nb.lichess.org/6xKxGm4X
Kinda nice, but it was not a masterpiece, only a bad game by him.
Kinda nice, but it was not a masterpiece, only a bad game by him.
Congrats GM tho!
Thanks!
Does anyone know why lichess notes 2. Bc4 as an inaccurate move? Its a playable variation, even used by Magnus Carlsen.
Does anyone know why lichess notes 2. Bc4 as an inaccurate move? Its a playable variation, even used by Magnus Carlsen.
I think an inaccuracy is showed up when you lose 0,5 cp OR when you play a move in the opening that is very unpopular so mentioned as maybe only the 4th or 5th "best" move in book of stockfish 8.
Yeah, the trick is that "inaccurate" and "playable" are not mutually exclusive :)
From an objective standpoint, if you're trying to maximize your advantage against the Caro, 2.Bc4 is indeed inaccurate.
However, if you treat it as a gambit line, as it is usually intended, the play becomes quite complicated, and OTB anything can happen in a complicated position (especially in blitz, which the Carlsen game was).
I wouldn't recommend trying it in the top levels of, say, correspondence chess, though. Why? It's inaccurate, so you'll struggle :)
Sometimes SF (especially shallow SF like here) can get the opening pretty wrong, but here I'd say it's mostly right objectively.
I just wouldn't get too hung up on the "inaccuracy" bit, especially in an opening line that is known to be suboptimal but tricky.
Such lines aren't played to be accurate, after all :)
Having said that, while I agree with SF that 2.Bc4 is some kind of suboptimal move objectively, I don't think it's quite as bad as the shallow analysis indicates.
First, after 2.Bc4, the position is probably closer to 0.00 than to -0.2.
Second, the position after 1.e4 c6 is certainly not +0.5 for black. Engines for a long time, and even SF now if you keep the depth low, tend to overrate White's chances in the Caro.
With deeper analysis, the evaluation change should probably be something more like 1.e4 c6 +0.2 2.Bc4 0.00.
It is suboptimal, as SF indicated, but not quite to the degree the shallow SF thinks.
From an objective standpoint, if you're trying to maximize your advantage against the Caro, 2.Bc4 is indeed inaccurate.
However, if you treat it as a gambit line, as it is usually intended, the play becomes quite complicated, and OTB anything can happen in a complicated position (especially in blitz, which the Carlsen game was).
I wouldn't recommend trying it in the top levels of, say, correspondence chess, though. Why? It's inaccurate, so you'll struggle :)
Sometimes SF (especially shallow SF like here) can get the opening pretty wrong, but here I'd say it's mostly right objectively.
I just wouldn't get too hung up on the "inaccuracy" bit, especially in an opening line that is known to be suboptimal but tricky.
Such lines aren't played to be accurate, after all :)
Having said that, while I agree with SF that 2.Bc4 is some kind of suboptimal move objectively, I don't think it's quite as bad as the shallow analysis indicates.
First, after 2.Bc4, the position is probably closer to 0.00 than to -0.2.
Second, the position after 1.e4 c6 is certainly not +0.5 for black. Engines for a long time, and even SF now if you keep the depth low, tend to overrate White's chances in the Caro.
With deeper analysis, the evaluation change should probably be something more like 1.e4 c6 +0.2 2.Bc4 0.00.
It is suboptimal, as SF indicated, but not quite to the degree the shallow SF thinks.
I saw the funny Hillbilly Attack ( 1. e4 c6, 2. Bc4 d5, 3. Bb3 ...) in GM Williams videos.
www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ginger+gm+hillbilly
www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ginger+gm+hillbilly
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.