Carlsen - new World Champion!

[Wayne Komer]

Re: Carlsen wins Game Nine

World Chess Championship Chennai 2013

Nov. 21, 2013

Game Nine
Anand, Viswanathan - Carlsen, Magnus
WCH 2013, Chennai IND 2013.11.21
E25 Nimzo-Indian, Samisch variation

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. g4 O-O 11. Bg2 Na5 12. O-O Nb3 13. Ra2 b5 14. Ng3 a5 15. g5 Ne8 16. e4 Nxc1 17. Qxc1 Ra6 18. e5 Nc7 19. f4 b4 20. axb4 axb4 21. Rxa6 Nxa6 22. f5 b3 23. Qf4 Nc7 24. f6 g6 25. Qh4 Ne8 26. Qh6 b2 27. Rf4 b1=Q+ 28. Nf1 Qe1 0-1

(From the Official Site) - The ninth game of the FIDE World Championship Match, sponsored by Tamil Nadu state and currently ongoing in Chennai, finished in Magnus Carlsen’s favour after 28 moves of play. The defending champion Viswanathan Anand made the first move 1. d4, which was greeted with enthusiastic applause in the playing hall. The challenger and world’s top rated player responded with his trusted Nimzo-Indian defence.

Anand repeated the line that he already used in the match with Vladimir Kramnik in Bonn 2008. Black was obviously well prepared, as he made a rare recapture on move 7 (exd5 instead of more common Nxd5) and then immediately closed the queenside with 8…c4. The experts from the Norwegian lounge claimed that this line was analysed among the members of the national team. Indian GM Abhijeet Gupta said that the pawn structure demanded that players expand on opposite flanks.

Anand got an impressive pawn mass rolling towards the black king, while Carlsen created a passed pawn on b3, deep within opponent’s territory. Anand spent around 30 minutes to calculate complicated lines before going all in with 23. Qf4. White went directly for the checkmate and black promoted a new queen on b1.

However, playing too quickly Anand erred with 28. Nf1, which effectively concluded the game after Carlsen’s reply 28…Qe1. Carlsen is now leading 6-3 and needs only one draw in the remaining three games to claim the title of FIDE World Champion.
+++++++++

(Morley from ChessVibes) Vishy deserves credit for going down swinging. If he had played like this from the beginning, before losing his confidence and being in a must-win scenario, the match might have gone very differently. These kinds of games would have put wear and tear on Carlsen, and Anand would have had much better chances.

Carlsen's calm under fire, and his resourcefulness and precision whilst defending, were very impressive this game. He spent a lot of time on the b3 push (down almost 40 minutes at one point), calculated the forcing / best lines, and then played out the rest of the game in only a few minutes. He also rattled off the top computer line in the press conference (28. Bf1 Qd1 29. Rh4 Qh5 30. Nxh5 gxh5 31. Rxh5 Bf5 32. Bh3 Bg6 33. e6 Nxf6) that would probably lead to a draw. He just saw much deeper than Vishy, who simply missed a one-move tactic.

Also, it was nice of Carlsen not to humor the obnoxious Norwegian journalist re: the Nigel Short tweet.

{Nigel Short just tweeted that "it is the end of an era" and the journalist asked if both players would comment. Anastasiya said,”Actually it is not the end of the match yet” and Magnus said, ”Let's be correct here” and declined to answer}

++++++++
Lawrence and Tania are commentating on the last phase of the game.

(Lawrence) My gut feeling is that White is going to checkmate Black. We do have a move! The Queen has left the last rank and joined the party on f4. (23.Qf4) Times are 22 minutes for Anand remaining and 33 minutes for Carlsen.

Caruana tweets to the pair: A dream scenario for Vishy by the looks of it. Black’s position is tough to defend. Nice to see the champ isn’t going down without a fight!

They show a variation where Black is let queen, the check is blocked with the bishop and then White starts a mating sequence on the h column.

In the midst of this exciting phase, someone tweets in the question: Are you allowed to make written notes on your calculations during the game? Lawrence and Tania say this is possible.

Back to the game, Lawrence says he can’t see how Black can stop White checkmating. White plays 26.Qh6 and Black plays 26…b2. Now White plays Rf4.
The black queen checks and White blocks with the knight.

