Anand v Carlsen

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I've just noticed that games 6 and 7 are successive Whites for Anand and (consequently) successive Black's for Carlsen, which means that the match begins and ends (if it goes to game 12) with Whites for Carlsen. Is there a logical reason for the colour sequence to change like this? Is this traditionally done in matches? It seems to have been done this way for the last few at least, though not for the Kramnik-Leko match (and maybe others as well).

[Roger de Coverly]

Is there a logical reason for the colour sequence to change like this? Is this traditionally done in matches?

It was introduced when matches started to use a "two days of play", "one day of rest" format. There's a perception that having White immediately after a rest day is an advantage, or is it Black? Either way it avoids accusations of bias. For games 11 and 12, I believe they get a rest day beforehand anyway, so it isn't completely symmetric. The Kasparov - Short match was played at the rate of three days a week, which had by then become traditional. The spare days were also needed for adjournments, which were abolished in the mid-nineties.

[Peter Shaw]

I've always thought they should follow the example of tennis tie breaks and use the sequence WBBWWBBWWBBW rather than swap after every game.

[Stewart Reuben]

Peter Shaw >I've always thought they should follow the example of tennis tie breaks and use the sequence WBBWWBBWWBBW rather than swap after every game.<

That is indeed the system proposed by Ashot Vardapetian and to be found in the Tournament Rules C.05. Annex 3 K.1.b. It has not yet caught on. The idea is that this is somewhat superior to Armageddon which is one game sudden death. Eventually though time may run out and they have to resort to Armageddon.
I call it 'FIRST BLOOD'. The winner is the player who achieves the first win in a GAME. Some have misunderstood and though it is a micro-match, so the winner is the player who first wins a match of two games.

[Mick Norris]

I've just noticed that games 6 and 7 are successive Whites for Anand and (consequently) successive Black's for Carlsen, which means that the match begins and ends (if it goes to game 12) with Whites for Carlsen. Is there a logical reason for the colour sequence to change like this? Is this traditionally done in matches? It seems to have been done this way for the last few at least, though not for the Kramnik-Leko match (and maybe others as well).

As has been said, it changed when the match became a sequence of 2 games and a rest day, which in turn seemed to follow the reduction to 12 games total (I remember Kramnik - Leko as 14 games, not sure about the others)

It can mean the crucial point is games 6 and 7 in the middle i.e. either using the extra white or surviving it (again I remember Kramnik being in trouble against Anand by that stage)

It would be nice if the outcome of this match was enthusiasm to move from 12 to 14 or 16 games for the next match (assuming we aren't going back to proper matches of at least 24 games)

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I've just noticed that games 6 and 7 are successive Whites for Anand and (consequently) successive Black's for Carlsen, which means that the match begins and ends (if it goes to game 12) with Whites for Carlsen. Is there a logical reason for the colour sequence to change like this? Is this traditionally done in matches? It seems to have been done this way for the last few at least, though not for the Kramnik-Leko match (and maybe others as well).

As has been said, it changed when the match became a sequence of 2 games and a rest day, which in turn seemed to follow the reduction to 12 games total (I remember Kramnik - Leko as 14 games, not sure about the others)

It can mean the crucial point is games 6 and 7 in the middle i.e. either using the extra white or surviving it (again I remember Kramnik being in trouble against Anand by that stage)

It would be nice if the outcome of this match was enthusiasm to move from 12 to 14 or 16 games for the next match (assuming we aren't going back to proper matches of at least 24 games)

Well, there is a rest day between the games of the same colour, so that might make a difference as well. Ans as Roger pointed out, there are rest days before both games 11 and 12, which kind of encourages the players to put out more effort at that point, but possibly shifts the emphasis towards that end of the match, and hence exacerbates the tendency for the start of such matches to be slower and more cagey. I'm hoping we get a really good game on Friday.

[Matt Mackenzie]

And some people were writing off this match after the first game

All we need is a win now!

[NickFaulks]

Peter Shaw >I've always thought they should follow the example of tennis tie breaks and use the sequence WBBWWBBWWBBW rather than swap after every game.<

That is indeed the system proposed by Ashot Vardapetian and to be found in the Tournament Rules C.05. Annex 3 K.1.b. It has not yet caught on. The idea is that this is somewhat superior to Armageddon which is one game sudden death. Eventually though time may run out and they have to resort to Armageddon.
I call it 'FIRST BLOOD'. The winner is the player who achieves the first win in a GAME. Some have misunderstood and though it is a micro-match, so the winner is the player who first wins a match of two games.

The WBBWWBB... version of "First Blood" will still always favour the player who has White in the first game.
If you think there is always a 50% chance of a draw, then a fair system is for the player with the first White to play with Black in ALL successive games. I don't think that will catch on.

[Stewart Reuben]

But we know all tournament systems with an odd number of games are unfair. But they have caught on.
The only fair pairing system for RR or Swiss is where each player has two games against each opponent. Such systems are not popular. I would like there to be a Swiss with two games against each opponent in each round.

[Roger de Coverly]

A change of style for today. A Marshall Gambit against the Triangle no less ( 1. c4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 e6 4. e4 ) although continuing in a more positional style with 4. .. dxe4 5. Nxe4 Bb4+ 6. Nc3 ) There's a theory madhouse which starts 6. Bd2 Qxd4 .

An original position has now arisen where White has time and space in exchange for the dark squared Bishop and an isolated e pawn. Currently at move 12, if the e3 pawn were on e4, the position would have a very Sicilian look to it.

[Ian Kingston]

For the benefit of those who want to see the game:

[White "Magnus Carlsen"] [Black "Viswanathan Anand"] [PlyCount "31"] 1. c4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 c6 4. e4 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Bb4+ 6. Nc3 c5 7. a3 Ba5 8. Nf3 Nf6 9. Be3 Nc6 10. Qd3 cxd4 11. Nxd4 Ng4 12. O-O-O Nxe3 13. fxe3 Bc7 14. Nxc6 bxc6 15. Qxd8+ Bxd8 16. Be2 Ke7 17. Bf3 Bd7 18. Ne4 Bb6 19. c5 f5 20. cxb6 fxe4 21. b7 Rab8 22. Bxe4 Rxb7 23. Rhf1 Rb5 24. Rf4 g5 25. Rf3 h5 26. Rdf1 Be8 27. Bc2 Rc5 28. Rf6 h4 29. e4 a5 30. Kd2 Rb5 31. b3 *

10. Qd3 appears to be a novelty. 10. dxc5 was played in Susan Polgar-Lajos Portisch, Budapest 1993.

[Simon Brown]

Looks to me at move 27 like the sort of position Carlsen has been winning recently - equal, but with dynamic chances and some practical difficulties in defence.

[Tim Spanton]

Looks to me at move 27 like the sort of position Carlsen has been winning recently - equal, but with dynamic chances and some practical difficulties in defence.

But winning against the likes of Annand?

[Stewart Reuben]

Why wasn't 16...Bg5 better than 16...Ke7?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Why wasn't 16...Bg5 better than 16...Ke7?

Or indeed 16...Bb6 (suggested by the online computer engine). Same idea in both cases, though maybe one is better than the other. Maybe it makes little difference.