Anand v Gelfand

Christopher Kreuzer · Post by **Christopher Kreuzer** » Mon May 28, 2012 12:30 pm

Positional pawn sacrifice. Anand must be confident. Is the idea that Black's c8 bishop ends up being a bit rubbish?

Paul McKeown · Post by **Paul McKeown** » Mon May 28, 2012 12:36 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Positional pawn sacrifice. Anand must be confident. Is the idea that Black's c8 bishop ends up being a bit rubbish?

Well the c8 bishop has little scope for some time, but also the broken pawns mean good outposts for the White knight and targets to niggle (c5, c6, e5), coupled with the possibility of White's dark-squared bishop becoming active on the long-diagonal should the e5-pawn be exchanged (sort of prophylaxis if you will, Black may be reluctant to exchange pawns) which could work well with the h-pawn. Also there are no pawns for Black to target (due to White's good structure) which could be annoying if Black wishes to play actively. Some ideas like one might find in a Nimzo-indian Defence, playing against doubled pawns in exchange for the two bishops, also play on a colour complex like White's strategy against the Winawer (sometimes even with 7. h4).

Paul Cooksey · Post by **Paul Cooksey** » Mon May 28, 2012 12:43 pm

I'd add to that, per Kramnik, that neither of black's bishops has any imediate prospects, assuming he has to play f6 to hold e5. He was considering c4, if white did not play nd2 ruling it out imediately.

Still, a pawn is a pawn.

Christopher Kreuzer · Post by **Christopher Kreuzer** » Mon May 28, 2012 1:01 pm

A long think from Gelfand, unless the transmission has broken down.

Carl Hibbard · Post by **Carl Hibbard** » Mon May 28, 2012 1:06 pm

He his to ditch the pawn with c4 I think here

Paul McKeown · Post by **Paul McKeown** » Mon May 28, 2012 1:06 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote:He was considering c4, if white did not play nd2 ruling it out imediately.

And he plays c5-c4 regardless to free his bishops.

Paul Cooksey · Post by **Paul Cooksey** » Mon May 28, 2012 1:08 pm

Kramink doubting the objective merit of the imediate c4, but understanding blacks desire to change the pattern of the game.

Paul McKeown · Post by **Paul McKeown** » Mon May 28, 2012 1:09 pm

Well predicted, Carl! He could even ditch another with 11. Nxc4 e4 12. dxe4 Qxd1+ 13. Kxd1. He won't though, it's just a funny suggestion, some logic, but I'm not sure it amounts to enough.

Carl Hibbard · Post by **Carl Hibbard** » Mon May 28, 2012 1:15 pm

Nxc4 then Ba6

Matthew Turner · Post by **Matthew Turner** » Mon May 28, 2012 1:17 pm

I am very surprised how negative Kramnik is about c4. It seems perfectly logical to me (Although I didn't predict it). After Nxc4 I agree with Paul that e4 looks very interesting - I would go for that.

Paul McKeown · Post by **Paul McKeown** » Mon May 28, 2012 1:18 pm

Problem for Black is that his weak a7-pawn is now exposed, whereas previously it was to some degree masked by his c5-pawn.

Christopher Kreuzer · Post by **Christopher Kreuzer** » Mon May 28, 2012 1:20 pm

The commentators are rejecting 11...Ba6. What happens after 11...Bc5? White can't take the e4 pawn, as far as I can tell, but I can't tell where Black should be putting his bishops.

Paul McKeown · Post by **Paul McKeown** » Mon May 28, 2012 1:22 pm

... Bc5 allows Be3, because of the Nc4, I think.

Paul Cooksey · Post by **Paul Cooksey** » Mon May 28, 2012 1:31 pm

Carl Hibbard wrote:Nxc4 then Ba6

Forum owner and super-GM analyst

Carl Hibbard · Post by **Carl Hibbard** » Mon May 28, 2012 1:42 pm

Only got video (no sound...) as at work and should not really be watching

English Chess Forum

Anand v Gelfand

Re: Anand v Gelfand

Re: Anand v Gelfand

Re: Anand v Gelfand

Re: Anand v Gelfand

Re: Anand v Gelfand

Re: Anand v Gelfand

Re: Anand v Gelfand

Re: Anand v Gelfand

Re: Anand v Gelfand

Re: Anand v Gelfand

Re: Anand v Gelfand

Re: Anand v Gelfand

Re: Anand v Gelfand

Re: Anand v Gelfand

Re: Anand v Gelfand