Tata Steel 2013

[LawrenceCooper]

Another endgame masterclass by Magnus today, this time against one of his nearest rivals.

[Ray Sayers]

I watched that game and it was frightening.

What must Karjakin think next time he has Black against Carlsen?

[AustinElliott]

I watched that game and it was frightening.

What must Karjakin think next time he has Black against Carlsen?

The thing that struck me was that Karjakin couldn't work out a defence, even though it was clear what was coming.

If you look at the position after Black's 59th move, it is clear, even to a patzer like me, that the only winning try for white is to sac the g- and h-pawns to get the f and e pawns rolling - g4 hxg4 h5 so that if gxh5 f5 etc. It's the kind of semi-taking-the-mickey pawn breakthrough thing you might play in a blitz game if you didn't want to declare a draw... or would think of in a middle game with more pieces on if you were attacking Black's K-side.

The difference is that Carlsen can make it work, in a simplified ending, against one of the world's best players.

I assume that part of this is Carlsen manoeuvring about to try and play the g4 idea when the position of his pieces is most favourable, and his opponent's (conversely) is least favourable. But still, it seems to me that it takes iron will/nerve to do it, as it is a double-edged idea - Black gets at least one passed pawn on the g-file, and possibly two together on g- and h-files. If a team-mate did this in a League game you'd be looking through your fingers muttering 'Oh ****, all bets are off'.

And I wonder if a lot of elite players would simply dismiss the g4 etc etc as being too risky a try? - interested to hear what the ECF 200+ crew around here make of that.

Anyway, Karjakin MUST have been able to see that g4 - h5 - f5 was the only possible winning try for White, and thus you'd think he'd have had plenty of time to try and work out the best defence when/if Carlsen were to go for it. And yet, when the time came, Karjakin seemingly didn't find the best try (if you believe the computer analysis) and soon went wrong.

So ... what is it about Magnus that mesmerises his 2700+ opponents like this in the ending? Is it that they are frightened precisely BECAUSE they know what is coming? And because he's turned over so many of them that way?

[Jonathan Rogers]

I think once you have reached that position, you can see that white has a big advantage, and one looks at g4 with a certain kind of optimism.

It's how he got there which baffles me! I am sure that everyone else in the world, when reduced to shuffling their rooks on the c-file and playing the queen to h1 - g2, would just say "well this is really a kind of reversed accelerated dragon where I'm solid but obviously cannot actually do anything - so draw?"

I don't think that anyone can really explain how he keeps doing it.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I don't think that anyone can really explain how he keeps doing it.

If we are lucky, he might say something illuminating on his blog (or even in the interviews or post-game commentaries?). His Twitter feed has less room, but sometimes reveals something. On his Arctic Securities blog, he sometimes comments on his play and that of others, sometimes he passes over things in silence. There are entries after rounds 4 and 6, so presumably this game will get mentioned in due course:

http://www.arcticsec.no/index.php?blog_ ... n_image=35
http://www.arcticsec.no/index.php?blog_ ... n_image=35

His comments about his games against Harikrishna and Sokolov are interesting. Who knows, maybe it is blogging about his games like this that gives him a psychological edge? Do other top grandmasters do this?

[Jonathan Rogers]

Comments on his blog won't explain very much! He might say "well I quite liked my posistion and thought I could play on a bit" but that is not exactly going to help anyone who aspires to imitate him! Perhaps if he annotated games like this in depth, and explained the reasoning behind most of his moves and how he felt during the game, that would help but I don't think he is much interested in that (and from his perspective, why should he?).

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Comments on his blog won't explain very much! He might say "well I quite liked my posistion and thought I could play on a bit" but that is not exactly going to help anyone who aspires to imitate him! Perhaps if he annotated games like this in depth, and explained the reasoning behind most of his moves and how he felt during the game, that would help but I don't think he is much interested in that (and from his perspective, why should he?).

Well, fair enough. I thought the blog comments were interesting, though as you say it is not the same as in-depth analysis. Talking of which, I read this Chessbase article recently:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8785

And that sort of insight given by Kasparov seems to be what you want, but as you say, not every player is inclined to do that, though it it great that Kasparov has written and said so much. I'll go back to my other question, how much do other top players give insights into their games, either while still playing or after they have retired?

[Jonathan Rogers]

Comments on his blog won't explain very much! He might say "well I quite liked my posistion and thought I could play on a bit" but that is not exactly going to help anyone who aspires to imitate him! Perhaps if he annotated games like this in depth, and explained the reasoning behind most of his moves and how he felt during the game, that would help but I don't think he is much interested in that (and from his perspective, why should he?).

Well, fair enough. I thought the blog comments were interesting, though as you say it is not the same as in-depth analysis. Talking of which, I read this Chessbase article recently:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8785

And that sort of insight given by Kasparov seems to be what you want

True, I have all of his recent (post-retirement) books

but as you say, not every player is inclined to do that, though it it great that Kasparov has written and said so much. I'll go back to my other question, how much do other top players give insights into their games, either while still playing or after they have retired?

Not many do (though it depends what you mean by "top" players, eg do you include Ivan Sokolov?). Perhaps the book on Kramnik v kasparov 2000 by one of Kramnik's seconds (er, an authorised version, as opposed to, y'know....) is the nearest we have had in recent times, Kasparov apart. Light annotations is normally all you get from the top 20 nowadays. Possibly some players don't really see the point since a computer can do the work for the potential readers, if they are really interested, and some players, I think, get a bit embarrassed by writing "I would rather not give my views on this late opening position, even though it is probably what the reader wants most of all".

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Light annotations is normally all you get from the top 20 nowadays. Possibly some players don't really see the point since a computer can do the work for the potential readers, if they are really interested, and some players, I think, get a bit embarrassed by writing "I would rather not give my views on this late opening position, even though it is probably what the reader wants most of all".

