If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
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.
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.
Last edited by Nigel Hanrahan; Tuesday, 19th November, 2013, 08:26 PM.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
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.
... '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.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
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.
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.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
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!
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.
(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.
Last edited by Wayne Komer; Thursday, 21st November, 2013, 01:42 PM.
Reason: added viewers' comments
The transcript of the game nine press conference of Magnus Carlsen and Viswanathan Anand is below:
Q: (FIDE Press Officer) Magnus can you please tell us what happened?
A: (Magnus Carlsen) So we get a very very sharp position from the opening. Basically I missed something with f4 because in general I would like to block the pawns. He can play Qb1, Rb6 and attack the pawn, which is a bit inconvenient for me. So, here I had to go all out for counterplay. And I mean, there are an amazing number of complicated lines here. I wasn’t sure. As it happens my moves were not that complicated. I had to play the only move all the time. Fortunately for me, he blundered.
Q: (FIDE Press Officer) At this moment (after 24. f6) did you also consider 24…gxf6?
A: (Magnus Carlsen) Yes, 24…gxf6 is an option. But 25. Nh5 looks very dangerous here. I can maybe go 25…fxg5 26. Nf6+ Kh8 27. Qxg5 Rg8. Anyway, I thought in case of 24. f6 here I would have to play …g6 anyway. So it didn’t matter. Clearly, Nf1 is a blunder. He just missed Qe1-Qh4. 28. Bf1 Qd1 29. Rh4 Qh5 30. Nxh5 gxh5 31. Rxh5 Bf5 32. Bh3 Bg6 33. e6 Nxf6 34. gxf6 Qxf6 35. Re5 fxe6 36. Qe3 here. This is what we discussed after the game. White should be able to hold.
Q: (FIDE Press Officer) Can you also give us your scenario of what happened? The world champion.
A: (Viswanathan Anand) The position was very very interesting. Here I spent a hell of a lot of time essentially getting into this position. If the king goes to h8 usually it looks like it should be lost. As I have the extra resource of Qf7 check. Here I was anticipating Qh8. Because f6, g6, Qh4, b2 and more or less similar idea like in the game. The difference is when Rb1 happened he has Qa5. But after this, I am kind of forced to go in with Rf4. What I missed initially was this: I wanted to play Bh3, Bxh3, Rxh3, Qd7, Rh5, Qf5, g6 I thought was a draw. But later I saw Qb6, Qb1+.
Q: (Amit Karmarkar, The Times of India) Magnus, it was quite tense today. Can you describe the tension you were going through?
A: (Magnus Carlsen) It was really tough game. From the opening it was clear it is going to be unbalanced. And I run a serious danger of getting mated which I hadn’t in previous games. I had to deal with the situation. I had to create counterplay. It was really tough game.
Q: (FIDE Press Officer) Were you scared in any particular moment in this game?
A: (Magnus Carlsen) Basically all the time. The white pawns look extremely menacing. At the same time I was trying to calculate this as well as I could. I did not find a forced mate. It seems there wasn’t any mate. At least no obvious one.
Q: (Kristian Madsen, Politiken) Grandmaster Anand, you came out needing a win today. You showed us some of the attacking chess which has been associated with your name throughout your career. You dominated the World No. 1 for 25 or 27 moves. For the game to end this way, how do you feel your emotions right now?
A: (Viswanathan Anand) In general, the match situation did not leave me with much of a choice. I saw a couple of moments when I could exit. For instance, here I could play 22. cxb4 and try to get the knight to c3. Then black is also out of serious danger at the same moment. I had to give it a shot. When he played Na6 I saw this variation. It is not that difficult to calculate. There were always finessess. It seemed to be very dangerous for black. And, I could play e6 somewhere with fxe6, f6 which is a second kind of chance. I decided to give it a shot. In the end, it was irresponsible, silly whatever you want to call it. I had been calculating around about 40 minutes when I went f5 b3, Qf4 I think. And what I was calculating was this line. It was a draw. When I found Qd6 there, I couldn’t see a way forward. When I got to this position, I suddenly saw Nf1, Qd1, Rh4, Qh5, Rh5, gxh5, Ne3 and the knight is coming to e7. By a miracle, black will probably play Be6, for Bxd5 he might have to play Qxd5. For a second I got excited. The problem, I missed the knight which was on g3 has just moved. As soon as I put the knight on f1 I knew what I had done. What can I say?
