2016 Candidates Moscow 10-29 March

[NickFaulks]

Can you honestly say anyone else in the Candidates would do better?

I think there are several people who could do better than a 3-1 loss, Anand being one of them. Kramnik another, pity that an absurd rating definition kept the world no 2 out of it.

[Jonathan Bryant]

A common but unconvincing argument in the lower reaches of the Surrey League. No more convincing about World Championship matches.

I know what you mean, but in this case I'll stay with it. Perhaps I'll see you on the other side of a bet.

I’ll put up "Will be nice about Nakamura for a month". What do you stake in return?


With regard to Anand, the point is not so much that somebody else won’t very probably lose too. It’s that they’ll at least (very probably) lose differently. Not necessarily in terms of the score.

I don’t view the matches at all close, btw. 3-1 last time around is a bit of an improvement over 3-0 in 2013, it’s true, but it could hardly have gone any worse for Anand than the first match. Also worth remember that his sole win was the result of Calrsen choosing a totally rank - and worse, already known to be bad - opening in game 3 of 2014. He’s not going to be able to rely on that happening too often - but Carlsen will v probably be able to grind Vishy into blunders again.

Combine the two match scores to 6-1 and things look really very grim indeed for Anand.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Would age count against Anand again, or would experience (having played Carlsen in two previous matches) help more?

Might Carlsen just play badly at a crucial moment? I still think a match starting with series of draws and a surprise loss would put the pressure on Carlsen like he has never experienced before, and this would be the same against anyone, not just Anand. The way to beat Carlsen may be to get that vital first win on the board before he does, and then snatch a second win if he overpresses when trying to level the scores. Have we ever seen Carlsen playing from behind, having to catch up? In tournaments, yes, but not in matches.

Of course, Caruana could make all this academic by winning today.

[Paolo Casaschi]

I don't think anyone wants to see that.

Speak for yourself: if Anand wins the candidates I would be happy with Carlsen Anand #3.

The other day on twitter I made a joke about people calling it Carlsen - Anand 3 because that was the number of people in the world who wanted to see it happen.

Somebody replied saying one was Anand (another title challenge) one was Carlsen (an easy win) and asking who the other was. I guess now we know.

I guess the third one could have been Shirov that was defrauded of a well earned chance to challenge Kasparov, just because nobody wanted to see that match. You can only hope that in case of a win for Anand, then Agon might appoint Nakamura as a challenger just because people and sponsors would rather see him playing against Carlsen in NY. It would not be such a surprise something like that happening, so you can still hope. Without any doubt, you'll find someone on twitter agreeing with that.

[JustinHorton]

I think Giri flatters himself, comparing himself to Carlsen.

You might be right - and I think you are right - but he's still to lose to Carlsen, and that has to count for something.

I'm not closer than I was a couple of rounds ago to deciding whether Caruana is better than the pack, or no better than the pack but generally better-prepared. (Or neither, I suppose.) It's plausible that Caruana has a better chance against Carlsen than has Karjakin or Anand or Aronian. Giri might also have a chance but after the last round I'm not optimistic that he's going to get one.

[MartinCarpenter]

I don’t view the matches at all close, btw. 3-1 last time around is a bit of an improvement over 3-0 in 2013, it’s true, but it could hardly have gone any worse for Anand than the first match. Also worth remember that his sole win was the result of Calrsen choosing a totally rank - and worse, already known to be bad - opening in game 3 of 2014.

Well, if we're thinking like that (a bit silly ) then one of Carlsen's wins involved quite a major blunder that Vishy didn't spot until slightly too late, and another was mostly the result of Anand feeling he really needed to press for a win with black and overbalancing.

Carlsen would probably win of course but not a given. Perhaps more chance of a surprise with him facing Anand for the third time - some chances of motivation slipping - than with someone new who could really motivate Carlsen.

[JustinHorton]

Current odds:

Karjakin 2/1
Anand 9/4
Caruana 3/1
Aronian 100/30
Giri 14/1

66/1 Bar

(I've slightly tinkered with the actual odds given to make them resemble something you'd see at a racetrack and not need a calculator for)

[Jonathan Bryant]

I still think a match starting with series of draws and a surprise loss would put the pressure on Carlsen like he has never experienced before, and this would be the same against anyone, not just Anand. The way to beat Carlsen may be to get that vital first win on the board before he does ...

