess queen...I'll be back very soon. I was delighted to check in on the thread this morning, to see all this discussion. 

And a warning...we should keep a specific game in discussion too. Otherwise the discussion could become abstract...we need to keep it concrete, have the discussion, like chess, anchored in material, in moves, in positions. ;-)

I wrote this message to Somebodysson:

Re: Cooperation to have an Excellent Chess Instruction and Improvement Thread

Somebodysson

3/4/14 @ 4:31 AM

Send Friend Request

Magnus Carlsen played a King's Indian Attack opening with a theme of controlling the light squares. Notice also that Carlsen is using the Hypermodern Theory for controlling the center. After 9...Nxd5 White has no pieces or pawns in the center that can become targets for Black. By contrast Black has a pawn on e5 and N on d5, both occupying the center and potential targets for White. The idea of White's moves 2.d3 and 5.c3 have to do with logistics in warfare. Control first, ground that is closest to your arms, food and water. The central squares that White is establishing control over are d4 and e4 with the power of his pawns at c3 and d3. Avoiding creating any targets with his pawns and pieces that Black can target. I will add more analysis and commentary after you have viewed the video 2 times. If you have questions after that please post them and I will do my best to explain in a way that is understandable to you.

The reason that thiis game is important is because the same theme (the light squares) is carried thru from the opening thru the middlegame to the endgame.  It is very instructional for players of your level especially because it is the King's Indian Attack.  An opening that is used frequently at your level of play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RNGGrK3gU4

@ Yaroslavl

I've just downloaded the video, very interesting on 1 quick look. I need to watch it again to focus on the light square theme more but what got me on the 1st look was Carlsons use of the King in the endgame. It was like Black was playing a piece down for a lot of the time. Very instructive, thanks for posting it.

In his early years Robert J. Fischer used to play the King's Indian Attack. In today's modern GM tournament play the KIA is played mostly when Black has played an early ...e6 and White is assured that Black's B at c8 will be hemmed in behind his wall of pawns. That is the key. The very early 1...e6 by Caruana is what prompted Carlsen to play for the ( KIA) King's Indian Attack. With Black's light square B hemmed in behind its own pawns a good strategy for White is to go for control of the light squares by using his own free light square B fianchettoed, Ns and pawns. The pressure on the light squares by White eventually forces Black to compromise his pawn structure in order to free his (LSB) Light Square Bishop by playing the move 8...e5, but it is too late and White's light square pressure becomes more pronounced.

Take a look at Dereque Kelly's video on the KIA. Especially beginning with minute 9:48.

www.vimeo.com/51651887

We will be looking at all the tactics involved in the game Carlsen v Caruana Bilbao 2012.

Here's the full game that Yaroslavl is commentating on for anyone who wants to check it out as he analyzes it.

hmmm, I haven't looked at the thread this weekend, and I see we've gone in a strange direction. Maybe someone wants to open a new thread? Yaroslavl maybe, QTKO maybe? This thread is not about openings, or Magnus Carlsen games, and King's Indian openings...its about my development as a chess player, and esp about analyzing my games and the games of other regular posters on here esp jojojopo, aronchuck, and QTKO at this point, and anyone else who wants to join this thread and contribute analyses of our games and contriburte their games, altho this won't be a thread for grab-bag analysis of games, just for regular contributors and posters.

So let's not have extended discussions of Magnus Carlsen's games on here, k? let's put our focus into the three questions, what's the opponent's idea, where are the weaknesses, which of my pieces needs improving, and the analysis of positions from my games, and games of other posters who have submitted one of their games for duscussion. thanks. There are plenty of opportunities to open new threads, or to join existing threads where such discussions are in progress. Also, if you want you can write an article or a blog for chess.com to discuss Magnuis Carlsen games or anyone else. also, I'll be submitting a game later tonight, so we'll have a concrete game to talk about :)

I've just played it over, and its not clear to me where I made my critical error. In terms of the questions, I clearly have a weakness in that I am getting better at looking at my opponent's weaknesses, but not at my own weaknesses. I need to put my own weaknesses more in my sights, and work at improving pieces when I perceive a weakness of mine. 

Wow, what a game full of surprises. Congratulations on your improvement!!! I can't analyse the game now but I'll try to do it tomorrow or on Monday. (You surprised me with that Ruy Lopez, I love that opening).

