06 Oct 14
1 edit
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemThese young guys play like machines, its not about chess principles, its all about calculation, pure calculation. I was listening to two GM's comment on this game, all they did was look at a plethora of possibilities and subject the variations to falsification, there was no planning, no strategy, just plausible moves and calculation.
There's no chess principle that does not have exceptions. Principles are only guidelines when you don't have anything more specific in mind.
06 Oct 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat's because a lot of planning, strategy is just second nature to them and explaining all of it can just seem a bit tedious (and there are some positions that can only be explained in variations). Alot of chess today is more dynamic and reliant on concrete variations, and there are just so many exceptions to general rules
These young guys play like machines, its not about chess principles, its all about calculation, pure calculation. I was listening to two GM's comment on this game, all they did was look at a plethora of possibilities and subject the variations to falsification, there was no planning, no strategy, just plausible moves and calculation.
06 Oct 14
1 edit
I think the idea behind 7. Nh4 is simply to try to swap off the knight for Black's g4 bishop. e.g. with h3, g4 and Nxg6. Then White's light-squared bishop will be that much stronger on d3.
I've been playing c4-c5 in queen's pawn games a lot in blitz recently. If you can prevent Black from getting the e6-e5 break in, you often have an overwhelming advantage on the queenside and stuff like b2-b4, a2-a4, b4-b5 can steamroller Black surprisingly quickly.
06 Oct 14
Originally posted by luke mysterYes.
That's because a lot of planning, strategy is just second nature to them and explaining all of it can just seem a bit tedious (and there are some positions that can only be explained in variations). Alot of chess today is more dynamic and reliant on concrete variations, and there are just so many exceptions to general rules
06 Oct 14
2 edits
Originally posted by Data Flythis was my thought as well, although I would never consider moves like that myself, all the time i would be thinking h3 g4, weakening, far too weakening. It must be awesome to have so much trust in your ability to calculate that you can make these kinds of plans.
I think the idea behind 7. Nh4 is simply to try to swap off the knight for Black's g4 bishop. e.g. with h3, g4 and Nxg6. Then White's light-squared bishop will be that much stronger on d3.
I've been playing c4-c5 in queen's pawn games a lot in blitz recently. If you can prevent Black from getting the e6-e5 break in, you often have an overwhelming advanta ...[text shortened]... on the queenside and stuff like b2-b4, a2-a4, b4-b5 can steamroller Black surprisingly quickly.
World youth championship today, i was going to follow Miss Munoz but when i deleted her on Facebook for not even thanking me for making a donation (I delete all people that don't respond to communication) I found out that it was actually her father who was posting material in her behalf. He sent me a message for deleting her calling me rude and judgemental etc etc and he and I had words and now I will be supporting all her rivals. He is an unsavoury character masquerading as a paragon of piety.
06 Oct 14
The principles are, as stated earlier, just guidlines that have been
formed over a couple of hundred of years by looking at lost games
and the reason why they were lost.
Kinghts on the rim are only dim in hindsight. If the game was lost then
the writer has something to latch onto. If the game is won then
the writer can speak of imaginative play.
Of course in this day and age with IM's/GM's running computers for
opening ideas then some 'odd' looking moves will spring up as computers
are not shackled by principles and will examine all moves.
This can be sometimes be seen if you switch off a computers book and let it play from move one.
I've seen them after
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5
play 3...Qe7 which would (or should) lead your average player into a
difficult position. (who knows maybe the box likes 3...Qe7 because it
rates 3...d6 4.Nxf7 The Cochrane Gambit very strongly.)
06 Oct 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you tried to stalk a sixteen year old girl and are upset that her father is preventing you?
World youth championship today, i was going to follow Miss Munoz but when i deleted her on Facebook for not even thanking me for making a donation (I delete all people that don't respond to communication) I found out that it was actually her father who was posting material in her behalf. He sent me a message for deleting her calling me rude and judge ...[text shortened]... be supporting all her rivals. He is an unsavoury character masquerading as a paragon of piety.
06 Oct 14
5 edits
Originally posted by Data Flystalking??? yeah deleting her and then getting a mouthful from her father for doing so is akin to stalking her. Perhaps you can tell me how that is akin to stalking, for it yet evades me.
So you tried to stalk a sixteen year old girl and are upset that her father is preventing you?
06 Oct 14
Originally posted by greenpawn34this is why they play such offbeat openings, Carlsen lost to Caruana with the bishops opening only recently, but the mere fact that he employed it at all I have no doubt was to avoid computer generated opening theory.
The principles are, as stated earlier, just guidlines that have been
formed over a couple of hundred of years by looking at lost games
and the reason why they were lost.
