What a move 11.a3!! Aronian-Carlsen_Norway Chess 2017

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Well said. I am currently analysing his main line up to 17... Bh3 and after some hours of analysis SF says black has a nice advantage in all lines. Here are some examples:

11.c5?! e5! 12.a3 Bxc3 13.Bxc3 e4 14.Nd2 Nf8 15.Re1 Bg4 16.f3 exf3 17.gxf3 Bh3 and now:

A) 18.Qe2 Nh5!? 19.f4 (or 19.Qf2 Re8 20.f4 Qf6 -0.86 SF, d=45) 19... g6 20.Qf2 Qe6 -0.80 SF.

B) 18.Nf1 Ng6 19.Ng3 Nh4 20.Ra2 h6!? (idea Nf6-h7-g5) -0.87 SF.

White's minority attack on the Q-side goes nowhere, he has to defend his weak points e3 and f3 and take defensive measures against a building black attack on the K-side. So far about 'a clear white advantage'.

Thus, not only is 11.c5 worse than 11.a3, it even allows black to grab the initiative. Of course Aronian played the best move, which I would expect from the GM that is one of the best prepared players in the world.

you analysed the wrong moves, with clearly the wrongest continuations.

nothing to do, you are following SF, and SF has a very bad understanding of complicated positions, especially when they are of more closed character.

19.f4 is the weakest move one can find in the position, no need to follow your analysis further.

I analysed that too, navigating SF with human moves here and there, and advantage invariably changes to sufficiently high white score.

those analytics with engine guns...

[BrendanJNorman]

...glasses are always counter-productive to good moves.

Botvinnik, Anand, Hou Yifan, and Caruana are glaring examples, right?

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

I already proved a3 is a forced draw, so why insist further?

You proved no such thing.

c5, on the other hand, gives white excellent winning chances.

Better than a Pawn up, rook penetrated on the seventh, active king, bishop against knight? Sorry, neither did you make a convincing case nor could you - proving that c5 gets a better position than the one discussed here after 28. e4 is practically impossible.

analyses on youtube [in reference to Peter Svidlers analysis] and similar channels are usually low quality.
I looked at chesspro.ru, and they do not have a clue about what is going on in that game, neither about if a3 gives any side advantage, nor about anything else. and that is supposed to be the highest quality site around.

I could tell you who's analysis are generally low quality but that would be impolite. I could also tell you who's analysis is superficial, full of generalitities and misplaced arrogance. But I won't.

... but what is obvious is a3 is bad move....

Every one of the Super-GMs playing in Stavanger would give an arm and a leg to get the position you call a draw. Even if not winning it's a complex position with lasting white pressure and black has to find a myriad of only moves to stay in the game.

Oh and one final thing in your claimed "drawn" position after: 28.e4 Ra1+ 29.Ke2 Ra4 30.Kd3 f6 31.Rc7 Ra6 32.Bf4 e5 33.dxe5 Kd8 34.exf6 gxf6 35.Ke2 Nxc5 ... how about 36 Kf3... seems to me white has excellent winning chances, if he is not winning outright.

My conclusion: Aronians Bc2 and his later a3 are fantastic novelties posing black real problems, leading to exciting games and will entertain theoreticians for quite some while. What more can one expect from openin? Probably not much, except if your mame is Lyudmil Tsvetkov.

Salve, Roberto, salve.

non fare conclusioni con questa legerezza, perche sono sbagliati.

e meglio inmedesimarsi un po nella posizione e la revista che ho fatto.

guadagnarei un sapere importante.

be, basta.

yes, I proved a3 is weaker than c5, because in the a3 line, after only 15 moves, we already have a position, a tablebase draw, whose outcome is certain. and it is scored 0.0.

in the c5 line, on the other hand, white has the advantage, and you will not know how the game will end, no certain outcome, no available tablebase, until some 50+ more moves. and please note, this is a rich mg position, with all pieces on the board, and not a simplistic position with just 2 pieces left. there is a big distinction, is not there?

why should one choose the simplistic, obviously drawn position, instead of one giving good playing and winning opportunitities?

you do not know what you are talking about: 100% any top GM at Stavanger will immediately assess the arising endgame as a simple, unavoidable draw. the eg is simply too brainless, nowhere to go wrong.

you are taking about superiority of the bishop vs knight.
- what about blocked pawns on squares the colour of the bishop
- what about additional penalty for the bishop in the imbalance knight vs bishop with pawns on squares the colour of the bishop
- what about central defensive c6/e6 bind
- what about the lack of passed pawns
- what about minimalistic material, making winning almost impossible(in the late eg, a lone bishop does not win, does it)
- etc., etc.

so, when I look at the position, you might assess it as better for white, but I immediately recognise it is 0.0, no winning chances

I would be happy, if you post analysis of your claim for winning chances, I do not quite have the time to analyse obviously drawn simple endgames, that was the line picked by SF, with Andreas' 32 cores and sufficient long thinking time.

my conclusion: Aronian blundered with a3.

[Jeroen]

Sure. Because you, Lyudmil Tsvetkov, with an elo of 2180, know better than the best GM's in the world and the best engines in the world.

It is now clear to us that you have no understanding of the position after 17... Bh3 at all.

[Jeroen]

the position is very tricky, indeed, you need a human to navigate SF through lines it does not understand.

I think you need SF's eval to get a more objective insight in positions

So first white has 'a nice advantage' after 11.c5 and now you switched to 'it is tricky'. Well, that is an improvement.

[Jeroen]

The first insight was mine, a human one. Just like yours, optically white looks to have a good position. The second one came after analysing it for several hours with SF. And that led me to the convincing conclusion that SF is right and black is indeed better. Besides, after exf3 gxf3,Bh3 the position is far from closed anymore, so here engines are superior to humans by a huge margin.

It is you who clearly overestimates the 'danger' of a minority attack on the Q-side and underestimates the weak white position on the K-side and the e3-f3 pawns. Without delving into that deeply with a strong engine, you are just acting on general feeling (which I also did). This is a recipe for disaster, because only concrete variations, calculated very deeply, can say something about this very complicated position. Something you clearly failed to do. Black has a simple plan of putting his knights on the K-side, his queen, double rooks on the e-file and start pushing f7-f5 and g7-g5. If white fails to defend against this assault, he will be totally busted.

I can guarantee you that Aronian would NEVER EVER enter the lines you are analysing and suggesting being best for white. But, of course, you are welcome to contact him and convince him that your lines are much better than what he played.

[Jeroen]

and SF has a very bad understanding of complicated positions

This is the best joke in the whole thread!

... especially when they are of more closed character

This position is not closed. And black has a simple plan of concentrating his forces on the K-side, double rooks on the e-file and push f7-f5 and g7-g5, exactly what SF plans to do. Meanwhile, your Bc3 is a sorry spectator amd your minority attack is nowhere. It is clear you lack objectivity and think that your view at the position 'on general grounds' is better than a deep search into the position.

You simply don't want an objective evaluation of this position. "I am right, because I am telling you" is about everything we get.

19.f4 is the weakest move one can find in the position

You are welcome to suggest other moves and I will show you how SF will bust you.

[Jeroen]

but we do not know what happens after c5 instead, just that white has the advantage

White has no advantage after 11.c5, so why do you keep repeating this nonsense?

but he did not find the right continuation, as he started wearing glasses. glasses are always counter-productive to good moves.

This *is* meant as a joke, isn't it!?

[IQ]

yes, I proved a3 is weaker than c5, because in the a3 line, after only 15 moves, we already have a position, a tablebase draw, whose outcome is certain. and it is scored 0.0.
...
why should one choose the simplistic, obviously drawn position, instead of one giving good playing and winning opportunitities?
....
you do not know what you are talking about: 100% any top GM at Stavanger will immediately assess the arising endgame as a simple, unavoidable draw. the eg is simply too brainless, nowhere to go wrong.
....
so, when I look at the position, you might assess it as better for white, but I immediately recognise it is 0.0, no winning chances

I would be happy, if you post analysis of your claim for winning chances, I do not quite have the time to analyse obviously drawn simple endgames, that was the line picked by SF, with Andreas' 32 cores and sufficient long thinking time.

I already provided analysis, in the line you refer to I would play 36. Kf3 instead of Rh7. I would gladly play this position against you here - and am very curious how you hold with black.

After your "forced" draw positon we are talking about this line:
28.e4 Ra1+ 29.Ke2 Ra4 30.Kd3 f6 31.Rc7 Ra6 32.Bf4 e5 33.dxe5 Kd8 34.exf6 gxf6 35.Ke2 Nxc5

and now 36. Kf3

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

I am really a bit pressed now/have things to do, so will respond to all just here.

It is unfair to respond to 5 persons and 5 persons to respond just ot me, is not it?

obviously, I am not able to analyse all variations, the position is very complicated, I never claimed white wins after c5, most probably, the game is still a draw with perfect play, as pointed out by me, but just that c5 instead of a3 is the much more favourable line for white, as well as the much more intriguing.

indeed, a3 is a straightforward draw in 15 moves, while after c5 there is a lot of, huge, deep and beautiful play, with white pressing all the time.

why should one pick a3 instead of c5.

you see for yourselves pretty clearly that in the c5 line there tremendous variations with no complete certainty what will happen in the end.
the a3 line, on the other hand, hides just 2 or 3 main lines, that are pretty much exhausted after a while.

a3 is a straightforward draw, so Aronian should have played c5.

and we even have not looked at the definitely most interesting and about 3 times deeper lines, involving variations, if white does not try to get rid of the e4 bind. they are the real gems, but are on average about 5 times deeper, so will be difficult for SF.

why should I analyse a3 instead of going for all these beauties?