Vladimir Kramnik vs Magnus Carlsen (2011)

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

Kibitzing

Vladimir Kramnik vs Magnus Carlsen
Tal Memorial (2011), Moscow RUS, rd 3, Nov-18
English Opening: King's English Variation. General (A20) · 1/2-1/2

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening	find similar games	69 more Kramnik/Carlsen games
	PGN: download \| view \| print	Help: general \| java-troubleshooting

TIP: If you find a mistake in the database, use the correction form. There is a link at the bottom that reads "Spot an error? Please suggest your correction..." Avoid posting corrections in the kibitzing area.

For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 13 · Later Kibitzing>
Nov-28-11		Ulhumbrus: <Hesam7: ...20. Qg4! g5! 21. Qh5 c6 22. Bxg5 Qxg5 23. Nc7+! (much better than 23. Qxg5? which allows: 23. ... hxg5 24. Nc7+ Kd8!; see below) 23. ... Ke7 (23. ... Kd8? 24. Qxf7!) 24. Qxg5+ hxg5 25. Nxa8 Bxc5 26. Na4: White has a big advantage from the diagrammed position. For example: 26. ... Bxa3 27. N8b6 Nb5 (27. ... Nd7? 28. Nxc8 Rxc8 29. Rxb7 ) 28. Nxc8 Rxc8 29. f6+!...> In this sequence an alternative to 27...Nb5 or 27...Nd7 is 27...Kd8 so that on 28 Nxc8 Black can cover the b7 pawn by 28...Kxb7. Black's King has lost a tempo by going first to e7 and then to d8, but does White have any way to make good use of that tempo?

Nov-28-11		Hesam7: <Ulhumbrus: <Hesam7: ...20. Qg4! g5! 21. Qh5 c6 22. Bxg5 Qxg5 23. Nc7+! (much better than 23. Qxg5? which allows: 23. ... hxg5 24. Nc7+ Kd8!; see below) 23. ... Ke7 (23. ... Kd8? 24. Qxf7!) 24. Qxg5+ hxg5 25. Nxa8 Bxc5 26. Na4: White has a big advantage from the diagrammed position. For example: 26. ... Bxa3 27. N8b6 Nb5 (27. ... Nd7? 28. Nxc8 Rxc8 29. Rxb7 ) 28. Nxc8 Rxc8 29. f6+!...> In this sequence an alternative to 27...Nb5 or 27...Nd7 is 27...Kd8 so that on 28 Nxc8 Black can cover the b7 pawn by 28...Kxb7. Black's King has lost a tempo by going first to e7 and then to d8, but does White have any way to make good use of that tempo?> 20. Qg4! g5! 21. Qh5 c6 22. Bxg5 Qxg5 23. Nc7+! Ke7 24. Qxg5+ hxg5 25. Nxa8 Bxc5 26. Na4 Bxa3 27. N8b6 Kd8 28. Nc4 click for larger view The White knight forks a3 & e5 and after 28. ... Be7 29. Nxe5 Rh7 (otherwise the knight would land another fork with Nxf7+) 30. Nf3! (evicting Black's monster knight) 30. ... Nxf3+ (30. ... Nb5? 31. e5 is worse) 31. Bxf3 b5 32. Nb6 Bf6! 33. Rfc1 Bd4 34. Nc4 click for larger view

Nov-28-11		haydn20: <Hesam7>,<Ulhumbrus> V. interesting discussion of 20. Qg4. It is certainly better than 20. Qh5, but I wonder if the direct approach 20. f6 g6 (forced?) 21. Na4 (cutting off the DSB)followed by Be3 and Qc1 is even stronger. I have yet to ck other sources.

Nov-29-11		Ulhumbrus: <Hesam7> How about this: 20 Qg4 Rh7 or 20 Qg4 g6. The idea is suggested indirectly by Nimzovich. In his game against Opocensky he says " White has been untrue to his Queen side. The just punishment will consist of Black's becoming stronger there" If we apply Nimzovich's remark to the ptrsent case, by the move 18 c5 White has been untrue to his King side. The just penalty is for Black to become stronger on the King side. This suggests an alternative in reply to 20 Qg4, eg 20...Rh7 or 20...g6.

Nov-29-11		Ulhumbrus: <haydn20: <Hesam7>,<Ulhumbrus> V. interesting discussion of 20. Qg4. It is certainly better than 20. Qh5, but I wonder if the direct approach 20. f6 g6 (forced?) 21. Na4 (cutting off the DSB)followed by Be3 and Qc1 is even stronger. I have yet to ck other sources.> This suggests playing 18 f6 instead of 18 c5, and it may be worth comparing 18 f6 with 20 f6.

Dec-02-11		Hesam7: <Ulhumbrus: <Hesam7> How about this: 20 Qg4 Rh7 or 20 Qg4 g6.> After 20. Qg4! Rh7? 21. Bxh6 both 21. ... Rxh6 22. Qxg7 and 21. ... gxh6 22. Qg8+ are losing. For 20. Qg4! g6 look at my forst post on this matter.