(Lawrence) Nf1. This is a huge blunder. This is an absolute shocker. What an incredible mistake. Magnus plays 28…Qe1.

(Tania) Oh my God!

(Lawrence) We have heard a number of shouts and screaming from next door – the Norwegian lounge. Poor Vishy. I feel gutted for him.

(Magnus leaves the board leaving Vishy staring at the position)

(Tania) I think I am going to cry now. I feel so bad now, Lawrence.

(Lawrence) I feel in shock. Vishy has resigned. My heart goes out to him because he really went for it. Poor old Vishy having to face the press now.
+++++++++

Viewers’ Comments

- Carlsen produced witchcraft - beating Anand with all his pieces on the back row! 
Carlsen also calculated that there was no forced mate. That level of talent is simply stunning. That is why Carlsen is great like a Deity whereas Anand's play was enough to get him to beat guys like Kramnik and Gelfand but against Kasparovs and Carlsens he is not so strong.
 Kudos to Anand for finally deciding to play a game, very entertaining it was too. About time too. 
But this is why players are scared of Carlsen, if they try to beat him, it will end in tears just as much as if they play it safe, if not more so. Carlsen showed that his tactical play is superlative. That b-pawn pay was super human. Can you imagine another GM finding such resources? 
Congrats to Carlsen, he's the new World Champ.

- This will be probably the third WC match where one former WC won´t win a single game. Also quite symbolic that Anand lost his first WC game with d4 in his probably last WC game with the white pieces. Great job, Carlsen.

- The final position is almost funny (except for Anand, I guess). Every black piece on the back rank...except for one little Queen.

- Not only were all the black pieces on the back rank ... Carlsen's (original) queen and light-squared bishop never left their original squares!

- Is it just me or does anyone else find the spectacle of the game loser being wheeled out for these press conferences a little bit distasteful? Watching Anand's face-touching today was painful.

- I've really been enjoying this match and most of the live commentary - thank you to all involved! So far 5 out of 9 games have been exciting, although the players' priority obviously had to be the result. 
With hindsight it's easy to say that Anand would have had better chances if he had played the Nimzo in game 2 or game 4, but the fact is that even without Anands Nf1 blunder, today Magnus defended actively and quite well. The line Magnus gave in the press conference proves that after 28. Bf1 he would most probably have reached a draw without any further trouble, which is what happened in games 2 and 4 as well.


Of course even Magnus' play hasn't been perfect (most notably in game 3), but it does seem quite impressive and I would be very surprised if any other actual player had survived a 12 game match against him right now. 
I felt almost as sad as Tania Sachdev when Anand played Nf1, but he has lost in dignity and given this match his best, I think. It would be great to see him finish in beauty with at least one good win tomorrow, just like Kramnik in game 10 of the 2008 match, but since he'll play Black, I'd perfectly understand a quick draw as well. 
One thing is for sure: Anand is a magnificent world champion and an admirable, even a humble person. I hope Nakamura and Giri will think twice and take him as an example ;)

- It may have been a blunder at the end, but Magnus deserves credit for going with the counterplay on the queenside, instead of simply trying to defend his king side.
And a curiosity tweeted by Kasparov: Carlsen won without moving either his queen or his queen bishop!

- According to Stockfish, 28. Bf1 Qd1 29. Rh4 Qh5 30. Nxh5 gxh5 31. Rxh5 Bf5 is effectively forced. It then gives 32. g6 as best (evaluation 0.00). It seems that Black can't use the extra material after 32...Bxg6 33. Rg5 because the knight can't move unless it sacrifices itself at f6.

- Fantastic position in the Stockfish line; Black's a whole piece up but can only move the queen, and I guess White has a fortress, in effect. Well in fact he's got a bit more than that; he's got h4-h5. So maybe Black has to sacrifice on f6 now-ish. That still seems to leave him a pawn up with no particular reason to think he's not better, though. I understand nothing.

- Still be interesting to see how they approach tomorrow's game, though.

Especially if Anand will acquiesce in a quick draw, or make a final effort even if that risks going down 4-zip?
+++++++++

Standing

Carlsen 6 Anand 3

There will be a tenth game tomorrow, November 22.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Carlsen wins Game Nine

Anand gave it his best shot.