People used to say exactly that about Kasparov. IIRC there’s chat along these lines in Lawson’s book about the 1993 match. There was certainly the same kind of talk in 1995. I remember Vishy himself saying something along the lines of "everybody told me if I was level or even just -1 at halfway I’d have a good chance". We all know how that turned out.

Anyway, I’m sure the strategy you describe has occurred to Anand before. It’s the not losing bit of the plan that he found tricky - as would everybody else.


That said, I do think you have a valid point of sorts. Everybody used to talk about Carlsen being an iceman but he totally went to pieces at the end of the London Candidates’ when it really got tight. If somebody could get at him in a match who knows how he’ll react. As ever it’s getting to 5-5 after 10 games as opposed to 3.5 - 6.5 that’s the difficult bit.

[Jonathan Bryant]

... one of Carlsen's wins involved quite a major blunder that Vishy didn't spot until slightly too late, and another was mostly the result of Anand feeling he really needed to press for a win with black and overbalancing.

This is totally different. What you describe is Anand being put under pressure by Carlsen. Carlsen’s game 3 opening choice was him self-destructing and Anand did nothing to bring it about.

If Anand does have a chance in any future match with Carlsen it’s that the Norwegian lad turns up really not having bothered to prepare in any meaningful way. It wouldn’t be the first time in chess (or other sports) that somebody lost to an opponent they really should have beaten by simply assuming their own invincibility.

That’s down to Carlsen though. There’s nothing Anand can do to bring that about. The same isn’t true the other way around.

[NickFaulks]

White e-pawns feeling rather neglected today.

[Matthew Turner]

So we've had this
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. g3 Bb4 5. Bg2 O-O *

three times today. That must be a surprise.

[JustinHorton]

So we've had this
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. g3 Bb4 5. Bg2 O-O *

three times today. That must be a surprise.

Yes. And Nakamura following Topalov with 6...d6. Which means Svidler has to decide whether or not to follow Aronian.

EDIT: and now vice versa!

[Jonathan Bryant]

White e-pawns feeling rather neglected today.

Indeed.

Since Svidler has let me down, I’m going to say a little something about the d3 Anti-Berlin (an opening about which I know much more than I’d like to) just to fill the gap.

As Roger said the other day, 1 e4 e5, 2 Nf3 Nc6, 3 Bb5 Nf6, 4 d3 Bc5 White's 5 Bxc6 is a real possibility. I remember Kramnik saying something along the lines of 'I could never play this kind of chess' about this exchange, but i think that was after Luke gave him a real scare with at the Classic a few years ago.

There’s an interesting comparison with the Delayed Exchange Deferred (or whatever it’s called)
1 e4 e5, 2 Nf3 Nc6, 3 Bb5 a6, 4 Ba4 Nf6, 5 0-0 Be7, 6 Bxc6, dxc6, and now 7 d3 is by far the most popular move according to my database.

The d3 anti-Berlin lines can transpose into this except with Black having a6 on the board and the bish on c5 instead of e7. I think these are different to the ordinary exchange lines that Roger mentions because there’s no immediate plan of playing d2-d4. Or at least if you do as White you have to lose another tempo. So going ...f7-f6 is a typical plan in the anti-berlin (presumably because you’re solidifying a central pawn rather than an empty square as you would be in the exchange after ... exude).

Misplaced minor pieces or otherwise, it’s never been that clear to me that the delayed/deferred exchange was really that good for White. It’s certainly never been as popular at elite level as 5 Bxc6 in the d3 anti-Berlin. The interesting thing about the line that Caruana played against Nakamura is that it followed the tendency of White making a virtue out of not having 0-0 yet by going long instead.

[JustinHorton]

Re: Svidler-Nakamura and Aronian-Topalov, Hansen (1999) doesn't seem to give 6...d6 at all, while Bagirov (1994) says Miles tried it in "on numerous occasions with satisfactory results". (These are old books, for sure, but it's a line that was much played back then and much less played since!

(Franco's 2006 book scarcely bothers with it either, appropriately enough since Franco's book is scarcely worth bothering with.)

[JustinHorton]

Meanwhile Caruana-Anand has certain features in common with this famous game, which may help explain why Anand has used up a lot of time over the last three moves.