Anand v Carlsen

The very latest International round up of English news.
Geoff Chandler
Posts: 2005
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by Geoff Chandler » Sat Nov 16, 2013 5:22 pm

Anand - Carlsen. Game 6. 2013 World Championship.


AustinElliott
Posts: 645
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:01 pm
Location: North of England
Contact:

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by AustinElliott » Sat Nov 16, 2013 5:33 pm

Today feels like a real killer for Anand - it will take something genuinely special to come back from 2-0 down, in such a short match, against a player who is clearly his superior in the endgame and in protracted battles.

I was slightly surprised Anand swapped off all the minor pieces given that he had a closed Ruy middle game, an opening where he has loads of experience and has shown suck skill in the past. Such a middle game should (you'd think) have given him the chance to generate tension/tactics, which we all would say was his 'best case' fighting ground vs Carlsen. He was even in a line that he must have anticipated given that he played a new move. Tania Sachdev on the Chessbomb commentary was suggesting Anand might have been trying to get to a safe draw to steady himself and allow himself the rest day to get over game 5, with the idea of coming out swinging in game 7. If so, the approach misfired spectacularly.

There is also the fact that Magnus has now beaten Anand two games running from level and colloquially 'drawn' endings, and he has shown he can produce these scenarios even when Anand (and all his famed preparation) had the chance to choose the opening battle-ground. What state must Anand's confidence be in, given that?

Anyway, I hope Anand can get at least one game back and give us a contest, but as I said at the start it is going to take something really special. Failing that, the model one is beginning to think of (for old geezers like me) is the Fischer-Petrosian 1971 Candidates Semi-final in Buenos Aires, where Petrosian started well but got steam-rollered once Fischer got going.

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 2856
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Sat Nov 16, 2013 5:57 pm

The parallels between the last two days and Tendulkar's retirement are fairly obvious I'd have thought - in both cases it looks very like an end of an era for India.

Game 7 is win or bust for Anand, surely?
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Sat Nov 16, 2013 6:06 pm

Mats Winther wrote:In fact, Carlsen could have won easier by playing 39...Qxd6! 40.Rxd6 Rxe3 41.Rd5 b4! This gives a better rook endgame than the one in the game ....
/Mats

I see Danny King's video report dismisses this line because of 42 cxb4. What's your idea?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9h1UqIc ... e=youtu.be

User avatar
Mats Winther
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by Mats Winther » Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:02 pm

Jonathan Bryant wrote:
Mats Winther wrote:In fact, Carlsen could have won easier by playing 39...Qxd6! 40.Rxd6 Rxe3 41.Rd5 b4! This gives a better rook endgame than the one in the game ....
/Mats
I see Danny King's video report dismisses this line because of 42 cxb4. What's your idea?
I was wrong. It leads to a 3 pawns versus 2 pawns rook endgame, which is draw.
/Mats

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 2005
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by Geoff Chandler » Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:48 pm

"If Carlsen is a sadist like Fischer was I think he could win all the remaining games."

A sadist?

Fischer offered draws in the shape of perpetuals to Larsen.
Larsen knocked them back and drifted into lost positions.

The candidates were matches of ten games.
At 5-0 Fischer had settled to win the match 5½ - ½ but Larsen refused the draw.

What would you have Fischer do? Stop playing on in a won position when he was 2-0 up and offer draws.

Ray Sayers

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by Ray Sayers » Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:38 pm

Paul McKeown wrote:Anand appears to have bollixed a dead draw or at least made things very, very difficult for himself.
I think maybe a lot of people following this match will have to rethink their definition of 'dead draw'.

PeterTurland
Posts: 541
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:03 pm
Location: Leicester
Contact:

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by PeterTurland » Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:54 pm

I noticed this a few years ago, Carlsen does seem to have the ability to take our sport to a different dimension, somehow?

AustinElliott
Posts: 645
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:01 pm
Location: North of England
Contact:

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by AustinElliott » Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:22 pm

PeterTurland wrote:I noticed this a few years ago, Carlsen does seem to have the ability to take our sport to a different dimension, somehow?
Carlsen is not totally unique in this respect - Fischer in 1970-1972 was in some ways similar, in that, as part of totally dominating the chess scene, he used to make his opponents play out technical positions that were 'known draws' and force them to prove they could draw it. For instance, take a look at the famous Geller-Fischer game from the 1970 Palma Interzonal, which has some vague similarities (2Rs apiece ending) to game 4 of the current match. What Fischer's opponents grew to fear in this period was the impression that he never made mistakes, reinforced by the 6-0 match victories against Taimanov and Larsen (see above).