Yeah, a blunder. Is it his "do my best"? LOL

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Carlsen wins Game Nine

Carlsen is now dormie, three up with three to go.
Anand gave it his best shot.

Its as close to being over as it can be without being over.

I think the burden of proof is on those who want to eliminate world championships. Chessbase reports that an article in GQ on the Carlsen-Anand match is generating more interest than their pictorial of a Victoria Secret fashion show with the usual supermodels and Taylor Swift as headliners.

I wish they would go back to the classic 24 game format with longer time controls.

[Hal Bond]

Re: Carlsen wins Game Nine

A real thriller this time. The commentators were swooning over Anand's prospects, but Houdini never showed an advantage throughout the game for the champ. Anand's attack looked very natural yet Carlsen's passer on b3 was a nagging counterweight - one which cost Anand more than half an hour on the clock, then becoming a Queen and diffusing White's attack.
Strangely, a question was asked of the commentators about making notes on the scoresheet during analysis. The commentators did not know it was forbidden, they just said it was pointless!

[Gordon Ritchie]

Carlsen wins Game Nine

Carlsen is now dormie, three up with three to go.
Anand gave it his best shot.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: World Championship Format

Tennis has dispensed with the idea of World Champion altogether, and has a rating system like chess, with 4 major tournaments of a special category ("slams") whose accumulation is one of the measures of a champion. So, e.g., Roger Federer has 17 slams, etc. Then there is the Grand Slam (all 4 in one calendar year), and of course the PTA tournaments that add up.

What's the merit of making it compulsory to have a World Champion? In the present situation, it's probably useful to signify the changing of the generations (as it seems almost inevitable now) but, what about the situation in which there are a group of contenders? FIDE history is full of great players (Fischer and Carlsen himself in the last cycle) who have effectively boycotted the process over irregularities. For those who think that FIDE is a bloated bureacracy or something like that, why give them control over anything so important?

Furthermore, a recent world champion (Kasparov) decided that he would go off and start another organization and establish a separate World title. This will always be a danger in the current system. Especially in the time when a particular contender, say, has an edge (in rating, perhaps?) over everyone else.

What is it we wish to see? Good, fighting chess. And is the current match producing that?

Not so much. Though I should add that I'm one of those players who doesn't mind endgames as the domain of conflict.

In the literature of chess, a certain kind of book seems to stand out above the others. Of course there are many great instructional books. I mean books about great tournaments. That's where you'll probably always get great chess. New York 1924. Zurich 1953. And so on. Chess isn't simply a sporting activity ... it's also a cultural phenomena, with artistic and other attributes. A great chess game can be pored over, endlessly, with the outstanding annotation of a great player and writer, looked at again and again, replayed again, and admired. We ought to think really carefully about how to keep this tradition alive, and maybe it should trump the very idea of a world champion.

Who's number one? Who cares? Just play good chess and keep it going.

One merit to making it compulsory to have a World Champion is exposure of chess to the general public. This is the one chess event guaranteed to get media coverage around the world, even if such coverage is still substandard compared to a Super Bowl.

That is why there is right now, in this match, such an interest in the nature of the play. Anand isn't just letting himself and his fans down, he's letting chess itself down. And Carlsen, with his computer moves, isn't helping matters. Together they are showing the world, and specifically the general non-chessplaying public, the already well-known reputation of chess.

The post-mortems aren't helping either. The biggest fireworks display is Anand calling out a reporter for not understanding English? Yawn.

Andrew Paulson aims to "improve" matters in the future by hooking up monitors to the players tracking their blood pressure and heart rate (among other things). Here, that would add nothing. Every time they show Anand close up, even when he's on move, he looks like a contented cow chewing cud (he keeps doing a chewing motion, is he actually chewing something?). He looks to have no fire or competitiveness. Carlsen meanwhile looks like a couch potato watching a football game. Occassionally he sits up straight and frowns a little at the board. Heavy stuff.

The commentators are reduced to noting things like: "Carlsen coming back to his seat, appears to be putting on his jacket... maybe... is he putting on his jacket? Yes, the jacket is on. Anand seems to have no jacket today. Not wearing one and not on the back of his chair. First time in the match, no jacket for Vishy. Perhaps that is a sign he means business?"

Yes, Nigel, I can see why you would not mention this aspect of the WC. It's not something to be... enthused about.

