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

Ding Liren vs Magnus Carlsen
GCT Croatia (2019), Zagreb CRO, rd 8, Jul-04
Catalan Opening: Closed Variation (E06)  ·  0-1
ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening
find similar games 46 more Ding Liren/Carlsen 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]

A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE OF THIS GAME IS AVAILABLE.  [CLICK HERE]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jul-05-19  YesChess1010: Magnus achieves such a position after 49 moves that he's able to spend 6 KING MOVES IN A ROW maneuvering from h6 to c3, during which time Ding has no choice but to literally waste 5 of his moves before finally being able to initiate some semblance of movement with his bishop. Such a stellar game to watch in real time. Amazing control.
Jul-05-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  patzer2: <Eyal><Engine evaluations started dropping alarmingly for White after 36.Na5, which allowed the Bc5-g1 maneuver.> Indeed, 36. Na5? Bc5 -+ (-1.01 @ 29 ply, Stockfish 9 analysis of move 36...?) turns the game strongly in Black's favor.

Instead, the unpretentious 36. a5 = (-0.08 @ 28 ply, Stockfish 9 analysis of move 36.?) keeps it level.

Jul-05-19  csmath: 36. Na5 is a crucial decisive error but it is not obvious at all. And the game with 36. a5 is not level at all.

Black is still in driving seat and has clearly better ending.

Besides a5 is counterintuitive since it closes the only escaping square for knight since c5, d6, and d8 are covered. I bet that most players would not consider a move like that.

Update Stockfish to version 10.

Jul-05-19  csmath: This ending will be analyzed more, over and over.

Ding Liren is a great ending player, if he was outplayed in this ending and if this is really a draw I would say 99% of the GMs would have been outplayed as well.

Chinese players are ending experts, it is part of their training. Wang Hao schooled Carlsen in ending play (see the game from 2013), Wang Yue as well (2009). Ding is also of the same stock.

This win is big, huge ending play against elite GM that is also in top form. Nothing to sneeze about. This is a very high quality game, the best game of this tournament.

Jul-05-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  patzer2: <csmath> I was surprised at the engine choice 36. a5 myself, but it does the job of keeping the Black Bishop off c5.

In the Stockfish 9 analysis posted above, 36. a5 only temporarily blocks the Knight's escape route as White soon plays a6.

If 36. a5 a6 to lock in the Knight permanently, White can apparently hold the balance with 37. Ke3 = (-0.08 @ 24 ply, Stockfish 9 analysis of move 38.?).

Black does have an initiative and White is on the defensive in this computer assessed "level" position after 36. a5 a6 =, but it's apparently balanced enough to hold the draw.

P.S.: Do you have some deeper analysis showing Black forcing a win after 36. a5?

Jul-05-19  csmath: a6 is coming to mind but the problem with this move is positional. The further apart pawns are the harder to defend them is.

So it is hard to see why would a player like Ding want to put pawn so far without chance to promote. Knight could not attack a7 and white bishop cannot do that either. Ding fully intended to bring knight back into the game as fast as possible and that is why he made that 36. Na5 mistake.

But again, it is not obvious error at all.

Jul-05-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  patzer2: I agree the computer move 36. a5 is probably not the kind of move most strong human players would make, but compared to 36. Na5? it's apparently the best alternative. Had I not been aware of the computer analysis, I certainly would have played 36. Na5? to mobilize my Knight in this position.

P.S.: The Stockfish 10 program used on the official tournament site at https://grandchesstour.org/2019-gra... agrees with our Stockfish 9 analysis at chessgames.com in assessing 36. a5 = (-0.12 @ 24 ply) as White's best alternative.

Jul-05-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  Eyal: The problem with the knight goes back to move 28, which might be White's first real inaccuracy.


click for larger view

Here, after 27...Re8! (a very important move), White is pretty much forced to exchange queens and accept an endgame vs. two bishops, since the threat of Bxf2+ followed by Qb6+ is very strong, with 28.Nb3 being refuted by 28...Bc4!. Still, there are two ways of doing this, and after 28.Qc6 instead of Qb7 the knight would have found itself on a better square.

Jul-05-19  csmath: Yes, this was notable in the game and again it is hard to fault Ding even for this as nobody really expected 29. Bf8! which is another one of Magnus machine precision moves.

Anyway you look at this it becomes obvious that you are watching Magnus playing absolutely superb game.

Jul-05-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  Calli: On 29. Bf8, I disagree that this is something hard to find. It's really the only move to keep winning chances alive. Bd4 or Bd6 allow Nd6 equalizing and all other moves lose a piece.
Jul-05-19  csmath: I wasn't talking about guys on chessgames. It is known that here one can find all the greatest experts, I was talking about the rest of us poor tournament players.
Jul-05-19  Ulhumbrus: The move 40 Ke2 relinquishes control of the square c4 so that the move Nf1 can be answered by the check ...Bc4+.

One alternative to 40 Ke2 is 40 Nf1 at once in a position where Black can't reply with the check 40...Bc4+

Jul-05-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: ***

Hi Csmath,

" I wasn't talking about guys on chessgames. It is known that here one can find all the greatest experts..."

So true. I'll be chuckling about that one for the rest of the day.

***

Jul-05-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: I bow my head before all those great experts....

Signed, life 1200 player.

Jul-05-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: ***

I come in at 1199....999 if it goes to an ending.

I was right about the Knight being a wounded soldier and in the end it's about to get stretchered off the battlefield. But I don't think I could win that as Black, certainly not without a lot help from my opponent. Hence;'Is it enough to win?' I just did not know.