Of course, the question was whether / for how long Fischer would have continued the same dominance had he kept playing after 1972, and the same question applies to Carlsen now - assuming he goes on to win the match.

PeterTurland
Posts: 541
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:03 pm
Location: Leicester
Contact:

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by PeterTurland » Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:25 pm

The kind of thing I'm talking about (sorry I can't remember the exact game) I once saw him conjure a win out of opposite bishops and equal pawns with zugswang.

User avatar
Mats Winther
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by Mats Winther » Sun Nov 17, 2013 6:54 am

Ray Sayers wrote:
Paul McKeown wrote:Anand appears to have bollixed a dead draw or at least made things very, very difficult for himself.
I think maybe a lot of people following this match will have to rethink their definition of 'dead draw'.
The position after move 24 is a dead draw. So this evaluation hasn't changed. What has changed, however, is the realization that we are capable of making little errors. Earlier we simply couldn't believe that a super-GM like Anand could make several errors in simple positions, and thus lose an absolutely drawn position. Earlier, when meeting a lower rated player, I would desperately try to avoid such a drawish position because I didn't believe it is winnable. Today I know that even a world champion cannot handle it correctly. This is the lesson that Carlsen has taught us. It seems like chess players are surprisingly human and fallible in practical endgames, whereas they are stronger in the middlegame. It is very curious, since practical endgames are mathematically much simpler.

M. Winther

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by MartinCarpenter » Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:31 am

Didn't we already know this from people like Hebden etc? This is happening at a different standard of course but the same principles :)

The problem with doing it is playing hugely accurately but, even more, just having the mental strength/drive to want to keep playing in positions like that.

Chris Rice
Posts: 2769
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by Chris Rice » Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:36 am

Totally agree with the last two posters and believe Carlsen's dominance can be expressed by a formula:

Carlsen = Hebden + Arkell + 250 Elo

It must be very depressing for Anand to carry on facing a player who can beat him from effectively any position. I just hope for his sake he doesn't end up collapsing completely.

Paul Dargan
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 11:23 pm

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by Paul Dargan » Sun Nov 17, 2013 9:04 am

I think the games - maybe particularly Game 4 show us how little Engines actually know about practical chess. Carlsen finding ways to keep 4 rooks on the board and create PRACTICAL problems rather than lamely heading for R+2 v's R+1 on the same side of the board ... understanding which moves create/preserve pressure whilst not fundamentally affecting the evaluation - these still seem to be very human skills.

I remember when I still played competitive correspondence chess, engines were becoming seriously strong and tablebases appearing, asking a friend with an engine what was the best practical move in my R+B v's R ending and being told 'machine says everything is 0.00' ... without access to tablebases and engines this simply isn't true - there are many 0.00's that require a sequence of only moves ot hold.

On a similar note I recall Anand warnign about doing opening prep with a machine and being lulled inot a false sense of security ... there's a possible piece sac - but machine says it's o.00 - leads to a perpetual with your king wandering around ... but what if your opponent doesnt take it and just' keeps' the position - you may need a sequence of 'onlys' to hold and they may not be simple if you've just believed the 0.00 evaluation.

Anyway in Golfing parlance I reckon Carlsen will win 3 and 2 i.e. Game 10 will be the last.

Paul

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Sun Nov 17, 2013 9:35 am

MartinCarpenter wrote:Didn't we already know this from people like Hebden etc?

Of course.

Or from reading virtually any book on endings. Dvoretsky's Tragicomedy in the Endgame, for example, which includes many examples of GMs - including a certain Norwegian when rated 2700 - going wrong in much simpler positions than the one we saw yesterday. i.e. rook and single pawn against rook.

If you don't want to read books you could just have a look at games that are played in actual tournaments. This year's British championship was highly instructive.

I've taken a particular interest in rook endings this year. What I've noticed is a great number of chessers willing to pronounce a position "dead drawn" and very few who have any technical knowledge of rook endings at all.

I think Ray was right. Rather than say 'dead drawn' all the time, "we" could perhaps expand our lexicon a little. Draw distinctions between positions that are 'level', 'equal', 'drawn' and 'dead drawn', perhaps.

Post Reply