(Magnus Carlsen) It should be noted that if Bf1, Qd1, Ne2 would be met by Qd3 or Qe1 works then. (Viswanathan Anand) If I had seen this Qe1 I would have seen the other one as well. Because I only saw Qd3, Rh4, Qe3 this ladder.
Q: (V Kameswaran, United News of India) You have had many hat-trick wins in your career. Will it be possible for you?
A: (Viswanathan Anand) The situation does not look very good.
Q: There was lot of praise for your going for a win. Can you explain your mindset and why you chose such a sharp opening?
A: (Viswanathan Anand) I needed to change the course of the match rather drastically. That’s why I kind of went for this. I had a rest day to kind of get familiar with all this. Because it is a very complicated line.
Q: Were you glad you did it?
A: (Viswanathan Anand) I was in a way. Still I think I had to do this. This was the correct choice. I had no regrets for this.
++++++
(The official transcript omits a couple of irrelevant questions such as what are the players plans for developing chess in schools and communities; Anand was asked about his long think by press officer Anastasiya Karlovich: “Did you try really to calculate all these complications, all these variations till the end somehow, or was it possible?” Anand replied: “No, I was thinking what to eat tonight.”)
I was glad to see that prior to the press conference, the duelling duo conducted an extended post mortem at the board. I think this helped Anand recover his equilibrium before facing the media crowd. It was also quite sporting of Carlsen to indulge the champ, although such chatty is usually easier to muster as the victor.
I am looking forward to the game tomorrow, come what may.
The transcript of the game nine press conference of Magnus Carlsen and Viswanathan Anand is below:
...omitting transcript of various questions...
(The official transcript omits a couple of irrelevant questions such as what are the players plans for developing chess in schools and communities; Anand was asked about his long think by press officer Anastasiya Karlovich: “Did you try really to calculate all these complications, all these variations till the end somehow, or was it possible?” Anand replied: “No, I was thinking what to eat tonight.”)
I watched the press conference (on replay - not quite live) and I clearly heard A.K. (the FIDE press officer) include the subordinate clause 'or was it possible?' and I thought Anand's flippant reply was rather denigrating and unfair. Of course, he is upset - and rightly so - but had he been paying attention he might have not lost the game and he might have understood the point of her question. Anyway, much ado about nothing - he has more or less squandered his title defence at this point. I understand how seriously good Anand has been and that makes Carlsen's result even more remarkable.
Footnote: I woke up and checked the live app on my phone just in time to see ...b8/Q+ and then the almost immediate Nf1 (!) and even in a sleepy condition I realized it was not sufficient and I spotted Qe1 right away and thought, oh-oh Anand's busted... after reviewing some more detailed analysis throughout today, it is clear Anand pushed too hard at various points (of course, the match standing was the reason for that) and unfortunately he got punished. I hope Carlsen will be an active World Champion.
Another note: I saw the tweet from Nigel Short about the changing of the guard (end of an era) and I must admit my first reaction was that it was somewhat tasteless (as in technically premature) BUT I realize now that Tweets are live and subject to emotion of course and I realize that Short intended no disrespect. I thought the journalist who brought it up in the press conference was a idiot... no shortage of them as usual.
Anastasiya was only doing her job. Sometimes getting an answer is as difficult as pulling teeth. Both Ivanchuk and Kamsky have given her a lot of trouble in the past at press conferences by just clamming up and saying nothing.
Someone said that Anand’s ironic reply here was not against Karlovich – it was against a journalist who said at the first press conference that there were rumours that Anand tended to be lazy and loved to eat.
I have not verified this.
I am sure that Nigel just tweeted a general comment. He hardly thought it would be read aloud by a Norwegian journalist to the players at the Press Conference.
Kasparov, in Hong Kong, was tweeting all through the game, pithy self-truths like “Anand knew keeping queens on was his best chance against Carlsen. But not three queens! He overdid it!”
Tweet
Comment