A small advice that comes to my head is that once you have a decisive material advantage you can slow down, say "ok, how do I continue?" and make a plan to finish the game. For me this basically involves killing the opportunities of the opponent to turn the table, which translates into looking for ways to restrict his pieces and threats (in other words trying to get a stable position) which is an easier task once you have more pieces since you can objectivly control more squares than he can. Trades help immensely here, less pieces on the board mean it's easier to keep track of things and have the situation under control. Or, looking at it in a way that it implements nicely with the three questions, imagine that trades usually will benefit you, so trades are actually threats! Take this into account when you ask question 2. If you can tie his pieces to defensive duties then it's a matter of time and excerting pressure until everything falls apart.

I also usually tend to look at where my practical chances for a "clean win" lies. If I have the possibility of promoting a pawn, I work towards that goal, since if I manage to do that then the game will be over because the material advantage will be simply overwhelming.

Resuming: 1) trades and control of the board (restricting opponent), 2) looking for a practical way to win (promoting a pawn if the position suggests this approach, or a mating attack if you have sufficient material and the enemy K is exposed, or maybe both until the opponent cracks).

I'm sure that aronchuk will give you better and more specific advice and techniques, and correct me if I got it all wrong, but I hope this at least gives you food for thought.

Ok, here is my analysis. I just wanted to say that I believe that you didn't find a blunder because you didn't lose to one, but to a lack of planning and understanding and using your assets in the winning endgame you had. Your advantaged slipped a little move by move.

I hope you find it useful.

I'm not going to post the game I played just now. It was too stupid. I played way too fast. awright, I'll post it. It was interesting. I got a pawn advantage, and then didn't see the mate threat, nor the mate next move . It was a 90/30 game and it was over in ten minutes. We both played like it was blitz. I think I shouldn't schedule late night games anymore

ok. Before I go to analyzing this, and reviewing the comments above from aron and jojojopo, I would like to say that I'm obviously playing the openings not too badly...I haven't been doing any study of openings, no study at all in the past month,,,maybe just a few tactics here and there. But what's happened in the game jojojopo and aronchuck analyzed is I squandered a huge advantage, and in this game I squandered a small advantage, well, one pawn anyway. It will be interesting to look at this game too. I'm going to study these two games and your comments, and I'm going to play another game tomorrow night, and then that will be it for the next few days, until the weekend probably. I"ll have these two, and the third from tomorrow, to study all week. And I'm going to think seriously about how I'm negotiating my game times on the server here, because this game tonight was really too late for me, and I was tired. No excuse, I know, but I was tired. 

Some interesting points in this game, I've refrained from a lot of tactical analysis & variations because it would just be repeating what jojojopo & aronchuck have already done so I've concentrated more on general principals as its an endgame & an area that requires specific study.

Firstly capitalising on material advantage. Yasser Seirawan points out in his Queen Sacrifice video that you focus on what's on the board not what's off the board. In this game the material advantage was not taken advantage of & it allowed Black to play himself back into the game. What was off the board was immaterial when what was on the board wasn't being used to advantage.

Next a point I've been waiting to see happen, your openings are suddenly improving to a point where an advantage is being gained even though you have not been studying them specifically. This is why its sometimes beneficial to take a break from training or switch to a different area. All the work you have been doing solidifies in your brain & suddenly you find you have jumped to a higher level. It is possible to over train or over study. Your Brain doesn't get a chance to integrate all the new material because it is always processing more new stuff & when you take a break your brain gets a chance to catch up. I always backed off my training a day or 2 before a tournament & maybe played just a few “fun” games sometimes on a tight time control just to sharpen up my tactics under pressure & test my board vision. Then I went into the tournament fresh & sharp.

Endgames are not my strongest area as I played far fewer of them (Possibly due to the attacking openings I used to play) but I did make sure that if I got to one I had all the basics down so if I lost it was because my opponent was far stronger rather than my lack of understanding so I'm looking forward to more endgame discussion & analysis.

aronchuck, jojojopo, fantastic notes. jojojopo, your variations are awesome, aronchuck, your reference to Morphy and fanatical devotions to development is very important. Yes, all those knight moves early in the game worked in this game, but should not have. aronchuck, your variations and instructions of priorities in the middlegame and late middlegame are sooooo instructive, a whole course. I will study these in the next few days. QueenTakesKnight, nice to still have you around. 

Hello everyone! Are we still interested in going on with this thread? Well, I am, but since it has been silent for some time now I thought I should ask.

I'm still interested but I don't have any games to post at the moment. Maybe we should look for something to discuss during the quiet times, maybe a theme like endgames or strategy behind openings & how it sets up tactical play in the middle game. There are so many things to study there should be something productive to work on when we don't have games to analyse.