Carlsen - Anand 2014

[Paolo Casaschi]

After the 2nd game they seem to "underestimate" him even more

Actually, no. You could get 5/1 before the game, so it wouldn't be a surprise if you could get 10/1 now, but you can't.

Actually, yes. You can get 6/1 now and 6/1 "underestimates" Anand's chances of winning the match even more
If you think differently, feel free to bet on Anand. Betting on Carlsen is only 1/12, you need a lot of disposable cash at hand to make it worth.

For the sake of the match, Anand must start to play more like the Anand who dominated the Candidates. Here, his strategy, as soon as he is out of his opening prep, seems to be "I'm not going to take any chances, come and get me". Just like in Madras, Carlsen came and got him.

I agree with IM Cox here... Anand should start playing better than Carlsen, but this does not seem to be "on the cards".

[Graham Borrowdale]

I think we are witnessing a fairly meaningless world championship match. I never understood why there was one scheduled for 2014 when there was one in 2013, and I doubt Carlsen does either, but that is a different argument. Anand qualified in the proper way, of course, but he is not Muhamed Ali. I am sure Anand will play as well as he can, but he is past his peak, so, while he might raise his performance level for an individual game or two, I can not see him sustaining it for a whole match, and the early loss makes it more likely that he might collapse and end up humiliated. It reminds me of the last Karpov-Korchnoi match in 1981 (6-2 to Karpov - 'The Massacre in Merano').

[Nick Burrows]

I never understood why there was one scheduled for 2014 when there was one in 2013

$$$$$

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I never understood why there was one scheduled for 2014 when there was one in 2013

$$$$$

Partly, but it was also because the schedule slipped. The 2013 one was supposed to have been in 2012, IIRC. That also led to Carlsen not becoming World Champion at a younger age than Garry Kasparov, but as Carlsen withdrew from the earlier cycle that is partly his fault (not that I think he cares that much). I think there was also an issue with needing to bring things back to a 2-year cycle, but maybe I'm thinking of the changes they made after the slipping of the schedule. The one after this one will be in 2016, AFAIK. So a normal 2-year cycle.

[NickFaulks]

but he is past his peak

You may be right, but if so he has hit the skids alarmingly quickly. In his 2850 performance at this year's Candidates, which he won at a canter, he did not look like an old guy who was a bit past it.

It seems here that whenever he has a choice of plausible moves he goes for the passive one. That's not how he plays.

[Ray Sayers]

You have to walk a mile in Anand's shoes before criticising him too much.

Before this match started, the general opinion was that Anand would fare better than last time. But that misses 2 important points:

1. At 23, Carlsen is still improving and will likely improve for several more years
2. Kasparov summed it up best when he said that the main advantage Carlsen had over Anand is that he is the better player.

Not much Anand can do about #2.

[Graham Borrowdale]

You have to walk a mile in Anand's shoes before criticising him too much.

Just to be clear, I was not criticising him at all, just pointing out that he is probably past his peak in terms of objective playing strength. I would say his 2850 performance at the last candidates was above average, compared with his other results of the last couple of years.

[Arshad Ali]

In case it hasn't already been mentioned, Anand is also psychologically fragile. Specifically, he can't put up the kind of fight Kasparov did in his first match against Karpov when he was down 5-1 and Karpov needed only one more win. Anand has trouble playing opponents who are at least as good as he is -- well, we all do, but it's compounded by the aforementioned fragility.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

In case it hasn't already been mentioned, Anand is also psychologically fragile. Specifically, he can't put up the kind of fight Kasparov did in his first match against Karpov when he was down 5-1 and Karpov needed only one more win. Anand has trouble playing opponents who are at least as good as he is -- well, we all do, but it's compounded by the aforementioned fragility.

Kramnik, Topalov and Gelfand might disagree with that analysis...

[JustinHadi]

I think Anand should play the French against 1.e4 as in this game where he defeated Kasparov.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018264

I think this game is annotated in Anand's best games where he said he just decided to play the French to avoid Kasparov's preparation.

edit : But of course Carlsen is an entirely different kettle of fish to Kasparov and you would think that the Tarrasch would be right in his style. But what else to play?

[MartinCarpenter]

Kramnik especially I think, because Anand slightly stronger than the other two.

The solution in this match isn't really openings because you can't avoid getting the sort of position that is causing problems. Just have to hold them more often somehow.

Maybe not quite the same but it did of course take even Kasparov absolutely ages before he got used to doing that vs Karpov.

[JustinHadi]

I don't know Anand might do better defending IQP French Tarrasch positions as in Karpov-Korchnoi 1974 and 1978.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I'm not sure switching openings after one defeat is the right thing to do, but in short matches one player may need to switch to plan B or even plan C. Both teams of opening analysts presumable have possibilities lined up, but ultimately the player themselves needs to decide what to do.

[Matt Mackenzie]

In case it hasn't already been mentioned, Anand is also psychologically fragile. Specifically, he can't put up the kind of fight Kasparov did in his first match against Karpov when he was down 5-1 and Karpov needed only one more win. Anand has trouble playing opponents who are at least as good as he is -- well, we all do, but it's compounded by the aforementioned fragility.

Apart from his poor score v Kasparov (who was "only" the strongest player ever, after all) is there really that much evidence for this?

[Arshad Ali]

In case it hasn't already been mentioned, Anand is also psychologically fragile. Specifically, he can't put up the kind of fight Kasparov did in his first match against Karpov when he was down 5-1 and Karpov needed only one more win. Anand has trouble playing opponents who are at least as good as he is -- well, we all do, but it's compounded by the aforementioned fragility.

Apart from his poor score v Kasparov (who was "only" the strongest player ever, after all) is there really that much evidence for this?

The match against Carlsen last year.

I expect Anand to go down this time as well, but perhaps showing a bit more resilience. A negative score by the end of the second game against the world's strongest player does not augur well.

Carlsen's irresistible force has encountered Anand's almost immovable object and the former will prevail.