Anand v Carlsen

[John Cox]

A distinctly superior method.

[Jonathan Rogers]

(Nonsense analysis since deleted)

Which of Carlsen's wins do we find most impressive?

[Ray Sayers]

That's a tough one.

Easier to ask, which was Anand's biggest howler?

No disrespect to Carlsen of course; he deserved to win all 3 games and it's the guy who makes the last mistake who wins.

But I just wonder if Anand would have played those blunders against anyone except Carlsen?! (Not saying he wouldn't, just inviting comment!).

[Matthew Turner]

I think the third win is brilliant because it is a tremendous piece of psychology, but it couldn't have come about without the first two wins. If you think about the first win, Anand has made a good start to the match, drawing the first 4 and he is faced with an insipid opening from White. 'All' he needs do is draw that one too and he will have two Whites to have a real go. Therefore surely given the game situation game 5 must be the most impressive win by Carlsen.

[Kevin Thurlow]

More tripe from the press conference, Anand was asked about a long think he had, (something like) "Were you calculating complicated variations?", to which he said, (with a straight face and even tone), "No, I was wondering what to eat tonight."

[Clive Blackburn]

Therefore surely given the game situation game 5 must be the most impressive win by Carlsen.

I agree, game 5 - it shattered Anand's confidence and following that he must have thought that Carlsen was always likely to beat him in an endgame, even a level one.

Carlsen didn't do anything stunning in game 5, he just showed that he has studied rook and pawn endings more deeply than Anand and can play them out to the finish without blundering.

[John Cox]

[

Carlsen didn't do anything stunning in game 5, he just showed that he has studied rook and pawn endings more deeply than Anand and can play them out to the finish without blundering.

If you mean game 6, then I assure you that you're mistaken. Not one grandmaster in a hundred would have come up with Carlsen's 'last trap' and gone for it.

[Ian Kingston]

I think anyone playing Rh3 in that position would be in some trouble with the computer transmited moves police Is this some real, very computerish, thing or a typo for the much more believable Bh3?

It's real - the idea is if Black takes and White recaptures with the bishop, the threat of Bf5, followed by mate at h7, forces Black to take a perpetual.

Of course, Carlsen might well have been happy with that.

[Clive Blackburn]

[

Carlsen didn't do anything stunning in game 5, he just showed that he has studied rook and pawn endings more deeply than Anand and can play them out to the finish without blundering.

If you mean game 6, then I assure you that you're mistaken. Not one grandmaster in a hundred would have come up with Carlsen's 'last trap' and gone for it.

No John, I did mean game 5, which was Carlsen's first win.

[John Cox]

Oh, OK. You confused me by saying it was the most impressive game and then saying Carlsen did nothing stunning, and then saying that all the action was in the rook ending, when Anand put himself on the brink by playing the wrong moves before that stage.

[Clive Blackburn]

Game 5 was a rook ending as well, arising from a Berlin. It was theoretically drawn as well but Anand went wrong and let Carlsen get passed a + h pawns, which won it.

[John Cox]

Yes, I know. But I don't really recognise your description of the game. Still, whatever.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Carlsen didn't do anything stunning in game 5, he just showed that he has studied rook and pawn endings more deeply than Anand and can play them out to the finish without blundering.

I'm not sure I understand the basis of your feeling that this game showed that Carlsen had studied more deeply, but I certainly agree about the importance of demonstrating strong practical play in rook endings. This was one area - probably the only one* - in which Carlsen had shown even the slightest wobble this year.





* well, there are some who would say a bit of a ramshackle opening repertoire should be counted there too, but I'm not sure everybody would agree.

[Roger de Coverly]

* well, there are some who would say a bit of a ramshackle opening repertoire should be counted there too, but I'm not sure everybody would agree.

Today's idea, both of taking on d5 with the pawn at move 7 and playing the immediate c4 was said to have been past preparation by the Norwegian team.

This game has some similarities to today's game 9.

[Event "It (active)"] [Site "Fredrikstad (Norway)"] [Date "2012.01.08"] [Round "7"] [White "Haugli Petter (NOR)"] [Black "Hammer Jon Ludvig (NOR)"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "E25"] [WhiteElo "2281"] [BlackElo "2621"] [Annotator ""] [Source ""] [Remark ""] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.cxd5 exd5 8.e3 c4 9.Ne2 Nc6 10.Nf4 O-O 11.g4 Na5 12.Rb1 b6 13.h4 Bb7 14.g5 Ne8 15.Bh3 Nc7 16.Kf2 Bc8 17.Qc2 Bxh3 18.Rxh3 f5 19.a4 Qd7 20.Ba3 Rfe8 21.Rg3 Rad8 22.Rb2 Nb3 23.Ra2 a5 24.Qb1 b5 25.g6 h6 26.Rg5 b4 27.cxb4 axb4 28.Bxb4 Rb8 29.Rxf5 Rxb4 30.Rf7 Re7 31.Rxe7 Qxe7 32.Qf5 Qxh4+ 33.Kg2 Qg5+ 34.Qxg5 hxg5 35.Ne2 Na5 36.Kg3 Rb3 37.Kf2 Kf8 38.Ra1 Ke7 39.Rg1 Kf6 40.Ng3 Rb2+ 41.Ne2 Nb3 0-1

[John McKenna]

Game 5 was a rook ending as well, arising from a Berlin. It was theoretically drawn as well but Anand went wrong and let Carlsen get passed a + h pawns, which won it.

Yes, I know. But I don't really recognise your description of the game. Still, whatever.

I, too, did not recognise game 5 as a Berlin.

Chessbase News has it as ECO D31 (Geoff, sorry no PGN) -

Carlsen, Magnus–Anand, Viswanathan 1–0 D31 FWCM 2013 (5) Chennai 15.11.2013

1.c4 (Carlsen decides that he's had enough of 1. Nf3.)
1... e6 2.d4 d5 (Vishy opts for QGD, with which he won the decisive last game in his match v. Topalov.)
3.Nc3 c6 (Psyche! Now it is a triangle Semi Slav.)
4.e4 dxe4
5.Nxe4 Bb4+ (Is Magnus going to take Vishy on in the main lines of the Marshall Gambit?)
6.Nc3 (Nope. This is a quieter option for White, but it has plenty of sting...)

[comments by Josh Friedel]

To me this was game that showed the old tiger was no match for the young wolf.

I've enjoyed following all the comments on here including Geoff's eminently sensible and Mats' provocatively zany ones!

(Edit: Or Geoff's provocatively zany and Mats' eminently sensible ones?)

Is the mortally wounded tiger still dangerous or has he had enough?

We'll soon see.