Ratio

No and ok mixed become nok

Well It is not a sacrifice, that was totally blundered

😭😭😭😭😭😭

Im laughing. This killed me.😁

Hahahahaa

Huge as well as little difference between sacrifice and blunder!!!

19 hours later and Magnus has just lost a game against Radjabov sacrificing his queen

@@JulianRL_ hahahaha

Parker Productions I bet that dudes a blast at parties

@@googboog3317 He's the guy that when you tell a dry sarcastic joke he immediately gets into the most serious argument with you when your both on the same side. Real nasty like.

3 light pieces versus queen is such an interesting material distribution!

Not in a blitz at least. So many steps you need to think of before each move

This actually reminds me of a game played between Kramnik and Kasparov where Kasparov came at Kramnik with all guns blazing and Kramnik just forming a phenomenal coccoon only to spring out of it and delivering a knock out blow. This was an amazing game from Carlsen though.

In friendly games you should do this if you get the opportunity...it is a good learning experience. No harm no foul, in friendlies .

@@JokerScribe I've seen the game when Capablanca playing King's Gambit sacrificed his Queen for two bishops. Here is only trading - not sacrifice. My last game playing black color I also sold my Queen : 1.e4 e5 2.d4 ed 3.Q:d4 Nc6 4.Qa4 Bc5 5.Bb5 Nd4 6.c3 Qf6 7.cd B:d4 8.Nf3 B:b2 9.e5 B:e5 10.Bg5 B:a1 11.B:f6 N:f6 ..... And my opponent lost that game after a few mistakes.

Hahahaha definitely

Incredible chess, but also so visually pleasing with the fort around the king:)

three musketeers castle

@@antitrustanonyme6322 it's hidden in the name: MAGeNiUS

Incredible

knights on outposts, man

Studio looks great.

His play is magical!

Totally agree, Nepo has to be worried and who wouldn’t be.

I love Magnus but it was a horrible queen sac... Giri answered wrong. That Nd2 was the losing move.

@@rodrigopavez6322 It's not so easy to simply say "Nd2 was wrong; Giri answered wrong." Look at the position before Nd2. What would you play? Na3 is dubious, and Nc3 just gets White's pawns doubled. The rooks can't move anywhere meaningful, and the Queen can't go anywhere to create any meaningful, long-term threats. The position requires White to come up with a long-term plan, and Nd2 was the start of Giri's decision. And that's exactly the reason Magnus executed the Queen sac. Objectively, there might be a way through that equalizes, but this is almost impossible to find over the board with your clock ticking in a blitz match, and that's EXACTLY what happened - Giri lost. It's an extremely effective strategy from a practical point of view.

I had to laugh, haha

yep the key to solvinf=g thde boring drawathon was simply to reduce the time

Yes! I'll be preordering his book of best games collection after he either loses the crown or retires. The guy is a madman and a terrorist on the board!!

nope we can't. Magnus folded him even after sacrificing a queen. Anish should hide his face

@@techy3157 yeah, Anish would probably beat all of us ... but that was poor performance... disappointing

2nd best

@@mzvarik Not probably, definitely! He's one of the best in the world. Anish is currently ranked top 10 in the world.

It was an unsound sacrifice if white would have played Qd3 instead of Nd2 on move 10 after Nd2 it's all good for black.

@@mhqa_ computer engines are handy aren't they? 😂

Personally didn't see how Nd2 would be good in that situation. Forcing the knight to go to a7 or c7 by playing Qd3 or c4 would be miles better. f4 was also unsound. The whole idea behind the Nd2 move was to go to e4 and then cement the knight on d6. That variation would block the development of the light squared bishop almost indefinitely. But he didnt do that and and it allowed magnus to block the idea by playing d5. Anything after that is just a mess to analyze ngl HAHA

@@onelove154 well Internet is handy isn't it ?

@@mhqa_ It's easy to criticize GM moves when you're using a chess engine. Without it you wouldn't have a clue what is going on.

It's a true game for ages and beyond

to the universe and beyond!

Yep. They'll talk about this one for a long time..

Should be game of the year

Watch Magnus’s two games against Artemiev for third place at the World Cup, even better.

The engines would disagree but I get your point. Very impressive play.

@@fahimp3 It's a good thing he's playing a human.

@@fahimp3 Engine evaluations assume the opponent will evaluate a position the same as the engine does. Since no human evaluates positions the same way, engine evaluations aren't particularly informative, especially in rapid play. Magnus is quite often behind in engine evaluation terms because he is forcing his opponent to make difficult choices and take risks which Magnus can take advantage of. This would be a poor strategy against an engine but is effective against fallible humans.

@@jrd33 I was speaking objectively, obviously not the practicalities of human play. Engines are used by GMs because of their objectivity (although not perfect) .

@@fahimp3 from that position (after all pieces were coordinating) even with his not engine perfect play, I think he would beat any engine

Join the club!

😂 😂 😂

It's super rare because its a really bad move haha

@@-zelda- grow up kid

@@-zelda- Bad? So how did Magnus win there?

@@tornado100able It's best not to entrainment ppl like this. They look at an engines evaluation. They don't consider the engines superior computational capabilites....or the fact that it's a BLITZ game. And just call it a bad move...as if a human being will make all the precise calculations to gain the advantage an engine can. It's really just shows a lack of understanding and respect of the game tbh.

@@-zelda- . I'm glad you find it funny after you had to look at engine analysis to come here and pretend you understand any one of the moves or positions starting on move 8.

I had to leave for work right as magnus sac'd his queen D:

Bruh its Carlsen , Whys it so hard to get it ??

@@aidentrindaderollno.4865 corlsom

@@aidentrindaderollno.4865 cheers

@@aidentrindaderollno.4865 I want you to imagine a far away culture that only speaks in clapping noises. Now imagine that they never learned the latin alphabet nor the pronounciation. Now teach them Benedickt Cumberbatch III. Its okay point out mistakes of others but not knowing if its Carlsen, Carlson, Calson or Calsen might be just because in their language they dont make a difference in pronouncing them so they have a hard time typing it out the correct way. Thats why it might be hard to get it. Thanks for coming to my TED talk

Magnus Carlsberg

😂

Jesse what are you doing

@@gnochhuos645 he is using his chemistry in chess now

Yeah, the position looked stunning especially when Magnus was protected by mostly pieces and the two white pawns! haha

dude....3 pieces for the Q is more than enough...he did not offer anyone a Q advantage....you silly children should stick to crayons this is simply a bad opening from white and you wont ever see it played again...

@@jadezee6316 sounds like you need to grow up "dude". If my comment affected you so much, you may need to get a life, because you obviously cannot ignore it and move on. LoL. Absolutely hilarious!!!

@@arjunvijaykumar8063 I agree he didnt need to be so sour.. But he is absolutely right. there never was a queen advantage.. ;)

@mister kluge He is better than Kasparov, so yes, the best ever

@@joefawcett2191 has he ever beaten Garry? I know of their two draws.

How was he soo sure of himself????

Magnus is too clean, it's not even fair.

Giri is legend! I hate the draws but it's part of the game. If it means you score the points to stay in x tournament then playing for a draw is what is do too. Why risk a big L when you can guarantee the draw?

ok bruuuv

Only Garry is perhaps greater than Magnus and even that's becoming questionable. Magnus, is an incredible chess player.

Mike Tyson

@@onelove154 imho the best of all time. yes Kasparov was a beast in his days ...

Huh? It's difficult to compare players of different eras due to the way Elo works. We can only compare players to their player base. We can look at what games are the most aesthetically pleasing but to say who was better Magnus or Fischer etc isn't possible. We can have a personal preference but that's as much as we can know.

Many modern players absolutely mog Fischer. Modern players memorize everything that players of the past did as well as new things. The newer generation is always gonna be better than the previous, especially in chess.

@@sarban1653 I agree, it's progress. To put a number on exactly how much better is a different thing though.

@@sarban1653 it doesn't make them better at chess, since most of them are so talented "thanks" to the computer. Of course they're naturally really good at chess, but in my opinion, to say someone is better at chess than another, would mean they had the same stuff to train it to start with. Having a 3'600 Elo computer to prepare your games and learn the best moves is kind of cheat considering older players didnt have that, and couldn't even believe computers would ever be smarter than humans

@@bxriflexvv The advantage of modern technology makes them better even if it's "unfair". Being better is only about skill, not how you achieve it. You could argue that people from the past like Fischer are the most "talented" of all time, but that's different.

for real this is so cringe. Both players proceeded to blunder away winning positions several times. This is not game of the year material.

@@MrArtless1 bruh its a bltiz game chill lmao

@@MrArtless1 did u see with engine?

@@randompotato8105 obviously. This donut couldn't touch these guys, even in his dreams.

He isn't a donut , he is just a random potato 😆

I also analysed it and saw he missed the top moves 12-13 times. The last being beautiful checkmates. However game length was 50+ AND It's blitz, and insane complications. Dont get me wrong the man is a legend just wanted to clear its 13 instead of 3.

@@svetlinradoev9336 you're kind of right. But I checked the cloud analysis of lichess (high depth) and was surprised to see that he only made two inaccuracies after the sac. And even those inaccuracies is after he got a winning position (bringing down he's advantage from like -4 to -3... basically insignificant overall). I actually thought he made a lot more mistakes seeing that it's a complicated blitz game

Actually here Magnus didn't lost his queen, he exchanged it for 3 pieces. If you lose the queen without gaining anything in return, then its useless to try and defend the position (unless your opponent is really bad)

TRADE, not sacrifice

I get u. But considering the complete lack of developed pieces you would be left with. It should still be considered a sacrifice imo. Like 3 or 4 top moves by Giri may have changed the outcome drastically.

Minor pieces are worth 3 points while the queen is worth 9. At best, they ended with level material after the exchange. However, the computer analysis gave Giri a strong advantage after the queen sac. Based on those facts I'd say that the argument for a queen sac is stronger.

Yeah, it looks weird. But I think it's so that the commentators and viewers can see what's going on more easily.

@@Eliseo_M_P it because covid as everyone acting crazy.. surprised they didnt have to wear gloves to touch the mouse

true I guess this was personally titled by him🙂

Difference is Magnus carlsen is giving up the queen on purpose. You’re doing it because you’re not Magnus carlsen

Painting it as a revolutionary “sacrifice” by magnus is a click-bait IMO. It’s certainly unusual to give up your queen in an early stage, but magnus got three light pieces for it. Don’t get me wrong, Magnus’s game is awe inspiring and the coordination of his pieces is as a beautiful as a masterful clockwork, but he made an unusual exchange for the queen, not a “sacrifice”.

It looks like an instant classic. I hope it is remembered and revisited for many years to come.