Because they don't want to reveal opening secrets, or for other reasons?

And which book is that by a second of Kramnik's? I may have heard of it, but am not sure exactly what you are referring to here. I did Google briefly, but wasn't able to work out what you were referring to here.

Back on topic, some lovely photos of the Tata Steel tournament here from Fred Lucas:

http://www.fredlucas.eu/content/Tata_2013-1_large.html

Click on the index link to get the full set.

[James Coleman]

Probably "From London to Elista". An excellent book, unfortunately I think it's rather hard to get hold of at a reasonable price nowadays.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Chaps.

Austin posted:

"If you look at the position after Black's 59th move..."

And now indeed we can...

4Rb2/5pk1/6p1/2p1P2p/2Bp1P1P/3P2P1/5K2/1r6 w - - 0 60
....look at the position after Black 59th move.

I fail to see how we can discuss a position with out the position being posted.

I went to a lot of trouble and unpaid time writing the code to display the positions
and the moving PGN thingy. Please use it. Thank You.

Here is how the game went after Black's 59th. move.

M. Carlsen - S. Karjakin, Tata Steel Chess 2013

[FEN "4Rb2/5pk1/6p1/2p1P2p/2Bp1P1P/3P2P1/5K2/1r6 w - - 0 60"] 60. Rc8 Be7 61. Ra8 Rb2+ 62. Kf3 Rb1 63. Bd5 Re1 64. Kf2 Rd1 65. Re8 Bf8 66. Bc4 Rb1 67. g4 hxg4 68. h5 Rh1 69. hxg6 fxg6 70. Re6 Kh6 71. Bd5 Rh2+ 72. Kg3 Rh3+ 73. Kxg4 Rxd3 74. f5 Re3 75. Rxg6+ Kh7 76. Bg8+ Kh8 77. Kf4 Rc3 78. f6 d3 79. Ke3 c4 80. Be6 Kh7 81. Bf5 Rc2 82. Rg2+ Kh6 83. Rxc2 dxc2 84. Bxc2 Kg5 85. Kd4 Ba3 86. Kxc4 Bb2 87. Kd5 Kf4 88. f7 Ba3 89. e6 Kg5 90. Kc6 Kf6 91. Kd7 Kg7 92. e7

[AustinElliott]

Hi Chaps.

Austin posted:

"If you look at the position after Black's 59th move..."

And now indeed we can...

4Rb2/5pk1/6p1/2p1P2p/2Bp1P1P/3P2P1/5K2/1r6 w - - 0 60
....look at the position after Black 59th move.

I fail to see how we can discuss a position with out the position being posted.

Ouch!!

Sorry Geoff - I was in a hurry and didn't know how to do the FEN display thing. I was... errrm.... sneakily hoping someone else would add it....

Anyway, I see the report on the tournament website today says:

The critical moment [in Carlsen-Karjakin] occurred at move 67, when Carlsen decided force matters with (see diagram - which is identical to the position on move 60 as posted by Geoff) 67.g4!? hxg4 68.h5. Karjakin fell for the bluff with 68...Rh1?, where he could have a draw after 68...gxh5 69.f5 h4 70.f6 Kg6 71.Rxf8 Kf5! and black will force a perpetual check, for example: 72.Rh8 g3 72.Ke1 g3 74.Kf1 Rb1 75.Kg2 Rb2. [EDIT: I think they must mean 72. Rh8 Rb2+ and then 73. Ke1 g3, and not 72. ... g3]

Which sort of backs up what I said about the g4?! idea. So the question still stands as to how Carlsen seems to mesmerise the opposition into cracking in these situations.

[EDIT: There's some other analysis on the endgame, mentioning a possible chance for Karjakin to resist at a later stage, at whychess.com ]

[Ray Sayers]

I think playing against Carlsen must be a bit like playing against something like Rybka. In the sense that he can play many many moves without really making a mistake. If I play against my PC program, I can get a good position and even win material. But the wretched thing still beats me because I am human and will make a mistake, whereas it just keeps up a consistent standard and punishes me.

Carlsen often gets a 'so-so' position out of the opening, but his opponents know that if they slip he will win. So for hours they have to find absolutely the best plan and moves. Eventually they must just get fatigued. He will happily play on until kings if its a game he wants to win.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The critical moment [in Carlsen-Karjakin] occurred at move 67, when Carlsen decided force matters with (see diagram - which is identical to the position on move 60 as posted by Geoff) 67.g4!? hxg4 68.h5. Karjakin fell for the bluff with 68...Rh1?, where he could have a draw after 68...gxh5 69.f5 h4 70.f6 Kg6 71.Rxf8 Kf5! and black will force a perpetual check, for example: 72.Rh8 g3 72.Ke1 g3 74.Kf1 Rb1 75.Kg2 Rb2. [EDIT: I think they must mean 72. Rh8 Rb2+ and then 73. Ke1 g3, and not 72. ... g3]

Which sort of backs up what I said about the g4?! idea. So the question still stands as to how Carlsen seems to mesmerise the opposition into cracking in these situations.

Geoff will be annoyed. You've given a line and not gone to the trouble to insert the line inside the FEN thingy. To be fair, I can't remember how to do that either, even though someone (Greg B?) asked the other day. I've now found the way to do this, but is there not something on this in the FAQ section of this forum?

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4365

That thread has annotations within games.

I think you put text comments in braces (curly brackets) {} and variations in parentheses (ordinary brackets) (). Let's see if that works...

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Hmm. It seems it is easier to go play through it on the tournament website than try and work out how to write it into the code used with the FEN/PGN generator here.