Dec-02-11		Ulhumbrus: <Hesam7: <Ulhumbrus: <Hesam7> How about this: 20 Qg4 Rh7 or 20 Qg4 g6.> After 20. Qg4! Rh7? 21. Bxh6 both 21. ... Rxh6 22. Qxg7 and 21. ... gxh6 22. Qg8+ are losing. For 20. Qg4! g6 look at my forst post on this matter.> On 20 Qg4 Rh7 21 Bxh6 suppose Black plays 21...g6 now. Then if White plays 22 Rxb7 ( so as to reply to 22...Bxb7, which lifts the pin on the f5 pawn, with 23 fxg6) Black has the option of 22...Rxh6 in reply and the black rook covers the g6 pawn as well.

Dec-02-11		lost in space: In the Tal memorial of 2011 Carlsen really tried hard to complicated his games - and to win with Black and White. Nearly all of his games were at least interesting. This here was so complicated that I haven't even got the basic ideas when first plying through it. I had no clue who was better. Sometimes I had the feeling that both are worse and maybe a third party would win?!. He is a great chess player - even though I am no fan.

Dec-02-11		lost in space: ---and it was no uncommon opening.

Dec-02-11		haydn20: This game shd. silence those who whined about the proliferation of dull draws. Agree with <lost>: this is some line of the English, no?

Dec-02-11		Hesam7: <Ulhumbrus: <Hesam7: <Ulhumbrus: <Hesam7> How about this: 20 Qg4 Rh7 or 20 Qg4 g6.> After 20. Qg4! Rh7? 21. Bxh6 both 21. ... Rxh6 22. Qxg7 and 21. ... gxh6 22. Qg8+ are losing. For 20. Qg4! g6 look at my forst post on this matter.> On 20 Qg4 Rh7 21 Bxh6 suppose Black plays 21...g6 now. Then if White plays 22 Rxb7 ( so as to reply to 22...Bxb7, which lifts the pin on the f5 pawn, with 23 fxg6) Black has the option of 22...Rxh6 in reply and the black rook covers the g6 pawn as well.> 20. Qg4! Rh7? 21. Bxh6 g6?? 22. fxg6! Bxg4 23. gxh7: click for larger view it is over.

Dec-02-11		Hesam7: <Ulhumbrus: <haydn20: <Hesam7>,<Ulhumbrus> V. interesting discussion of 20. Qg4. It is certainly better than 20. Qh5, but I wonder if the direct approach 20. f6 g6 (forced?) 21. Na4 (cutting off the DSB)followed by Be3 and Qc1 is even stronger. I have yet to ck other sources.> This suggests playing 18 f6 instead of 18 c5, and it may be worth comparing 18 f6 with 20 f6.> 18. f6 is definitely is interesting. Here is a very complicated line: 18. ... g6 19. Be3 Be6 20. Qd2 c6 21. Ne7 Nd7 22. Qf2 Rh7 23. Ng8 Rh8 24. Nxh6 b5 25. Nd5 a5: click for larger view White won the h-pawn but Black certainly untangled himself and looks much better compared to 18. c5 line. Maybe 18. f6 g6 19. Be3 Be6 20. c5 is an improvement for White but I think Kramnik's choice in the game was superior anyway.

Dec-02-11		Hesam7: <haydn20: <Hesam7>,<Ulhumbrus> V. interesting discussion of 20. Qg4. It is certainly better than 20. Qh5, but I wonder if the direct approach 20. f6 g6 (forced?) 21. Na4 (cutting off the DSB)followed by Be3 and Qc1 is even stronger. I have yet to ck other sources.> 20. f6 g6 21. Na4 Nd7 22. Be3 c6 23. Bxd4 exd4 (23. ... cxd5? 24. exd5 exd4 25. c6 O-O 26. cxd7 Qxd7 27. Qc1 g5 28. Nb6 Bxb6 29. Rxb6 ) 24. Ne7! click for larger view <A> 24. ... Nxf6? 25. Nxc8 Rxc8 26. Rxb7 Bb8 (f7 is hard to defned) <B> 24. ... Nxc5 25. Nxc5 Bxc5 26. Nxc8 Qxc8 27. e5 <C> 24. ... Ne5 25. Rf2 Rb8 26. Rfb2 Qc7 27. Nxc8 Qxc8 28. Rb4 (b7 & d4 can't be defended simultaneously)

