FIDE World Chess Championship thread

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Very nice performance by Carlsen today.

I haven't had a chance to analyze the game but it is remarkable that Carlsen won the last Rook endgame with a pawn up, and won this one a pawn down, with Black! This is what he is crazy good at: squeezing out wins in the endgame. I agree Anand will have trouble unless he can get Carlsen into positions that are uncomfortable for him.

--Jon

Anand's problems were present way before the endgame as he misunderstood the the very concept of the Ruy Lopez Berlin Defence even before the early stages of the endgame....

It's obviously that Carlsen has done his homework perfectly and demonstrated to the whole world that being a Kasparov's pupil is not a fact to be underestimated even by a world champion

Faith makes things possible not easy regards,
Dr.D

After quickly analyzing game 6 I get the impression that the game was always within the draw range until Anand blundered with 60.Ra4?. 60.b4! for instance seems to draw. The key concept may be that Ra4 loses a tempo compared to b4.

[d]8/8/7p/8/2R2p1p/2P1k1r1/1P4PK/8 w - - 0 60

H1.5a analysis on my laptop:

Code: Select all

info multipv 1 depth 31 seldepth 72 score cp -8  time 80608 nodes 877137641 nps
10881000 tbhits 0 hashfull 1000 pv b2b4 h4h3 g2h3 g3g5 h3h4 g5g8 c4c7 f4f3 c7e7
e3d3 b4b5 f3f2 e7f7 d3e2 f7e7 e2f1 b5b6 g8g2 h2h1 g2g4 h1h2 g4h4 h2g3 h4c4 g3h2
c4c3 b6b7 c3b3 e7f7 h6h5 f7d7 b3b2 d7e7 h5h4 h2h1 b2b4 h1h2 b4b3 e7d7 b3b2 d7e7
b2b5 h2h3 b5b3 h3h2 b3b1 h2h3 b1b3 h3h2

Any opinions about that, or any other analysis results on better hardware?

Sven

Hi,

Just take a closer look how Carlsen exploited Anand's demolished pawn structure to his own benifit in the endgame....

I still strongly believe that a big precentage of Anand's loss on this particular game is related to his destroyed pawns structure....
Dr.D

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Could it be that Carlsen has discovered some things about R&P endings which others don't yet know, and that's how on atleast 2 occasions he managed to get a position in which Anand admitted later that he thought something different, but that in fact Carlsen had directed the game into exactly that type of ending with certain features and positionings to it?

[actually, i HAVE seen big books all about r and p endings which seem to have huge amounts of content, and maybe he studied such a book in depth and grasped the ideas well, and added to it, and anand hasn't and never really needed so much knowledge].

An extremely interesting point of view Shimon and could be the case as well....

Actually it correlates almost prefectly to the approach that Carlsen used to grab the full points....
Dr.D

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Anand must stear his game toward opening systems which will make Carlsen feel uncomfortable to say the least....
Dr.D

Are you suggesting Anand could have easily done useful things like that and didn't do it?

No,I am saying that now he must find a recue plan....
Dr.D

So why shouldn't he have done it before? risky?

And are you saying there ARE there such positions that can be steered into to make calsen feel uncomfortable "to say the least"?

I think Anand should answer this question Shimon....

He is the world champion and he must have a backup plan if things go down the hill as they did actually....

No one is invincible Shimon,everybody has a breaking point and anand must find Carlsen's one or he can prepare himself to deliver the title....
Dr.D

[M ANSARI]

At times I think Anand just plays too impulsively. You really can't do that against Carlsen who will try to milk a mouse if he can get a couple of drops out of a position. Anand just seems to get annoyed that a drawn position is being played out and seems uncomfortable that he has to show that the game is drawn. On the other hand Carlsen just loves these type of positions where he can continuously create puzzles than have one only move to draw. You can only dodge so many bullets.

By the way I found it quite funny that Suzy Polgar as well as many other GM's did not seem to know what was going on in the seemingly innocuous endgame. It is only when they got a report that engines saw white as losing that they started to realize there was a problem for white. Unfortunately for Anand, he does not have that luxury, and while b4! might have drawn, I really doubt it was easily playable by a human and Anand probably thought the position was already lost.

If it was not easily playable by a human so how come the commentator on chessbomb (a GM?) said rh4 is a clear error and b4 was the only move? Was he cheating by following the computer analysis as loyally as a dog?
If so, anyone can do that, it doesn't need a GM

IMHO yes.

[S.Taylor]

Could it be that Carlsen has discovered some things about R&P endings which others don't yet know, and that's how on atleast 2 occasions he managed to get a position in which Anand admitted later that he thought something different, but that in fact Carlsen had directed the game into exactly that type of ending with certain features and positionings to it?

[actually, i HAVE seen big books all about r and p endings which seem to have huge amounts of content, and maybe he studied such a book in depth and grasped the ideas well, and added to it, and anand hasn't and never really needed so much knowledge].

An extremely interesting point of view Shimon and could be the case as well....

Actually it correlates almost prefectly to the approach that Carlsen used to grab the full points....
Dr.D

Well, now Anand is in about the worsed position to be in if he is to retain the title, but not completely out of it yet. So i suppose he should try to aim for different types of endings or positions now. Later on, he can study in great depth where he went wrong, and CAN go wrong.

[Sven]

Very nice performance by Carlsen today.

