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

(If you register a free account you won't see all these ads!)
Georg Meier vs Magnus Carlsen
GRENKE Chess Classic (2018), Karlsruhe GER, rd 5, Apr-05
Indian Game: Anti-Nimzo-Indian (E10)  ·  1/2-1/2
ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening
find similar games 6 more G Meier/Carlsen games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: Some games have annotation. These are denoted in the game list with the icon.

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 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Apr-07-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Count Wedgemore: No worries, <frogbert> and <keypusher>.
Apr-08-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <keypusher> Thank you. I've forgotten why you were 'unkind'...By the way <Count...> Ohio Chess is muttering on [he has me on ignore] about things and refers to a touching 'bromance' betwixt thee and me...

It is some idle thing methinks...

I think his satire is that people are "being nice" to each other and either having to retract their niceness and get nasty or some other alternative. He has a forum with a prediction of results contest. I never predict an outcome of anything. (Is that interesting?)

But is anyone interested in my other thesis that God simultaneously exists and does not exist? That is I invoke the excluded middle...allow it...No? Thought so...

Apr-08-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: Re Carlsen I got interested in his game against Naiditsch and analysed it with Komodo and so far I'm afraid despite the enthusiasm of Carlsen's fans it really wasn't one of his best games. Naiditsch was said to have played either a 'weird' opening or to have played too complexly and so on. (But the opening was a fairly well known sub line in the Najdorf). Carlsen's sang froid with the Black side of the Najdorf was said to be really frightening. But the end of the game was decided by a few weak moves by Naiditsch. Carlsen in fact let Naiditsch back into the game at quite a few points. Put simply: he didn't play very well and Naiditsch's opening was good (if he didn't play the most exact line) but up to probably move 22 or so the game was more or less equal.

Carlsen has played some great games but that wasn't one. But he himself says chess for him is a sport where the main thing is to win. So how he wins is not important. Of course this is true of most people. The point is the fans get carried away thinking every win by him is a masterpiece...

Apr-08-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <Carlsen has played some great games but that wasn't one. But he himself says chess for him is a sport where the main thing is to win. So how he wins is not important. Of course this is true of most people. The point is the fans get carried away thinking every win by him is a masterpiece...>

<Richard Taylor> Now you're being unkind to Carlsen, and his fans too.

<An interesting example of how self-critical Carlsen is - in contrast to all the hymns of praise here, he actually seems rather disgusted with the way he played. He realized during the game that he should have played exf4 when he had the chance on move 16 or 17, and later that he could have played the thematic d5 break on move 22 and that 25...e4 was too rash, because with 27.Nc3! White could have equalized (27.Nf2?, on the other hand, seems like the losing mistake by Naiditsch). After that point, he says he "lost interest in the game"... dismissing what followed as tricking his opponent in time trouble.>

If all he cared about was winning, Carlsen wouldn't have been disgusted with himself. Right, Richard?

Apr-08-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Count Wedgemore: <Richard Taylor: By the way <Count...> Ohio Chess is muttering on [he has me on ignore] about things and refers to a touching 'bromance' betwixt thee and me...>

Well, isn't "bromance" a beautiful thing, <Richard>? And since (reportedly) I am under consideration for a pollyanna reward, I guess I should keep this blossoming bromance business up..

<He has a forum with a prediction of results contest.>

That contest is great fun. And very interesting, especially the moves prediction contest because it is very hard to have consistently good results in that contest. But you know, it is hard to predict, especially about the future, as the great Danish humorist Storm P. put it.

<I never predict an outcome of anything. (Is that interesting?)>

Not really.

<But is anyone interested in my other thesis that God simultaneously exists and does not exist?>

No. (Oh crap, there goes my pollyanna award)

Apr-08-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Dionysius1: In some "many universes" theories, attempting to coordinate Einstein's TOR and string theory, God MUST exist and not exist. If you start adding "at the same time" though it gets complicated, since for Einstein time was a conditional dependent on its relationship with space. Was the here and now ever more complicated?
Apr-08-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: < Dionysius1: In some "many universes" theories, attempting to coordinate Einstein's TOR and string theory, God MUST exist and not exist. If you start adding "at the same time" though it gets complicated, since for Einstein time was a conditional dependent on its relationship with space. Was the here and now ever more complicated?>

As I'm sure you know, for Einstein, as German-speaker, TOR would not mean Theory of Relatively but either "das Tor" (gate/portal) or "der Tor", the fool. Thus the combination of TOR and string theory would result in the string passing through the portal of alternative realities or else the fool dancing on the end of God's string, neither of which hypotheses is on topic but what the hell.