And don't forget: people are already projecting Kramnik - Carlsen for next time! Paulson's half-mil is not going to buy chess anything. It is what it is.

And please, let's not forget: the greatest chess player in the world is Houdini. Carlsen doesn't come close. So given that, the one thing you do want to see in the Human WC is some sort of human drama.

[John Coleman]

Re: World Championship Format

GM Danny Gomally, writing on the Chess Coaching website

http://thechesscoachingwebsite.blogs...continues.html

It was desperately disappointing today to see that Anand, two points behind, has virtually given up on the match.

When he needed to win games, to sharpen the fight, he chose the Berlin defence.

It seems to me that Anand is already resigned to his fate, and although he may be intending to make a fight of the last few games, I very much doubt he'll change his overall negative strategy.

Such a shame.

However something a friend of mine pointed out to me before the world championship match may be significant.

Anand is booked to play the London Classic which starts only a few days after the World championship match. So far Carlsen is yet to accept- he may well be intending to celebrate his win.

This is a tip in itself as to who the overall [winner] of this match will be, as surely the winner of the match will be too tied down in media obligations, for example I expect Carlsen to be doing the American chat show tour after the match, assuming he wins.

Maybe I'm being harsh but the fact that Anand agreed to play the London Classic, and Carlsen did not, suggests to me that Anand already resigned himself to losing his title before the match even began.


Daniel Gormally

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: World Championship Format

... 'World/Olympic Champion' has a certain mystique that a Grand Prix (series of events) winner or computer ranking leader does not.

To hell with mystique. Sorry, Ken. I want to see chess de-mystified and it's finer points understood by as wide an audience as possible. If you've ever traveled in a country in which chess is treated with more respect than in Canada, you'll know that it's a good thing that you want to see more of.

[Ken Kurkowski]

Re: World Championship Format

A World Champion (or Olympic Gold medallist) is merely the best athlete on a given day. Sometimes that also turns out to be the dominant performer of the time (e.g. Usain Bolt), but sometimes it's a relative unknown who has the performance of his or her life. Nevertheless, 'World/Olympic Champion' has a certain mystique that a Grand Prix (series of events) winner or computer ranking leader does not.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: World Championship Format

I would argue that the idea of a "world champion" who ascends to the throne only be beating the reigning champion in a protracted match is a unique and special feature of chess and should be preserved. I cannot think of any other sport that can claim the same epic history.

Boxing has this characteristic and, it should be added, has also been characterized by criminality, fixed fights, cheating, poor officiating, and champions that duck serious contenders until they are past their prime.

That's rather uncomfortably like chess history, isnt' it?

I challenge any other sport to match us for the richness of this tapestry.

Tennis has dispensed with the idea of World Champion altogether, and has a rating system like chess, with 4 major tournaments of a special category ("slams") whose accumulation is one of the measures of a champion. So, e.g., Roger Federer has 17 slams, etc. Then there is the Grand Slam (all 4 in one calendar year), and of course the PTA tournaments that add up.

What's the merit of making it compulsory to have a World Champion? In the present situation, it's probably useful to signify the changing of the generations (as it seems almost inevitable now) but, what about the situation in which there are a group of contenders? FIDE history is full of great players (Fischer and Carlsen himself in the last cycle) who have effectively boycotted the process over irregularities. For those who think that FIDE is a bloated bureacracy or something like that, why give them control over anything so important?

Furthermore, a recent world champion (Kasparov) decided that he would go off and start another organization and establish a separate World title. This will always be a danger in the current system. Especially in the time when a particular contender, say, has an edge (in rating, perhaps?) over everyone else.

What is it we wish to see? Good, fighting chess. And is the current match producing that?

Not so much. Though I should add that I'm one of those players who doesn't mind endgames as the domain of conflict.

In the literature of chess, a certain kind of book seems to stand out above the others. Of course there are many great instructional books. I mean books about great tournaments. That's where you'll probably always get great chess. New York 1924. Zurich 1953. And so on. Chess isn't simply a sporting activity ... it's also a cultural phenomena, with artistic and other attributes. A great chess game can be pored over, endlessly, with the outstanding annotation of a great player and writer, looked at again and again, replayed again, and admired. We ought to think really carefully about how to keep this tradition alive, and maybe it should trump the very idea of a world champion.