Dec-04-11		Ulhumbrus: <Hesam7> How about this: 20 Qg4 Rh7 21 Bxh6 Kf8

Dec-10-11		visayanbraindoctor: This is an astonishing game for the few mistakes committed by either side in spite of its messy, difficult, and bizarre positions, some of which look as though they came from a computer's dreamscape. It's hard for a human player to figure out what is really happening. Carlsen's surprising backrank maneuvers remind me of the play of some of the historical greats of positional chess- Steinitz, Nimzovich, Petrosian, and Karpov. Note that he keeps his pawn structure sound and pieces well coordinated throughout this bizarre mess. This is a hallmark of the supreme positional players of history. They often do such things out of intuition. In positional play, IMO Carlsen may have already surpassed Kramnik in the past 2 or 3 years. Although Carlsen's fans keep on hypying up his brilliant tactics, it's his positional play that makes him stand out from the rest. The winning tactics he finds usually follow out of his superior position. It's getting into these superior positions that is the secret to his success. Note that most of Kramnik's victories against Carlsen are not due to him outplaying Carlsen in positional play; they're due to very sharp tactical attacks. Kramnik used to be very good at this in his youth- finding sharp tactical blows that suddenly change the nature of a game into a pure tactical melee that ends in a king hunt wherein positional considerations become insignificant and the game devolves into the tactics of directly hunting down the opponent's king. (Examples: Kramnik vs Beliavsky, 1995, Kramnik vs Short, 1995, Kasparov vs Kramnik, 1996, and if you want one of the rare recent ones Kramnik vs Carlsen, 2009) Overlooking the occasional tactical shot seems to be Carlsen's only relative weakness (in spite of some of his fans proclaiming him to be a tactical god). Most of his losses and near losses are due to missed tactical shots. If Carlsen plugs up this relative weakness, he would become nearly invincible.

Dec-10-11		swissfed: London Chess Classics Round 4 Always inspiring to play V.Kramnik. Yesterday was no exception. Despite the innocent looking opposite colored bishop ending following the Nimzo Indian opening, I had a clear advantage due to the monster bishop on d4. His weakness on g7 tied up his king and if I can activate my rook black is in real trouble. After the advance of my h-pawn I had planned to recapture with the rook but suddenly found gxh6 very interesting. I must have overestimated this variation and when Kramnik defended well the game ended in a draw just after the first time control. Magnus Carlsen, London, December 7, 2011 2011-12-08 02:42:05

Dec-10-11		FSR: If two 1300s had played this game I'd say that they don't know anything about chess. A very confusing game, in which Carlsen especially seemingly ignores every principle I was taught in my chess youth.

Dec-13-11		Ulhumbrus: <visayanbraindoctor: This is an astonishing game for the few mistakes committed by either side in spite of its messy, difficult, and bizarre positions, some of which look as though they came from a computer's dreamscape. It's hard for a human player to figure out what is really happening.> I had thought initially that 18 c5 may have been the main mistake. However the analysis given by <Hesam7> suggests another possibility. What if the Queen side attack c5 assists White's King side attack instead of diverting resources away from it? If the analysis given by <Hesam7> is right, this suggests that Kramnik's mistake was not 18 c5 but 20 Qh5 instead of 20 Qg4 and for this reason: Because it is after 20 Qg4 that White's Queen side attack is able to assist properly White's King side attack. It is after the move 20 Qg4 that White's Queen side attack which includes moves such c5 and Rb1 followed by the sacrifice Rxb7! is able to act properly in concert with White's King side attack which includes moves such as fxg6. In other words, it is the choice of the move 20 Qg4 instead of 20 Qh5 which enables White's Queen side attack to cooperate properly with White's King side attack. I am not sure yet whether the analysis given by <Hesam7> is right or not. It may be. The position warrants examining further.

Dec-13-11		visayanbraindoctor: <Ulhumbrus> I do not have an engine, but I appreciate your efforts to analyze this interesting game. White has a clear space advantage, but no forcing lines; and Black's sound pawn structure and well-coordinated pieces means the slightest mistake by White can turn the game around. With no clear weakness to exploit, White has to create them and has to maintain the initiative. I think that the nature of the middlegame is that if White fails to maintain the initiative or create clear weaknesses, he will end up with a worse game, as black's pieces can rebound and white has weak squares in the center. Due to the difficult nature of the positions involved, only a computer can efficiently analyze this.

Jan-10-12		Penguincw: < Uncommon Opening > I doubt an opening that looks like the English opening is uncommon. 1.c4 is the fourth most common move played.

Mar-14-13		PhilFeeley: Definitely one of the weirdest games ever played.

Mar-14-13		perfidious: <FSR> Fred Reinfeld would turn over in his grave at the sight of 3....h6, same as in some modern French games I have seen.

Mar-14-13		keypusher: Opening sort of looks like this game. Carlsen vs Nakamura, 2013

Mar-14-13		FSR: <perfidious: <FSR> Fred Reinfeld would turn over in his grave at the sight of 3....h6, same as in some modern French games I have seen.> Yup. And I can't say that I have a higher opinion of it. This whole game is bizarre, and makes me wonder if I understand anything about chess.

Mar-14-13		RookFile: Sure. Strange game, you surely get the feeling that white should have won this.

Jump to page # (enter # from 1 to 13)
search thread:
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 13 · Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, 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 ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.