Apr-08-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: <Count Wedgemore> All his rantings boil down to an attempt at self-glorification through fake humility. For example, if he is jealous because somebody predicts outcomes or moves better than he does, he professes that he never predicts anything and is thus above all that. If that cogent line of argument fails to impress you, he'll go into his CIA conspiracy rampage about how agents chewed through the roots of the Twin Towers as an excuse for reacting to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.
Apr-08-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Count Wedgemore: <CHC: If that cogent line of argument fails to impress you, he'll go into his CIA conspiracy rampage about how agents chewed through the roots of the Twin Towers as an excuse for reacting to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.>

Uh, okay. I think my bromance with <Dick> is officially over.

Apr-08-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Dionysius1: Hi <CHC> It never occurred to me - good one!
Apr-09-18  frogbert: <RT: The point is the fans get carried away thinking every win by him is a masterpiece...>

I do? You see, the problem with applying sweeping generalizations is that you're bound to go wrong. In a way your statements appear quite similar to the (few) Carlsen fans that think «every win by him is a masterpiece». How can this be taken seriously?

Apr-09-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <keypusher: <Carlsen has played some great games but that wasn't one. But he himself says chess for him is a sport where the main thing is to win. So how he wins is not important. Of course this is true of most people. The point is the fans get carried away thinking every win by him is a masterpiece...> <Richard Taylor> Now you're being unkind to Carlsen, and his fans too.>

No I'm not, Carlsen himself has said these things. I am not criticising him. His view is that chess is a sport not an art as such (especially for him). Now some of those who criticised Naiditsch were very over the top. That is for some reason they felt he had played a great game. I am not surprised Carlsen realised he hadn't. But those who keep carping on about how wonderful he is wont listen to what he himself is saying...

And I was quite impressed in that game with Naiditsch. But indeed, neither did he play a great came. Not that all games have to be great.

<An interesting example of how self-critical Carlsen is - in contrast to all the hymns of praise here, he actually seems rather disgusted with the way he played. He realized during the game that he should have played exf4 when he had the chance on move 16 or 17, and later that he could have played the thematic d5 break on move 22 and that 25...e4 was too rash, because with 27.Nc3! White could have equalized (27.Nf2?, on the other hand, seems like the losing mistake by Naiditsch). After that point, he says he "lost interest in the game"... dismissing what followed as tricking his opponent in time trouble.>

Yes, I found some of those moves, albeit with the help of a computer.

<If all he cared about was winning, Carlsen wouldn't have been disgusted with himself. Right, Richard?>

he himself said that the main thing was to win. I think this is very understandable. it is like a writer who likes to get good sales for his novels or win the Booker or Pulitzer. Of course he loves the game or he would become a mechanic or do something useful however that is defined. (I admire mechanics and street sweepers and factory workers). But while the novelist or others want to do well they indeed enjoy their craft or whatever they do (we hope).

I don't think he was "disgusted with himself". He knew he had played under par and was annoyed with that. I have done that. Once I thought I had gone completely wrong in the opening and was feeling very disgusted, but as it turned out, by chance I had played the right moves! And then my position got or seemed to get dramatically better and I won, to my surprise. My point is that these emotional reactions occur to everyone playing chess and I like that Carlsen is not arrogant and refuses to allow people to call him a genius. I think he would not want 'the Mozart of chess' label. It is annoying. What I have is a sense that he doesn't really (often) know how or why he won in some or perhaps many cases. And I think that that is something super GMs share with very weak players or middle range club players, all players. It is something about the way a game transforms. It is something about the philosophy of chess. Then there are many games (revolving say around static features) that are relatively easy to see what is played. To some extent Naiditsch's plan was classical like Fischer's approach. Domination of d5.

Apr-09-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: But the game wasn't a "bad" game. I have pointed out that both players played pretty well. And of course they will both have many interesting games we don't know about or haven't played over...

Nor, as he says, does a computer "know" so he refuses to play them as they are effectively stupid. And he is right.

As an aside he is very level headed compared to almost all the World Champions. Others (recently) include Kramnik, Anand (was Topalov the World Champion?). In any case I don't know so much about those "interregnum" world champions...This brings me back to my concern about this obsession with who is the World Champion or the best and so on. I am agin' it but of course I share it much as I struggle away from it. Carlsen seems happy enough, but Fischer, it seems to me, didn't really, at a deep level, want to even win against Spassky. In fact it was, in my view, Spassky who won (in a deep psychic sense) and really reaped the rewards afterwards. Karpov was good. Kasparov o.k. but his almost ferocious attitude...