Who's number one? Who cares? Just play good chess and keep it going.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: World Championship Format

Very strange choice of openings by Anand overall, and even more in the last game. It's like he was not even trying to create any discomfort for Carlsen and now he's compltely given up.

About the format, I'd say that 12 games is short, so taking some risks is dangerous. Even then, we still had 4 interesting games out of 8 so far (games 3 to 6). Not too bad. With a 'first to X wins' format, I doubt it would be more interesting.

And we should simply remove or change the tiebreak format. It makes for situations where the two players are actually OK with draws in the classical games (see Anand-Gelfand). Just give draw odds to the champion. Then the challenger has an incentive to play for the win. Or do something else entirely. For example, first to X wins, but you have rapids tiebreak after every drawn game. Now THAT would be something.

[Gordon Ritchie]

World Championship Format

Perhaps the questions that always float around at this stage of a match are more a commentary on our shortened attention spans in the era of the internet.
I would agree that the last two games have been rather lifeless as were the first two. There may yet be fireworks.
But even if all the remaining games were draws, would that mean the format should be changed?
I would argue that the idea of a "world champion" who ascends to the throne only be beating the reigning champion in a protracted match is a unique and special feature of chess and should be preserved. I cannot think of any other sport that can claim the same epic history. The holder of the crown can trace it back to Steinitz.
Some of those past champions dominated all forms of the game in their prime. Others, such as Botvinnik, were match specialists with less than remarkable tournament records. In every case, and despite the hiccups over the years, the champion had been required to prove himself by taking down the title holder in a match that left little doubt that the best man had won. (Pace Capablanca/Alekhine.)
Of course, our major tournaments provide us with other champions. FIDE to its credit has attempted to inject some stability into the tournament system with its various titled events, with mixed success. But the winners of closed tournaments, such as Wijk an See, or open tournaments, such as Gibraltar, have also earned an important place in our pantheon. Some of these events will be won with a string of brilliant victories, others will be characterized by a plethora of drawn games. That is all part of chess.
That does not make the champion by definition the greatest player in the world at that moment. With another extraordinary invention, the Elo system, we now have detailed ratings that calculate with amazing precision the likely outcome of a contest between two players. Even the current match, as Emil points out, has been fully consistent with that calculation. That gives us the "world number one". In some periods, that ranking is his by a wide margin---Kasparov, Carlsen---whereas in others it seesaws back and forth between leading contenders. In any case, that is another, less historic but arguably no less important, title in the world of chess.
Even as I play over a quick draw that the players rattled off in 40 minutes (game eight), I am content with leaving the basis structure much as it is today: one historic world championship determined by match play; any number of other important championships determined by tournaments of various formats; and a rating system that may establish an undisputed world number one. I challenge any other sport to match us for the richness of this tapestry.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Magnus' Chess Style?

Nigel wrote:

a million Indians make their living carrying other people's excrement

Here's the Youtube video.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXKJHihGbAg

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: World Chess Championship 2013-Don't Count Anand Out Just Yet

Game 8 was boring, but what can be done about it? It was up to Anand to make something and he didn't. Carlsen wanted a draw and Anand wanted a draw. It's very easy to get a boring draw under those circumstances.

What can possibly be done about it?

• Carlsen, two years ago he cited match play itself as the problem. In a round robin, playing for a draw is giving ground to the leaders.
• Kasparov proved the "6 wins" format isn't viable in modern chess.
• Money thrown at the players for fighting chess would have no impact in a World Championship.
• Forcing a decision post-draw through rapid play would be exciting, but traditionalists would cringe.
• Having a sliding scale of match points would encourage early action could have a bearing. If today's game was worth 4 points and tomorrow's 3 and the next 2, a defending player would have incentive to take back the victory as soon as possible.
• Changing the rules of chess to make draws improbable would make a difference, but that's a topic for another day.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: World Chess Championship 2013-Don't Count Anand Out Just Yet

The Kramnik and Topalov games were a lot more entertaining.

Today is World Toilet Day, which makes it sort of appropriate to recall that WC match (which was characterized by "Toiletgate" among other things).

By the way, World Toilet Day is a serious matter of concern. This was brought home to me when the great Indian writer, Arundhati Roy, noted that a million Indians make their living carrying other people's excrement. Literally.