Anand v Carlsen

Stewart Reuben · Post by **Stewart Reuben** » Thu Nov 21, 2013 2:48 am

39 Qg3 is an easy win.

Geoff Chandler · Post by **Geoff Chandler** » Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:43 am

Hi Stewart,

You have not posted any game note or position. "Just 39. Qg3 is an easy win."

As this thread is about Anand v Carlsen I have to asume that 39.Qg3 is an easy win
from one of their games.

The only game that fits is game 5 - the others never made it to move 39 and
those that have had the Queens off by move 39.

But on move 39 in game 5 the Queen is already on g3.

Anand - Carlsen Game 5 White to play his 39th move.

So obviouly there is a misunderstanding taking place.

I keep asking the forum users to post postions with their moves
so this kind of thing does not happen.

Wait a minute....this is a new page, I'll go back a page.

Ahh it's Mats game which was transported to my world you are talking about.

You are suggesting 39.Qg3 wins here.

Oh No.
You must remember I have White losing on time so round about here White was
very short on time so wanted to keep his Queen on h4 so he could play the Qd8+ - Qg4+ perpetual.
On move 41 he played Qg3 becuase he remembered that FICS games do not recognise a 3 fold rep.

Mats Winther · Post by **Mats Winther** » Thu Nov 21, 2013 6:32 am

I played this slightly silly game according to the device of Petrosian: "maintain control over the important squares by way of maneuvering". Notice that Black is evidently a good player that knows the game. Visually black has an overwhelming advantage. Black controls the c-file, pressures on the e-pawn, controls the long diagonal to the king, has a centralized queen. Nevertheless, since the important squares are under control, there is no danger, whereas Black loses because he/she failed to control the important square g8.

This was the Petrosianic method taken to the extreme, just to prove that it is workable. Petrosian won games in a similar way against GMs. Some have argued that it presented a hindrance for Petrosian's development. Since he found that he could defeat GMs in this way, he stopped working hard with chess.

Due to this find, the notion of spatial advantage had to be reevaluated. As long as the party that has less space can still maneuver and control important squares, the spatial advantage holds no real value. I am practicing this kind of play, and as you can see, it works. For this reason, Petrosian was the best defensive player in history. It is a very curious property of defensive play. Petrosian's method is still not properly understood. Defensive maneuvering, and the notion of important squares, is underestimated vis-Ã -vis the notion of active attacking play, along lines of Kasparov.

M. Winther

Ian Kingston · Post by **Ian Kingston** » Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:56 am

Meanwhile, back in Chennai...

I don't think there's much doubt that Anand has come out fighting in Game 9.

Roger de Coverly · Post by **Roger de Coverly** » Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:02 am

A potentially unbalanced game this time.

Move 10 appears the parting of the ways. 10. .. Na5 was preferred by O'Kelly De Galway against Korchnoi back in 1954 and also by Alekseev more recently. 10. .. h6 was Judit Polgar's move against Kasparov(!) in 1997. Other ideas are 10. .. h5 by Gajewski, 10. .. 0-0 by Shabalov and 10. .. g5 by Inkiov.

(edit) Shabalov's move was preferred (/edit)

(edit) Here's the whole Shabalov game that the players are "following" (/edit)

Ian Kingston · Post by **Ian Kingston** » Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:52 pm

All over bar the shouting:

Jonathan Bryant · Post by **Jonathan Bryant** » Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:02 pm

Ian Kingston wrote:All over bar the shouting

And not much shouting, I suspect. Don't think the coffee shop is going a second cup of tea and a Portuguese Tart out of me tomorrow as I watch the moves come in there.

I joined the game just as Vishy was contemplating Rf1-f4. Naturally, I thought: "can he do the rook lift here and mate?" and equally naturally I thought: "but I'm sure Carlsen wouldn't have allowed it if it worked"

By the time I'd thought that they'd flashed out the moves to ... Qe1 and the game was over.

Clive Blackburn · Post by **Clive Blackburn** » Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:03 pm

Ian Kingston wrote: I don't think there's much doubt that Anand has come out fighting in Game 9.

Yes he came out fighting, built up an impressive attack and then fell for a sucker punch!

Ian Kingston · Post by **Ian Kingston** » Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:12 pm

Clive Blackburn wrote:
Ian Kingston wrote: I don't think there's much doubt that Anand has come out fighting in Game 9.
Yes he came out fighting, built up an impressive attack and then fell for a sucker punch!

The engines say 28 Bf1 is unclear at first glance. 28 Nf1?? is something we can all sympathise with.

Anand has just explained that he was still visualising the knight as being on g3 and simply didn't see Qe1 until he'd moved the knight.

Roger de Coverly · Post by **Roger de Coverly** » Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:18 pm

Clive Blackburn wrote: Yes he came out fighting, built up an impressive attack and then fell for a sucker punch!

With the pawn on b7/b6/b5 instead of b3, the attack would presumably have got through. With the pawn on b3, the engines, at least, thought that Black had sufficient defensive resources.

In the final position if Bf1 is played instead of Nf1, then Black has Qd1 with the idea of playing Qh5 in response to Rh4. The Knight from g3 can take this, but the recapture opens up the h7 square to defence from Bf5. It would be two pawns for the piece, but you would presume a draw at best for White.

Clive Blackburn · Post by **Clive Blackburn** » Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:20 pm

Ian Kingston wrote: The engines say 28 Bf1 is unclear at first glance. 28 Nf1?? is something we can all sympathise with.

Anand has just explained that he was still visualising the knight as being on g3 and simply didn't see Qe1 until he'd moved the knight.

Yes that looks like the finish to one of my league games, not a World Championship game!

Carlsen only needs one draw now from 3 games, can't really see that presenting a problem!

Angus French · Post by **Angus French** » Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:21 pm

Clive Blackburn wrote:... [Anand] came out fighting, built up an impressive attack and then fell for a sucker punch!

I thought Carlsen's defence was impressive too.

Clive Blackburn · Post by **Clive Blackburn** » Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:30 pm

Angus French wrote:
Clive Blackburn wrote:... [Anand] came out fighting, built up an impressive attack and then fell for a sucker punch!
I thought Carlsen's defence was impressive too.

Yes I agree, when Carlsen played the pawn to b3 I thought it looked like desperation as they were never going to get to an ending, but it turned out to be the winning move!

Steve Rooney · Post by **Steve Rooney** » Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:33 pm

Angus French wrote:
Clive Blackburn wrote:... [Anand] came out fighting, built up an impressive attack and then fell for a sucker punch!
I thought Carlsen's defence was impressive too.

Indeed, he simply said 'come and get me' and Anand's calculator let him down.

This game was probably an answer to those who said that Anand should have played sharply from the outset. Maybe he's just not at the top of his game and had self-doubt about being able to crash through Carlsen's stoical defence.

Jonathan Bryant · Post by **Jonathan Bryant** » Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:36 pm

Ian Kingston wrote:
Clive Blackburn wrote:
Ian Kingston wrote: I don't think there's much doubt that Anand has come out fighting in Game 9.
Yes he came out fighting, built up an impressive attack and then fell for a sucker punch!
The engines say 28 Bf1 is unclear at first glance. 28 Nf1?? is something we can all sympathise with.

Anand has just explained that he was still visualising the knight as being on g3 and simply didn't see Qe1 until he'd moved the knight.

So how long was he thinking about Rf1-f4? He moved about a minute after a turned up, but I gather that was after a lenghty pause.

English Chess Forum

Anand v Carlsen

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Re: Anand v Carlsen