Kinghts on the rim are only dim in hindsight. If the game was lost then
the writer has something to latch onto. If the game is won then
the writer can speak of imaginative play. ...[text shortened]... maybe the box likes 3...Qe7 because it
rates 3...d6 4.Nxf7 The Cochrane Gambit very strongly.)
06 Oct 14
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes this is an interesting game. When i read the review in chessbase they stated Caruana had used "engine like" defense. I'm not sure i agree, i guessed most of the defensive moves in this game. I think Caruanas opening choice can be explained quite easily, he was playing Mamedyarov! The guy is always looking to sacrifice, Caruana was just hanging out a few tasty nibbles trying to invite an unsound sacrifice.
ok I understand that Gms must unbalance the position but some of these moves make no sense and what is more they abandon basic chess principles.
[pgn]1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 Bg4 5. Nc3 e6 6. Qb3 Qb6 {ok i understand these moves} 7. Nh4 {what the heck is this? its the craziest knight move ive seen, dont put knights on the edge of the boa ...[text shortened]... 34. Re1 {everything is defended and the hack attack fails to the machine like defence} 1-0[/pgn]
Not for the first time i have wasted nearly an hour of my life trying to post analysis with a pgn! Grump. These are my contributions...
7.Nh4 - The main line as far as i'm aware is very similar to this. Move the knight and play f3 and g4. Caruana intends to Kick the Bg4 but wants to do it h3/g4 instead. I think he puts the knight here because Mamedyarov will use a lot of time and energy trying to find a sound way to play g5. A move that Caruana is no doubt prepared for..
10.c5 - He is cementing the pawn structure. Black has made weakening moves on the kingside, a queen exchange gives white a much better ending. If ..QxQ axb3 then black is in trouble as his Nb8 is difficult to get into the game and the Ra8 is stuck defending the a-pawn while Whites Ra1 can be moved to affect the center. Either that or black has to make further weakening moves by playing a6. Positionally the Queen exchange is a massive win for white, so he can play c5 for free.
Another thing to bear in mind is that they played this opening on their previous encounter and The Gashimov memorial. Here's the game..
I think it's clear that the middle game is very double edged in this game, black definitely has chances at some point. I think Caruana must have analysed this is and decided he had allowed black too many options. His 10.c5 move in our original game is a real improvement!
Amazingly Caruana is only rated 2783 for this game even though it was only 6 months ago or so! Quite a rating spike when you consider these guys are lucky to get 4 points for a win!
07 Oct 14
3 edits
Originally posted by MarinkatombYes you might be correct, baiting him, come and get me! which is Laskerian (could be a new word!) in his approach and mamedyarov does not need an invitation. What also seems evident is that mamedyarov is prepared to take risks, whereas caruana seems intent to play solidly without compromising his position very much, or at least simply prepared to react to what mamedyarov tries, its really quite interesting.
Yes this is an interesting game. When i read the review in chessbase they stated Caruana had used "engine like" defense. I'm not sure i agree, i guessed most of the defensive moves in this game. I think Caruanas opening choice can be explained quite easily, he was playing Mamedyarov! The guy is always looking to sacrifice, Caruana was just hanging out a ...[text shortened]... go or so! Quite a rating spike when you consider these guys are lucky to get 4 points for a win!
I do agree with the comparison though, mamedyarov plays like a human, he is a very creative player whereas caruana seems absolutely correct.
The best thing i have found is to post the pgn without annotations and then simply go in an edit it with curly brackets and insert annotations.
07 Oct 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes i agree with all of this. Personally i think Caruana is learning from Carlsens style.
Yes you might be correct, baiting him, come and get me! which is Laskerian (could be a new word!) in his approach and mamedyarov does not need an invitation. What also seems evident is that mamedyarov is prepared to take risks, whereas caruana seems intent to play solidly without compromising his position very much, or at least simply prepared to re ...[text shortened]... without annotations and then simply go in an edit it with curly brackets and insert annotations.
1.First, don't lose. A small nagging advantage is enough, trust in your ability.
2.Be accurate.
3.Have an encyclopedic knowledge of chess endings.
As far as i can see, that's about it. They have the required ability to make this technique work. Everyone else is stuck trying to swindle each other with tricks.. 🙂
07 Oct 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Marinkatombdid you see Legrave v Carslen, man talk about mixing it up in the opening
Yes i agree with all of this. Personally i think Caruana is learning from Carlsens style.
1.First, don't lose. A small nagging advantage is enough, trust in your ability.
2.Be accurate.
3.Have an encyclopedic knowledge of chess endings.
As far as i can see, that's about it. They have the required ability to make this technique work. Everyone else is stuck trying to swindle each other with tricks.. 🙂