It is strange, the Commonwealth Games are on, and NZ is winning certain things, but I am more interested in chess at the moment. I don't know why. For a long time I hardly looked at these tournaments, and I have stopped playing chess myself. I was considering just switching off altogether as I have other things. But I keep coming back to chess. Now that my friend Paul's father has died he seems to have lost the push to follow chess and I who am older keep checking back here each day...

Overall I find these Super GM tournaments less interesting than some of the "lesser ones". I really enjoyed watching the US Championships. The coverage was good as well as a tournament I think that was in St Louis but this one seems a little duller. Maybe it is because it is too late at night.

Also I would have liked to see some kind of coverage of the big tournament that the young German won. Even if there were players of much lower ratings. Often the games of those players are more interesting than these games.

Apr-09-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <frogbert: <RT: The point is the fans get carried away thinking every win by him is a masterpiece...> I do? You see, the problem with applying sweeping generalizations is that you're bound to go wrong. In a way your statements appear quite similar to the (few) Carlsen fans that think «every win by him is a masterpiece». How can this be taken seriously?>

Now look here Froggy. You know what I mean. Don't be silly. Put it this way. NZ's only GM Murray Chandler might have made it to challenge Karpov or Kasparov. But I would be prepared to criticise his play when I felt he had played poor moves. But on the other hand I wouldn't be "devastated" if the didn't win.

Now, he didn't 'make it' as they say so it is only academic, but I am not one of those people who blind themselves.

We always make generalizations, we cant avoid them. But there would be certain supporters who could find nothing wrong with his play no matter what he did, simply because he was a New Zealander. It is the case with rugby here, the All Blacks never lose they were cheated by the ref who was a pom or something worse....and so on. But I don't share that. I applaud the good moves of, say Australia, or I used to. I am not very interested in sports these days...

Apr-09-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <Count Wedgemore: <CHC: If that cogent line of argument fails to impress you, he'll go into his CIA conspiracy rampage about how agents chewed through the roots of the Twin Towers as an excuse for reacting to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.>

Uh, okay. I think my bromance with <Dick> is officially over.>

That garbled version of my views of the Twin Towers destruction and the invasion of Kuwait etc is not one I recall advocating. I did postulate that it suited the US very well, 9/11, whether it was an 'inside job' or not.

The problem is, like the existence of God, it is similarly impossible to prove or more consisely to know, what happened there as it is a) impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God (or some great power or whatever rather than that 'it all just happened'). So the G non-G theory is valid. Simultaneously as I liked the poetic comparison to the concept that certain particles (theoretically) oscillate constantly between being and not being as things in existence.

I dispute with all science. One area is the supposed proof that, say, prime numbers can be proved to be infinite on the number line. Also that a sphere is or can be known to be 4/3 pi r cubed as discovered by Archimedes. This is because his method was faulty. [Not that I don't admire his brilliance in this or dispute that the formula works] It is all more complex than that.

My emphasis is on knowledge not truth. Truth is one of those words thrown around that are useful but dubious.

Nor is it possible to know whether, say, the Russians poisoned the agents or ex agents, or who are the "good guys" in Syria or who 'did the towers'. This is because of problems in knowledge theory that prohibit certainty in any of those things.

Apr-10-18  frogbert: My point simply was that fighting hyperbole with more hyperbole isn't the way to go. There are many level-headed Carlsen fans, also on this site.

I, for one, have my own, clear ideas about Carlsen's (few) weaknesses. I've followed his career since he was 11, watched or played through every official game he's played, commented around 200 of them live for Norwegian mass media, talked at length with his father and other people close to him, read every book written about him (being a consultant to two of them), and so on.

You introduce a «hypothesis» that he's lazy and/or lacks understanding, using the game versus Meier as some kind of proof or argument. I say you're wrong and have got it wrong. Based on my knowledge of Carlsen. That's different from saying that he doesn't make mistakes or has no weaknesses. He does and has. They're simply not the ones you're speculating they are.

Apr-10-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  moronovich: Hi <frogbert> !

It is good to see you around,again !

How would you,if you like,describe Carlsens weaknes´s?

Apr-10-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  morfishine: Hi <moronovich>! If you don't mind, I would like to describe Carlsen's weaknesses...

Hmmm, thats it, what do you think?

*****

Apr-10-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  moronovich: <morfishine: Hi <moronovich>! If you don't mind, I would like to describe Carlsen's weaknesses... Hmmm, thats it, what do you think?

*****>

Lol! Something simular.

Once I spend a week with the now late Tony Miles and we also had time for chess.One evening at the restaurant I popped the question-and now I quote litterally:"Tony,what do you think are the weaknesses of Kasparov ?" Answer after a deep and long thought:"Well,may be he sometimes is too optimistic"...

Noteworthy:...MAY BE...SOMETIMES

Apr-10-18  frogbert: <moronovich>

In case I have something to reveal, I won't say more than what I already wrote on the Grenke page, addressing/responding to <Sally Simpson> there. It was a minor addition to what I suggested with a little less detail in my first response to <RT> here. :)

Apr-10-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  morfishine: <moronovich> Thats fantastic you could spend some time with GM Miles!
Apr-11-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <frogbert: My point simply was that fighting hyperbole with more hyperbole isn't the way to go. There are many level-headed Carlsen fans, also on this site. I, for one, have my own, clear ideas about Carlsen's (few) weaknesses. I've followed his career since he was 11, watched or played through every official game he's played, commented around 200 of them live for Norwegian mass media, talked at length with his father and other people close to him, read every book written about him (being a consultant to two of them), and so on.

You introduce a «hypothesis» that he's lazy and/or lacks understanding, using the game versus Meier as some kind of proof or argument. I say you're wrong and have got it wrong. Based on my knowledge of Carlsen. That's different from saying that he doesn't make mistakes or has no weaknesses. He does and has. They're simply not the ones you're speculating they are.>

O.K. I was speculating about the way he was now. It seemed to me that certain things were happening. I am not discounting the difficulties of the actual game of chess and what I like about Carlsen is his ability to extricate from difficulties and also sometimes some beautiful positional games and earlier in his career some more tactical games. But by "lazy" perhaps I meant his deameanour and I was thinking also of Kasparov and say Alekhine (and even Rubinstein, who one might almost contrast with Capablanca in this respect although their styles were somewhat similar): that is those players put agreat deal of energy into theory and so on. Now Kasparov (and probably Fischer) are another two who stand out in this way also.

I suppose the meaning I gained was that Carlsen is prepared to take draws in certain games and also he doesn't push himself in analysis before matches to the extent say Karjakin does. That is actually what I feel is a good policy.

But it is now almost as if he is transitioning as Anand did towards a certain almost routine. Anand for me became also too much in the grip of theory (I know it is hard to avoid). But in their matches it was Anand who seemed locked into a kind of routine. Carlsen skillfully steered the openings which was good. So he is good in certain kinds of openings. He is good in endings. But he doesn't seem to have quite that fire that Kasparov had. In a sense Kasparov became almost too theory bound, successfully beating players in certain openings and loving to show his mastery of theory and also his ability not only in attacks but in positional chess etc.

I still don't really have a good picture of Carlsen or how he fits in. it seems to me one great ability he has and that is flexibility and the ability to play many different kinds of positions even if his opponents have more knowledge of the "correct moves". In this sense he got the upper hand of Anand.

But I didn't know there were two books about him. I knew about the prodigy book but wasn't interested in that I wanted to see from say 17 to now or say 16 to 22. Of course later a book including the World Champs.

But if you have studied all his tournament games and commented on them then you clearly know more than I do.

I am probably generalising from impressions and memory of games. So, yes, I am probably talking a lot of nonsense...But in thinking about these things I am thinking about the philosophy of chess. The results don't actually concern me. It is what makes these players different from each other and so on that interests me. Chess seems to get to the point that games in an ideational sense seem to repeat.

There is almost a feeling that chess is finished. Of course people will keep playing it as it is not finished for the individual.

Apr-11-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  moronovich: Thanks <morfishine> !

Made a good long post and it disappeared ): Grrr. So the short version now.Yes it was a fin time and we seemingly enjoyed each others company.Chemistry some call it.

But especially our analyzes I recall.About Owens defence ,were he was the leading player and I had spend some 3-400 hours trying to make it work. I was used to work with GM´s and IM´s but he had something extra.There was one refutation that impressed me so much.A concept out of this world. His last words in our sessions were:"I have looked on -Qc7 here for 3 years.Give me a call if you find something".But I never did and now it has all vanished into history.

Last night on a disquoteqe he,rather intoxicated,said:"How come I dont get any chikcs.I am a Grandmaster".

But if you have seen the size of his belly and his condition,then...;)

RIP Tony and thanks.

Apr-12-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  morfishine: Thanks <moronovich> That is truly fascinating!

On a side note, I've checking out Albin Planinc Albin Planinc

This guy was a true genius, he's truly remarkable

Miles was probably not too happy about his one game with Planinc: A Planinc vs Miles, 1975

*****

Apr-12-18  frogbert: <But I didn't know there were two books about him.>

Oh, there are at least five. Unfortunately only one was translated to english («Wonderboy») - and by now it's the least insightful book written about Carlsen.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 3)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, 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, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


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, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
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 Collection [what is this?]
Defensive Themes
by KingG


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 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC