Answers.Body: <p>Carlsen is the strongest player in the world. He can get away with playing sub-par openings against average GMs because of the large difference in strength. Granted, Dreev is above your average GM, but still the gap in their playing levels is huge. </p>
  
  <p>1.Nh3 is one of the worst moves White can play, and Carlsen probably chose it for fun. The fact that Dreev answered with 1...Nh6 showed he wasn't taking the game that seriously either.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-17T04:12:00.867Z
Answers.Text: Or maybe Dreev was also playing the man and not the board with a psycho counterattack:)
Answers.UserDisplayName: yobamamama
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-19T06:46:48.903Z
Answers.Text: Carlsen is not only the strongest player in the world, but also an incredible magician of the endgame. Not only can he make up for sub-par openings with outstanding performance later on, I'd claim that sub-par, unexpected openings can allow him to reach positions where his endgame superiority is proportionally more important than any midgame advantages the opponent might have. 
  
  This is of course assuming that Carlsen is better at thinking on his feet when shown odd positions than other players. Is this a valid assumption? It looks like complicated middlegames have served him well before.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brayton
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-19T08:18:14.173Z
Answers.Text: @Brayton Yes, playing offbeat openings can be beneficial, especially for a player like him who's very good in the endgame. But 1.Nh3 is such a bad move I highly doubt there was any strategy behind it. Carlsen was playing a rapid game online which he probably didn't take too seriously.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Inertial Ignorance
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-17T03:36:50.353Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-12-17T03:36:50.353Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Inertial Ignorance
Answers.Body: <p>Let's remember that the late Tony Miles, at the 1980 European Championship, played 1... a6 as Black vs. Karpov's 1. e4, and won.</p>
  
  <p>Single games mean nothing.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-18T09:49:06.783Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-12-18T13:35:14.390Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-12-18T13:35:14.390Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Andrea Mori
Answers.Body: <p>It does not prove that the opening is sound, but it does make a case for a successful practical opening. If your question is really "Should I try this myself?", the answer is "yes", because - especially under accelerated time controls - an element of surprise can be a huge factor.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-17T20:40:03.767Z
Answers.Text: I might try other weird moves to start with but I do not think that move would be one that I try.
Answers.UserDisplayName: yobamamama
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-19T09:38:19.183Z
Answers.Text: @yobamamama Especially now that someone's already recently and famously done it; it's lost a great deal of effectiveness as a shock/surprise tactic.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Shadur-don't-feed-the-AI
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-17T20:35:04.377Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-12-17T20:35:04.377Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: postoronnim
Answers.Body: <p>It was one game in online rapid. You cannot deduce from one game that 1.Nh3 is sound or not sound. Carlsen was actually MUCH worse out of the opening, and just outplayed Dreev later. It really means nothing other than Carlsen is currently much stronger.</p>
  
  <p>Most likely 1.Nh3 is not good, and this is unusual for a first move: Stockfish already evals this as -.62 at a depth of 50.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-16T22:24:33.727Z
Answers.Text: Dreev was also ahead until he got into severe time trouble; he had less than 30 seconds left when he blundered the advantage, according to the automatic analysis.
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-16T23:26:15.480Z
Answers.Text: But why would he play that move at all?  Does taking it out of the book give him an edge at rapids play?  Psychological  play dissing the opponent from the gitgo?
Answers.UserDisplayName: yobamamama
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-17T04:03:41.490Z
Answers.Text: Thanks. But Dreev is no slouch.  I actually enjoy it when somebody tries some really oddball opening against me.  I figure there is no book for them to have memorized and I can beat them more easily than if they had used a book line.
Answers.UserDisplayName: yobamamama
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-17T10:33:54.343Z
Answers.Text: I doubt that the experienced Dreev was at all disturbed by 1.Nh3. It is clear that Carlsen simply wanted an "independent" game with chances for both sides.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-18T13:44:14.900Z
Answers.Text: @yobamamama: it's online chess. He probably just played it for fun.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-16T22:21:17.933Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-12-21T12:20:56.583Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-12-21T12:20:56.583Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Body: <p>In 2018, Magnus Carlsen played a <a href="https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1913200" rel="nofollow noreferrer">rapid game on chess.com</a> against Grandmaster Aleksey Dreev in which his opening move was 1. Nh3.</p>
  <pre><code>[Title &quot;Magnus Carlsen-Alexey Dreev, Pro Chess League, chess.com INT, 2/24/2018&quot;]
  [FEN &quot;&quot;]
  
  1. Nh3 Nh6 2. f4 d5 3. Nf2 Ng4 4. e3 Nxf2 5. Kxf2 c5 6. b3 Nc6 7. Bb5 Bd7 8. Bb2 a6 9. Bd3 Qc7 10. Nc3 e6 11. Qh5 Be7 12. Rhf1 Bf6 13. Kg1 Nb4 14. Rac1 Nxa2 15. Rce1 Nb4 16. f5 e5 17. e4 c4 18. Nxd5 Nxd5 19. Bxc4 Nb4 20. c3 Nc6 21. Qxf7+ Kd8 22. Ba3 Be8 23. Qd5+ Qd7 24. Bd6 Be7 25. Bxe7+ Kxe7 26. Qc5+ Qd6 27. Qb6 Bd7 28. d4 Nd8 29. Qa5 Nc6 30. Qa2 Kd8 31. Rd1 Kc7 32. Qf2 Rad8 33. b4 Rhf8 34. b5 axb5 35. Bxb5 g6 36. f6 Kb8 37. Bc4 Bc8 38. Bd5 Be6 39. Bxe6 Qxe6 40. d5 Qd6 41. Ra1 Kc7 42. dxc6 Qxc6 43. Ra5 Kb8 44. Qa7+
  </code></pre>
  <p>Does that prove that opening Nh3 is sound, or was it just a psychological play to take a slightly weaker player out of the book? Does it show that Carlsen is that much better because he can get away with such moves?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-17T06:04:06.577Z
Comments.Text: How can the result of a game that starts 1.Nh3 Nh6 tell us anything about the soundness of 1.Nh3? Stockfish considers the position after 1.Nh3 Nh6 slightly better for White. So what? Is your meaning that the mere fact Carlsen was willing to play 1.Nh3 indicates that the move is sound?
Comments.UserDisplayName: bof
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-17T14:47:42.847Z
Comments.Text: Why does the "playback" that you provided not go until the end, is it only meant to show enough to get a feel for what was going on? I'm interested in chess but am not great at it, so maybe I'm missing something obvious to you. But to me it looks like black can move the king out of the way and get at least a few more moves, and I haven't convinced myself yet that the game is definitely lost.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Loduwijk
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-17T15:01:09.183Z
Comments.Text: @Loduwijk Kc8 Rc5 and loss of Queen for a rook.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Adder
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-17T23:48:36.527Z
Comments.Text: It doesn't show Carlsen is much better. Their respective ratings already show that. Carlsen is rated 200 points higher. And, unless your own rating is somewhere north of 1800, playing 1. Nh3 probably doesn't matter at all. The game is going to be won or lost on tactics, not sound opening play.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Randy Minder
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-18T12:24:54.363Z
Comments.Text: It's not the first time Carlsen plays a crazy opening move against a GM. See for example this 2012 game vs Radjabov with 1.a4: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1671724
Comments.UserDisplayName: itub
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-18T15:57:08.500Z
Comments.Text: Not sure if serious. 
Comments.UserDisplayName: xehpuk
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-18T21:23:51.717Z
Comments.Text: @Adder I must be very dense, as this is still bugging me. Kc7, Rc5 Rd6, Rc6 Rc6, king is protected, queen can't take the pawn or the king would take the queen, white has 1 more pawn than black and has queen+rook vs rook+rook, so yes stronger but not close to a loss yet. Is black's position then just so weak that it's completely inconceivable to overcome white's advantage?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Loduwijk
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-19T09:17:14.197Z
Comments.Text: @Loduwijk Queen is considered to be stronger than a rook.But maybe time also played a role, it was a rapid game.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Adder
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-19T12:15:38.847Z
Comments.Text: Rapid game -> time matters -> play unexpected to force opponent to use more time
Comments.UserDisplayName: Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-19T15:25:52.143Z
Comments.Text: Even in a classical game between two world class players, anything can happen after 1.Nh3. This move is not necessarily worse than 1.e4 or 1.d4 , perhaps it is the only winning move - noone knows. But we should neither conclude that 1.Nh3 actually is a good move. There is also a game 1.e4 e4 2. Qh5 that was tried by a grand master. But I think we can safely assume that this opening is not good for white. If such an "experiment" is made in a rapid game, we can conclude even less.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Peter
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-10-11T18:28:52.020Z
Comments.Text: The answer Nh6 is no good way to challenge the opening (assuming it is bad at all). Even if Nh3 were bad, this move is barely the "refutation"
Comments.UserDisplayName: Peter
Tags: <opening><strategy><psychology>
Title: Carlsen beat a high ranking GM with 1 Nh3. Conclusions?
ThreadText: # Carlsen beat a high ranking GM with 1 Nh3. Conclusions?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-12-16)
  
  In 2018, Magnus Carlsen played a [rapid game on chess.com](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1913200) against Grandmaster Aleksey Dreev in which his opening move was 1. Nh3.
  
  ```
  [Title "Magnus Carlsen-Alexey Dreev, Pro Chess League, chess.com INT, 2/24/2018"]
  [FEN ""]
  
  1. Nh3 Nh6 2. f4 d5 3. Nf2 Ng4 4. e3 Nxf2 5. Kxf2 c5 6. b3 Nc6 7. Bb5 Bd7 8. Bb2 a6 9. Bd3 Qc7 10. Nc3 e6 11. Qh5 Be7 12. Rhf1 Bf6 13. Kg1 Nb4 14. Rac1 Nxa2 15. Rce1 Nb4 16. f5 e5 17. e4 c4 18. Nxd5 Nxd5 19. Bxc4 Nb4 20. c3 Nc6 21. Qxf7+ Kd8 22. Ba3 Be8 23. Qd5+ Qd7 24. Bd6 Be7 25. Bxe7+ Kxe7 26. Qc5+ Qd6 27. Qb6 Bd7 28. d4 Nd8 29. Qa5 Nc6 30. Qa2 Kd8 31. Rd1 Kc7 32. Qf2 Rad8 33. b4 Rhf8 34. b5 axb5 35. Bxb5 g6 36. f6 Kb8 37. Bc4 Bc8 38. Bd5 Be6 39. Bxe6 Qxe6 40. d5 Qd6 41. Ra1 Kc7 42. dxc6 Qxc6 43. Ra5 Kb8 44. Qa7+
  
  ```
  
  Does that prove that opening Nh3 is sound, or was it just a psychological play to take a slightly weaker player out of the book? Does it show that Carlsen is that much better because he can get away with such moves?
  
  **Tags:** opening, strategy, psychology
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: How can the result of a game that starts 1.Nh3 Nh6 tell us anything about the soundness of 1.Nh3? Stockfish considers the position after 1.Nh3 Nh6 slightly better for White. So what? Is your meaning that the mere fact Carlsen was willing to play 1.Nh3 indicates that the move is sound?  
  > **username_2**: Why does the "playback" that you provided not go until the end, is it only meant to show enough to get a feel for what was going on? I'm interested in chess but am not great at it, so maybe I'm missing something obvious to you. But to me it looks like black can move the king out of the way and get at least a few more moves, and I haven't convinced myself yet that the game is definitely lost.  
  > **username_3**: @username_2 Kc8 Rc5 and loss of Queen for a rook.  
  > **username_4**: It doesn't show Carlsen is much better. Their respective ratings already show that. Carlsen is rated 200 points higher. And, unless your own rating is somewhere north of 1800, playing 1. Nh3 probably doesn't matter at all. The game is going to be won or lost on tactics, not sound opening play.  
  > **username_5**: It's not the first time Carlsen plays a crazy opening move against a GM. See for example this 2012 game vs Radjabov with 1.a4: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1671724  
  > **username_6**: Not sure if serious.   
  > **username_2**: @username_3 I must be very dense, as this is still bugging me. Kc7, Rc5 Rd6, Rc6 Rc6, king is protected, queen can't take the pawn or the king would take the queen, white has 1 more pawn than black and has queen+rook vs rook+rook, so yes stronger but not close to a loss yet. Is black's position then just so weak that it's completely inconceivable to overcome white's advantage?  
  > **username_3**: @username_2 Queen is considered to be stronger than a rook.But maybe time also played a role, it was a rapid game.  
  > **username_7**: Rapid game -> time matters -> play unexpected to force opponent to use more time  
  > **username_8**: Even in a classical game between two world class players, anything can happen after 1.Nh3. This move is not necessarily worse than 1.e4 or 1.d4 , perhaps it is the only winning move - noone knows. But we should neither conclude that 1.Nh3 actually is a good move. There is also a game 1.e4 e4 2. Qh5 that was tried by a grand master. But I think we can safely assume that this opening is not good for white. If such an "experiment" is made in a rapid game, we can conclude even less.  
  > **username_8**: The answer Nh6 is no good way to challenge the opening (assuming it is bad at all). Even if Nh3 were bad, this move is barely the "refutation"  
  
  ---
  
  ## 4 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_14 on 2019-12-16. Score: 41 | Accepted answer
  
  It was one game in online rapid. You cannot deduce from one game that 1.Nh3 is sound or not sound. Carlsen was actually MUCH worse out of the opening, and just outplayed Dreev later. It really means nothing other than Carlsen is currently much stronger.
  
  Most likely 1.Nh3 is not good, and this is unusual for a first move: Stockfish already evals this as -.62 at a depth of 50.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_15**: Dreev was also ahead until he got into severe time trouble; he had less than 30 seconds left when he blundered the advantage, according to the automatic analysis.  
  > **username_0**: But why would he play that move at all?  Does taking it out of the book give him an edge at rapids play?  Psychological  play dissing the opponent from the gitgo?  
  > **username_0**: Thanks. But Dreev is no slouch.  I actually enjoy it when somebody tries some really oddball opening against me.  I figure there is no book for them to have memorized and I can beat them more easily than if they had used a book line.  
  > **username_14**: I doubt that the experienced Dreev was at all disturbed by 1.Nh3. It is clear that Carlsen simply wanted an "independent" game with chances for both sides.  
  > **username_16**: @username_0: it's online chess. He probably just played it for fun.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2019-12-17. Score: 16
  
  Carlsen is the strongest player in the world. He can get away with playing sub-par openings against average GMs because of the large difference in strength. Granted, Dreev is above your average GM, but still the gap in their playing levels is huge.
  
  1.Nh3 is one of the worst moves White can play, and Carlsen probably chose it for fun. The fact that Dreev answered with 1...Nh6 showed he wasn't taking the game that seriously either.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Or maybe Dreev was also playing the man and not the board with a psycho counterattack:)  
  > **username_10**: Carlsen is not only the strongest player in the world, but also an incredible magician of the endgame. Not only can he make up for sub-par openings with outstanding performance later on, I'd claim that sub-par, unexpected openings can allow him to reach positions where his endgame superiority is proportionally more important than any midgame advantages the opponent might have.   This is of course assuming that Carlsen is better at thinking on his feet when shown odd positions than other players. Is this a valid assumption? It looks like complicated middlegames have served him well before.  
  > **username_9**: @username_10 Yes, playing offbeat openings can be beneficial, especially for a player like him who's very good in the endgame. But 1.Nh3 is such a bad move I highly doubt there was any strategy behind it. Carlsen was playing a rapid game online which he probably didn't take too seriously.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_11 on 2019-12-18. Score: 15
  
  Let's remember that the late Tony Miles, at the 1980 European Championship, played 1... a6 as Black vs. Karpov's 1. e4, and won.
  
  Single games mean nothing.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_12 on 2019-12-17. Score: 6
  
  It does not prove that the opening is sound, but it does make a case for a successful practical opening. If your question is really "Should I try this myself?", the answer is "yes", because - especially under accelerated time controls - an element of surprise can be a huge factor.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: I might try other weird moves to start with but I do not think that move would be one that I try.  
  > **username_13**: @username_0 Especially now that someone's already recently and famously done it; it's lost a great deal of effectiveness as a shock/surprise tactic.  
  
  ---
  
  