Ding Liren vs Carlsen, 2019 (kibitz #119)

***

Jul-05-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  patzer2: <Eyal><after 28.Qc6 instead of Qb7 the knight would have found itself on a better square> Yes indeed! After 28. Qc6 Qxc6 Nxc6 = (0.00 @ 27 ply, Stockfish 9 analysis of move 28.?), White's drawing chances and the Knight's mobility are clearly better than after the game continuation 28. Qb7?! Qxb7 29. Nxb7 Bf8 ⩱ (-0.35 @ 27 ply, Stockfish 10).
Jul-05-19  Atking: The level of this game is absolutely incredible!
Jul-05-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  Ladolcevita: <Atking>
Long time no see£º£©
Indeed, Carlsen's endgame is simply surreal...
Jul-05-19  ChessMan94: <Atking> I cannot agree more. Absolutely amazing precision. Wow!
Jul-05-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: <keypusher: <9 thegoodanarchist: By the way, the Soviets <were> in fact fixing chess. But not in the actual moves, as Bobby claimed, just in drawing each other to save their strength to fight against the non-Soviet players.>

I assume you’re talking about Curaçao 1962 (because otherwise you’re just taking nonsense). In that case Petrosian, Geller, and Keres drew all their games against each other),>

Well, you don't know what you're talking about.

I will take the views of Fine, Fischer, Alburt and others, who spent many years if not decades playing against the Soviets. And in Alburt's case, with the Soviets in his early years.

Not to mention the very strange Keres results, and attestation of Bronstein of the psychological pressure put upon certain players by the authorities (including Bronstein!), and the well-documented multiple psychological tactics employed against Korchnoi after his defection.

The data is real, the eyewitnesses and participants know better than you. The nonsense is on your end.

Jul-05-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: ***

Hi goodanarchist,

I also thought you were taking about Curacao '62. It was just the way you worded it. No harm done.

By the way Fischer's outburst in the Sports Illustrated in August 1962 was pre-emptied by CHESS (page 294) July 1962. I have copied the relevant article in two parts.

In short, according to the Russians they let Fischer run away with Stockholm Interzonal (1962) as they were playing as a team to make sure they all qualified. (all six did though Stein [Shtine] had to drop out due to the restricted number of Russians rule.)

When it came to Curacao a three man team emerged, Petrosian, Geller and Keres.

The article adds that there appears to be no hope of a non-soviet ever winning the candidates for 10-15 years because of Russian team play. (not a bad prediction in 1962, it took 10 years and a lot of behind the scenes wrangling.)

So it was not just Fischer who thought the rules needed changing. Though his protest was loudest others too thought the rules needed tweeking and said so in print before Fischer. We then had candidate matches to stop team play.

https://www.redhotpawn.com/imgu/blo...

and

https://www.redhotpawn.com/imgu/blo...

***

Jul-06-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  patzer2: Excellent video analysis of this game by GM Pepe Cuenca at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a62....
Jul-07-19  1d410: I thought Chinese AI tech was unstoppable lol GO NORWAY!
Jul-07-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  MissScarlett: <Ding Liren 2.0> will have a fully functioning personality.
Jul-07-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: < thegoodanarchist: <keypusher: <9 thegoodanarchist: By the way, the Soviets <were> in fact fixing chess. But not in the actual moves, as Bobby claimed, just in drawing each other to save their strength to fight against the non-Soviet players.> I assume you’re talking about Curaçao 1962 (because otherwise you’re just taking nonsense). In that case Petrosian, Geller, and Keres drew all their games against each other),>

Well, you don't know what you're talking about.

I will take the views of Fine, Fischer, Alburt and others, who spent many years if not decades playing against the Soviets. And in Alburt's case, with the Soviets in his early years.

Not to mention the very strange Keres results, and attestation of Bronstein of the psychological pressure put upon certain players by the authorities (including Bronstein!), and the well-documented multiple psychological tactics employed against Korchnoi after his defection.

The data is real, the eyewitnesses and participants know better than you. The nonsense is on your end.>

You seem to have forgotten your own argument. What you originally said was not <the Soviets are bad, ooga booga!> but that they made draws against each other to conserve their strength against non-Soviet players. So naturally one would expect you to give examples of Soviet players, or their opponents, saying <Soviet players made draws against each other to conserve their strength against non-Soviet players>. But you didn't do that.

Fine, many years after the fact, explained his refusal to participate in the 1948 match-tournament by saying the Soviets would throw games to each other. At the time, he explained his non-participation because of professional commitments. The likeliest explanation is that he'd had his head handed to him by Soviets and realized he would get embarrassed by them if he dared to play.

Fischer's Sports Illustrated piece is disingenuous claptrap, designed to take advantage of the fact that most of his readers wouldn't know much about the events he described. Petrosianic has explained this in detail if you're interested.

The format was indeed unfavorable for any non-Soviet, and it's a good thing that Candidates tournaments were replaced by Candidate matches. Side issue, but Fischer refused to play in the next cycle and dropped out of the cycle after that.

Alburt seems like a nice man, but also, to put it kindly, kind of a nut job. In all his many anti-Soviet accusations, I don't remember him saying they drew with each other to conserve their strength against non-Soviets, but maybe I missed it.

Your other statements don't have anything to do with your original argument, so I won't address them. You may be interested to learn that Bronstein (a bigger fabulist than Alburt IMO) was probably in better with the authorities in 1951 than Botvinnik was. See, e.g., BUNA's post at Capablanca Memorial (Elite) (2017)

The next time you want to make your original claim that the Soviets drew against each other to conserve their strength against non-Soviets, you may want to cite Spassky, who actually supported it. See Spacerunner's posts at

Smyslov vs Kasparov, 1981

But as ughaibu pointed out on the linked page, that doesn't seem to have been what happened in Candidates' tournaments.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 10)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·  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.)


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