chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Magnus Carlsen vs Anish Giri
Norway Chess (2014), Stavanger NOR, rd 1, Jun-03
English Opening: Symmetrical. Three Knights Variation (A34)  ·  1/2-1/2
ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening
find similar games 39 more Carlsen/A Giri games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" button below the game.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jun-03-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Marmot PFL> Which rook to e8 do you suggest? It makes a difference.
Jun-03-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  chessdgc2: Chessgames.com: Thank you very much! Great broadcast!
Jun-03-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Domdaniel: <Kinghunt> I thought your Nc6 idea looked very promising - but maybe, despite the clamp, White had no way to make progress. His King had no easy way into the position - and, as was said, he didn't have enough material to control both sides of the board.

Impressive defence by Giri, nonetheless.

Jun-03-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Domdaniel: <Maggi's Farm> 0.5
<Giri from the North Country> 0.5
Jun-03-14  Ulhumbrus: Carlsen said that Giri was <just in time> and found all the right moves and that it was a draw whatever he did. Giri said that he has missed the exchange sacrifice but managed a miraculous escape all the same. Carlsen said that he could not do anything else but that with precise moves it was a draw. So he was satisfied. Giri defended well so there was nothing left. Giri said that one player had to make a mistake for the game to not end in a draw. Carlsen said that he played reasonably well. Giri said that ..Qc7 was an innovation and avoided some dangerous alternative. Carlsen said that he did not do anything wrong, but that Giri was a good player and played very well, so the result was a draw.
Jun-03-14  DcGentle: <Ulhumbrus>: Maybe Carlsen was right claiming that he didn't do anything wrong during the game, but in this opening variant (and most likely in others) some deeper preparation could have made a difference. Had Carlsen known about ... Qc7 earlier for example, who knows what would have happened.
Jun-03-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Domdaniel: Maybe the kid shoulda shown some respect for his betters ... like resigning at once when the Champ sacked the Exchange?

(A *joke*, btw.)

Jun-03-14  Ulhumbrus: In my previous message <has missed> should have been <had missed>
Jun-03-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi Dom.

I still think this is an instructive position.
I'd have no problem showing this too my lads. Weaker players need all the help they can when defending themselves.


click for larger view

There will have been some lads on here wondering why not Nf6+ and Bb2.

Short and Kasparov just glided past it and went for Kg7 concentrating on Bb2 and the discovered checks. They got here when waiting for Giri to play his 16th move.

Kh8 is a plausible trick which had to seen coming, perhaps Giri was leading Carlsen towards it with his big think on move 16.

It's the kind of move we punters (present company accepted) would never take into consideration as White when going for this line.

Infact I'd go as far to say if I was White here.


click for larger view

I would have flicked out Nf6+ and then right away would see he has Kh8. (and then hope he would not see it.)

This is chess evolving right infront of your eyes.

We have had the Romantic Age, The Hyper Moderns, The Computer age... next natural step is Hope Chess.

Jun-03-14  Chris321: Looks like the black c pawn holds everything of black position together,without that pawn(and the bishops off) the white king will penetrate relatively easy into the black queenside,and then before everything else the black a pawn must be captured before onwards an upwards towards the white c7 pawn,maybe after that something can happen for white me thinks.(will later analise the position more carefully)...but all in all i would say it's a delicate draw.Magnus must have expected more out of this game for sure than only a half point,innovative defence by his opponent!.
Jun-03-14  1d410: Wouldn't have preferred any other outcome. Sacrifices shouldn't be made unless they are completely sound. I don't go for the whole mind-games where opponents cave in because they think 2+2=5 business. Even Tal says not to give up on the solution 2+2=4.
Jun-03-14  Chris321: Yes i can agree to that,you need to know the cutoff point and take the draw if that is the requirements to the position just like this one,everything else is not reality,you just can't make a win when its a draw,simple as that!,but delicate to know the exact moment to shut everything down,i overstepped myself with that badly an then you can even lose if not very carefull!.
Jun-03-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: Just looked at this game, sans chess machine: Giri did well (it seems on inspection) to hold that game to a draw. He is a talented player of course.
Jun-03-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Domdaniel: <Richard T.> Yes indeed. And I'd still trust the Taylor brain to come up with insights that a chess machine wouldn't match.
Jun-03-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi ID410,

"Wouldn't have preferred any other outcome. Sacrifices shouldn't be made unless they are completely sound."

This one was not unsound.

Have not seen anyone come up with a better line of play for Giri, infact just how well he held it together.


click for larger view

A Rook on the seventh, a pawn on the seventh and active pieces for a mere exchange.

Jun-04-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <Domdaniel> I just skimmed through the game. Often I have no idea what these guys are doing but I could see Giri patching the holes.

You have more faith in my brain!

I think what is interesting is the "human view" of a game. There are some positions for sure when the computer view so to speak is better but chess players forget that at the board they are playing in imperfect conditions (so to say a sacrifice "should always be sound" is in fact stupid. A sacrifice, a true one is in fact often a kind of intuitice speculation and can lead to an unclear position.

I saw a video of one of the KK W Chps matches where Kasparov got quite excited not because he had seen the moves but because as he kept repeating (a Q sac against Karpov's) "I didn't calculate it! I didn't calculate it!" What he was excited about was that he had used judgment that he had superior forces leading to a win.

Now of course that is rare and his judgement calculation in chess was phemomenal and mostly it was complete and very ingenious and accurate.

So sometimes my and others' "human judgement" of a position is right. But that wont always be the case there are games that simply confuse unless you can make many accurate calculations but I don't make so many of those these days, if I ever did.

Jun-04-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: < PhilFeeley: <Richard> Good stuff. Some of it even gets serious: http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06...

I suppose it's a bit cheap like cop bashing by radicals but I thought it might be amusing. Sally Simpson started it though!

It is strange being subject to US Law though. There is a kind of US-Centrism which I suppose is the way GB was in the hay day of it's Empire. Ironically two men, not citizens of such major (or "powerful") nations, were battling it out in chessland. The CounterPunch journal looks interesting. It is hard to predict how these various schemes of nations such as China, the US, Russia and even France: how their actions or plans will pan out. Mostly history consigns all these plots and plans to the eternal dustbin...

But there is a lot of bad stuff going down for sure. The thing I was thinking about came from a US sitcom. A woman (in some family crisis) suggests they all have a cup of tea and the grumpy husband snaps:

"Tea!? Tea!? We bomb countries where they have tea."!

Which to the credit of all raised a laugh in the audience there and elsewhere no doubt.

Jun-04-14  Mendrys: I quite enjoyed this game and thought it rather tense at points and I wasn't sure that Giri would find a good defence.

Though for the life of me I can't figure out how gratuitous, self righteous US bashing has anything to do with this game.

Jun-04-14  Ulhumbrus: <Sally Simpson: Hi ID410,

"Wouldn't have preferred any other outcome. Sacrifices shouldn't be made unless they are completely sound."

This one was not unsound.

Have not seen anyone come up with a better line of play for Giri, infact just how well he held it together.

A Rook on the seventh, a pawn on the seventh and active pieces for a mere exchange.>

Suppose the exchange is worth two pawns and that a rook on the seventh is worth a pawn. That puts White a pawn behind overall so far. His additional positional compensation ( a pawn on the seventh, central superiority and an enormous lead in development) may be worth considerably more than a pawn but probably not as much as two pawns ie not enough to win if Black plays very well, as Carlsen says Giri did.

Jun-04-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi Ulhumbrus,

I think we are agreeing. Though I never think in terms of pawns when judging piece activity.

Thinking that a Rook on the 7th is worth a pawn is alien to me.

Rooks on the 7th conjure up all kinds of tactical ideas and pawns on the 7th opens the door to pawn-promo-combo's.

Once you strip away all the fancy and flowery terms to describe a game of chess - 'deep positional play...' what does that mean? You will find that the object of the game has never changed. It is to Checkmate the other player.

Never seen a 'deep positional' checkmate. I'll keep looking.

What was interesting was how Kasparov and Short within a few seconds correctly predicted a whole series of moves including the exchange sac and the follow up play having on screen the exact postion that appeared on the board much later.

Jun-04-14  visayanbraindoctor: <Sally Simpson: What was interesting was how Kasparov and Short within a few seconds correctly predicted a whole series of moves including the exchange sac and the follow up play having on screen the exact postion that appeared on the board much later.>

Chess moves, rules, and principles don't change and the exchange sac idea would have been given serious thought by any top master from any era in chess history. Morphy would have done that exchange sac in a jiffy if the position occurred in one of his games. It always puzzles me why some kibitzers trying to shoehorn chess 'evolution' claim only active masters can comprehend such sacs.

One interesting point about this game in my opinion is the way Carlsen played the opening. He typically selects a quiet solid English opening variation with 5. e3, and then followed up with the positionally logical 8. Bb5 Bd7 9. a4 Bg7 10. O-O O-O 11. Ba3, and now note that he has his two bishops out exerting maximal pressure on two parallel diagonals. Open lines and diagonals. It's not as if one has to research and memorize tons of sharp opening lines to come up with a fine playable middlegame; just adherence to basic chess principles. No sharp theoretical debate here, yet this type of opening has become the bread and butter and rice and fish of Carlsen's career.

Jun-05-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: < Mendrys: I quite enjoyed this game and thought it rather tense at points and I wasn't sure that Giri would find a good defence. Though for the life of me I can't figure out how gratuitous, self righteous US bashing has anything to do with this game. >

Well you can go back to the start of the commentary and see that a tongue-in-cheek comment.

You can also read a bit of modern history while you are waiting for the moves to be played. It is also hard to see what baseball and pop music hs to do with chess, but it has everything to do with it!

Jun-06-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: < visayanbraindoctor: <Sally Simpson: What was interesting was how Kasparov and Short within a few seconds correctly predicted a whole series of moves including the exchange sac and the follow up play having on screen the exact postion that appeared on the board much later.> Chess moves, rules, and principles don't change and the exchange sac idea would have been given serious thought by any top master from any era in chess history. Morphy would have done that exchange sac in a jiffy if the position occurred in one of his games. It always puzzles me why some kibitzers trying to shoehorn chess 'evolution' claim only active masters can comprehend such sacs.>

You are right there is not such a huge difference. Morphy had weaker opponenents. But he would still have played much as Carlsen and or Caruana. He also played excellent endings and "positional" games.

Karpov and Kasparov played such sacs as of course did Petrosian but any strong GM such as Rubinstein or Fischer would play such things. There are increases in opening theory knowledge etc but the real strength of Carlsen et al is in their overall ability and knowledge. Looking now at Boguljubov-Alekhine and most of the games showed Bogol as playing the better chess then letting things slip due to time pressure so that Alekhine (in the second match) is seen not as some ferocious "genius" but as not really playing much better than Bogoljubov. In one game that B missed a certain win the next day Alekhine won with a slightly dodgy line that played on B's tendency to think too long and the fact that he had lost the previous game.

So what makes such as Alekhine et al so "great"? It seems to be not the "brilliance" but a greater use of 'accountancy' (making sure overall that there are as few errors as possible - and such things as psychology (towards the opponent but also in management of time etc): so young GMs at the top level tend overall to manage their time efficiently.

They are all approximately equal (at certain stages of their carreers) so that this management of time and 'keeping accounts' makes the difference. The Tals might win (the WCs) once but the Botvinnik's and even the Kasparov's win a number of times (and many tourneys also).

Jun-13-14  1d410: It is certainly difficult to determine and argue about whether a sacrifice was sound. Maybe it was sound after all but Carlsen decided to draw by repetition just to make sure he didn't lose. It's hard for him too.
Jun-14-14  1d410: I think what Richard Taylor has to say is interesting, and there are some things I can agree on. I think Carlsen was like Tal in his ability to calculate variations, and is objectively even more dangerous. I think he will hold on to his title by making uncommon moves that break the rules and confuse Anand, but that he has seen beforehand in his head through calculation. Just look how he made a strange move like a4 and turned it into a passed pawn!
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 8)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, is totally anonymous, and 100% free—plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
  3. No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any member Iincludinfgall Admin and Owners or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. If you think someone is an idiot, then provide evidence that their reasoning is invalid and/or idiotic, instead of just calling them an idiot. It's a subtle but important distinction, even in political discussions.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
  6. NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
  7. Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
  8. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
  9. The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
  10. All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
  11. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a Moderator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All Moderator actions taken are at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.
Spot an error? Please submit a correction slip and help us eliminate database mistakes!
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
*32 - Giri neutralized all attempts with very precise defence.
from Most Instructive Draws by FLAWLESSWIN64
Norway Chess Tournament (2014) Rd.1
from 2017-2013, World Chess Championship 2016 by wanabe2000
Game 32
from 2012-2015 Interesting Draws (Naiditsch/Balogh) by Qindarka
Volume 119, Game 4
from # Chess Evolution Volumes. 101-150 by Qindarka


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC