48.e6 seems to me that makes a draw for Carlsen.

Carlsen - Aronian:

14... c5 is surely no novelty, you can find 14 games with that move in the Rybka 3 openingbook, in which black scored 67%. Carlsen should have played 17.Bxb4 Nd7 18.Bb5, with two options:

A) 18... Bxg5 19.c6 Bxc6 20.Bxc6 Qc7 21.Bxd7+ Qxd7 22.Qe2 with good compensation for black;

B) 18... a6!? 19.Ba4 Bxg5 20.c6 Bxc6 21.Bxc6 Qc7 22.Bxd7+ Qxd7 23.Qe2 and both 23... Qa4 and 23... Qd4!? are playable.

Still didn't install that Rybka Opening book and btw using that is one bridge too far for me when writing these reports. Besides, our ChessVibes Openings editors do check it so the really crucial opening information will always be included in those issues! I doublechecked the position but I still couldn't find (human tournament) games where 14...c5 was played and so I actually still consider it a novelty. Aronian too, by the way - he said "his friend Sergey Karjakin" had found it.

That's tragic, the book is published two days too late for Carlsen :)

Jeroen is referring to the Rybka 3 Aquarium opening book going to be released on monday, in his "old" book c5 was played only once but in the Aquarium book c5 is already marked green as main move and there are actually 31 games, 16 with Nxc5 and 15 with dxc :)

If that's true, then why write "is surely no novelty", come on. Give me (and Magnus) a break. ;-)

Hehe :)

Btw., giving those classical examples from the smyslov games is quite instructive and a brilliant idea, Peter. It's much better than just to tell the reader that the position is a theoretical draw, what other sources did. So kudos to you :)

Well, it is about time to take computer games (and books!) seriously ;-).

Besides, 14... c5 is known since July last year, which is more than 7 months ago. Human databases are inadequate here!

BTW the suggested improvement 15.dxc5 is doing even worse, with white scoring only 20%..... A few lines after 15.dxc5:

A) 15... Qc7 16.Bxb4 Qe5 17.Bd2 Bxe4 18.Nxe4 Nxe4 19.Be3 Ng3!

B) 15... Bc6! is probably even stronger, with the point 16.Bxb4 Rh4! and black has an excellent game.

I agree with Felix - and BTW, the two Smyslov games seem to be more relevant than numerous examples given by Grenfell Hunt in comments on Chessmind. In his reply, Dennis Monokroussos cited Smyslov-Keres given here above.

Another BTW: I don't think Peter Doggers wanted to make my next point (implicitly or explicitly), anyway I think it would be premature and somewhat unfair to conclude that Smyslov was better in endgames than the present generation - here exemplified by Carlsen, but Aronian (!) had also lost a theoretically drawn endgame against Kramnik during Corus 2008.
Carlsen (Tal Memorial 2006), Aronian and Carlsen had to defend their endgames after already six tiring hours at the board including earlier opening and middlegame complications. Smyslov's games were most likely adjourned, the 115-mover probably at least twice. I am old enough (41) to have had adjourned games in my "early chess career", but maybe those aged 20-25 don't even know what I am referring to - unless they ask older colleagues or read old tournament books.

At least this should be taken into account before writing a comment as 'Anonymous' did on Susan Polgar's blog:
"Carlsen is just too young for rook endgames. 2nd painful loss against Aronian for Magnus in a drawn rook endgame. Will there be a 3rd one, or will Magnus study endgames after all ? :-)"
Whoever that person is, he or she would have held the draw easily against Aronian - but most likely will never get a chance to prove it ... .

Yet again the hype merchants are shown up.....Carlsen in no Kasparov or never will be, like all the young players of today they are not talented players just booked up on theory, I am delighted he was shown up for what he is... an above average GM among many ordinary GM's.
Peter believes this too, he is always will to show or publish Carlsens short comings, well done Doggers!

Carlsen doesn't seem to know his rook endings quite as well as Hou Yifan (see her amazing draws in games 2 & 3 of the WWC Final).

Ceann, I am pretty sure Carlsen is more talented than you are, as well as knowing more about opening (and endgame!) theory.
And Peter Doggers presumably publishes and analyses Carlsen's losses (as well as his wins and draws) because it is part of his job, NOT because he agrees with you .... .

Ehm... not sure what's your point here, but speak for yourself, ceann. Guess you haven't read the report on Carlsen's win over Anand? The Norwegian has amazing endgame technique, especially for his age. Yesterday he made a mistake in timetrouble (Aronian had about 30 minutes left at move 84, Carlsen about 2). There was increment, but still, in my opinion the tension in such a situation is big enough to make a mistake like that. And I also presume that Aronian said to Carlsen afterwards: 'Why didn't you go Kf2?' after which he didn't have to explain more - Carlsen must have realized immediately that he had the h4-h5 break there, because he knows his f+h rook endings.

Today Carlsen showed again complete lack of talent - Peter, maybe you should invite Ceann to analyze his game??
For those who else wouldn't understand: irony was turned on in this post ...

"Thomas:Today Carlsen showed again complete lack of talent"
are you ok

@Jeroen, as was mentioned way back in the days in some Dutch matchbook on the 2nd Kasparov-Karpov match by Hans B??hm in 1985, it all depends on how you define 'novelty'. I don't remember the exact quote (which was about 8...d5!?N) but it went something like this: 'What's a novelty? Even though it has never been seen on grandmaster level, perhaps this move has already been played many times in the local club of Timbuctu?' Today we might add: perhaps this move has already been played many times in computer tournaments? I think when a move is not mentioned in regular databases, you can safely call it a novelty in an online report.

4i4mitko, maybe you didn't read and further ,:). I wrote that this was irony, and specifically a reaction to Ceann's post at 17:53PM - which appeared to be serious and nonsensical at the same time.

@Arne: Jeroen makes a good point when saying that it is in his book, since it is indeed marked there, so he analysed it before. But since his book isn't published yet, it doesn't count I'd say :) The one game in his older book is indeed not significant, since it's a computer game I guess.

However, Jeroen, noone will believe now that you had c5 in your book before Aronian played it :P

@ Arne: you seem to miss the irony of my postings, reading your serious remark. Peter has a combined GM/computer database available, but chooses not to use it ;-).

Besides, what is 'a regular database'? TWIC? MegaBase? Peter's database? NIC's complete database? Would you call a move a novelty because it cannot be found in MegaBase , but now what if it appears to be known in another database? Therefore a better description might be: 'a new move, according to my database'.

In any case: in my point of view I would never call a move 'a novelty' based on a human only database. There are too many superb ideas already played in hundreds, maybe even thousands of computer games. Just take the Sicilian Najdorf for example, computers are miles ahead in exploring this line.

Slight addition, before I am misunderstood [again?]: There is no irony in my acceptance of 4i4mitko's excuse !

I suggest someone ask the local club of Timbuctu whether 14...c5 has been played there or not. This is a highly important topic, after all.

Yeah, but then don't forget similarly relevant club games in Bangkok, Tahiti, Guatemala, .... how long would that list be? :)

This must be the quote of the year....

"Today Carlsen showed again complete lack of talent"

Personally I think the only Carlsen has to do, is to shape his style a bit to create more winning chances. Like in Dragons, like how Kasparov played. And actually Topalov has this style too!

I think all those draws are pretty boring for him anyway.. 2700 GMs are allready happy to draw quickly without a battle. So I think this 'winning' style will grow naturally.

"I am always ironic. Except when I am not."
This _ironic_ statement is not me, but Acirce (on Mig's Dailydirt forum) ... . But I could say the same - and without any irony I hereby confirm that my post today 19:17PM was not ironic.

And Carlsen clearly listened to those suggesting that he should stop drawing all his games .... (some irony again, because I don't think he ever loses on purpose and hardly ever draws on purpose).

And is there irony in saying there's no irony?

jeroen, you 'd think your smileys give it away but alas

It's a good thing that ChessVibes has so intelligent readers who understand even the most hidden irony. Isn't it, Theo?

Thomas sorry:)))

No problem 4i4mitko - actually I first thought it wasn't at all necessary to put an "irony disclaimer" _after_ my post. Maybe next time I should put "ATTENTION IRONY" at the very beginning .... .
In any case, if my sentence still qualifies for 'quote of the year' ten months from now, I will gladly share copyright with Ceann. @Theo: I think part of your post is a bit unfair to Carlsen, because he seriously played for a win in most of his drawn games, and once (Corus 2009 against Van Wely) creatively defended a worse position.
BTW - :) :) :) - I DO claim copyright for the idea that adjourning games improves the quality of endgames. I was the first one to suggest this (1 March 17:26PM), in a way anticipating Mike's comment in the Linares round 9 thread.
Disclaimer: All of this post is more or less ironic, except one sentence [anyone's guess which one I mean]

LOL

@Jeroen, I wasn't referring to your second post (the one with the smiley) but to the first, which is as serious as my reply. As I said, it all depends on how you define a novelty. Saying something is a novelty is as dubious as saying it isn't - it's good to know you agree with this - but in an online report, I'd say checking a position with the latest MegaBase and an updated TWIC is pretty decent.