I haven't had a chance to analyze the game but it is remarkable that Carlsen won the last Rook endgame with a pawn up, and won this one a pawn down, with Black! This is what he is crazy good at: squeezing out wins in the endgame. I agree Anand will have trouble unless he can get Carlsen into positions that are uncomfortable for him.

--Jon

Anand's problems were present way before the endgame as he misunderstood the the very concept of the Ruy Lopez Berlin Defence even before the early stages of the endgame....

It's obviously that Carlsen has done his homework perfectly and demonstrated to the whole world that being a Kasparov's pupil is not a fact to be underestimated even by a world champion

Faith makes things possible not easy regards,
Dr.D

After quickly analyzing game 6 I get the impression that the game was always within the draw range until Anand blundered with 60.Ra4?. 60.b4! for instance seems to draw. The key concept may be that Ra4 loses a tempo compared to b4. [...]

Just take a closer look how Carlsen exploited Anand's demolished pawn structure to his own benifit in the endgame....

I still strongly believe that a big precentage of Anand's loss on this particular game is related to his destroyed pawns structure....

Hi,

there are static and dynamic aspects to consider when judging about the influence of pawn structure. In the given case the static aspects include that white had a double pawn on the e-file which became isolated later on (see below for a diagram) while black had a weak pawn on d6. The dynamic aspects are those that often decide whether certain weaknesses are sufficient for the opponent to take advantage and eventually win. In this game no. 6 I think it was not possible for black to take advantage from the doubled pawn. Let's look on my "retro analysis" below to see why I think so.

1) This endgame is drawn:
[d]8/8/7p/8/2R2p1p/2P1k1r1/1P4PK/8 w - - 0 60

2) So in the light of 1), how should black win this endgame?
[d]5R2/8/7p/5p1k/2p3rp/2P4K/1P4P1/8 b - - 7 55

3) And if 2) is already drawn, how should black win this endgame?
[d]8/1r3k2/3R1ppp/1p5P/2p5/2P5/1P4PK/8 b - - 0 44
After gxh5 black will lose either b5 or h5, and the white rook is more active than the black one. (Btw, this is a weak pawn structure for black as well now ...)

4) Considering 1), 2) and 3), what would now be the expectation for this position?
[d]8/4qpk1/3pr1pp/1p6/2pRP3/2P1P1QP/1P4PK/8 b - - 5 38
Black can win both white e-pawns against the single black d-pawn but it does not work without exchanging queens and the rook ending seems to be drawn according to what we saw above. Now sometimes there are cases where just attacking pieces (or pawns) without actually capturing them is already sufficient for an advantage. But this is not the case here since there are no additional pieces involved that can create more problems for white. There is no second weakness that black can create, the only way to try winning is the rook endgame with a pawn up. But the rook ending seems to be drawn.

And I am pretty confident that both players knew that the rook endgame is not a clear advantage for black. So that would mean that the Ra4 blunder was decisive, not the weak pawn structure which just wasn't weak enough. Active positions of rooks, queens and kings have a weight at least as big as that of pawn weaknesses in rook/queen endings.

Therefore I don't agree with your opinion that "Carlsen exploited Anand's demolished pawn structure to his own benefit".

Sven

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Very nice performance by Carlsen today.

I haven't had a chance to analyze the game but it is remarkable that Carlsen won the last Rook endgame with a pawn up, and won this one a pawn down, with Black! This is what he is crazy good at: squeezing out wins in the endgame. I agree Anand will have trouble unless he can get Carlsen into positions that are uncomfortable for him.

--Jon

Anand's problems were present way before the endgame as he misunderstood the the very concept of the Ruy Lopez Berlin Defence even before the early stages of the endgame....

It's obviously that Carlsen has done his homework perfectly and demonstrated to the whole world that being a Kasparov's pupil is not a fact to be underestimated even by a world champion

Faith makes things possible not easy regards,
Dr.D

After quickly analyzing game 6 I get the impression that the game was always within the draw range until Anand blundered with 60.Ra4?. 60.b4! for instance seems to draw. The key concept may be that Ra4 loses a tempo compared to b4. [...]

Just take a closer look how Carlsen exploited Anand's demolished pawn structure to his own benifit in the endgame....

I still strongly believe that a big precentage of Anand's loss on this particular game is related to his destroyed pawns structure....

Hi,

there are static and dynamic aspects to consider when judging about the influence of pawn structure. In the given case the static aspects include that white had a double pawn on the e-file which became isolated later on (see below for a diagram) while black had a weak pawn on d6. The dynamic aspects are those that often decide whether certain weaknesses are sufficient for the opponent to take advantage and eventually win. In this game no. 6 I think it was not possible for black to take advantage from the doubled pawn. Let's look on my "retro analysis" below to see why I think so.

1) This endgame is drawn:
[d]8/8/7p/8/2R2p1p/2P1k1r1/1P4PK/8 w - - 0 60

2) So in the light of 1), how should black win this endgame?
[d]5R2/8/7p/5p1k/2p3rp/2P4K/1P4P1/8 b - - 7 55

3) And if 2) is already drawn, how should black win this endgame?
[d]8/1r3k2/3R1ppp/1p5P/2p5/2P5/1P4PK/8 b - - 0 44
After gxh5 black will lose either b5 or h5, and the white rook is more active than the black one. (Btw, this is a weak pawn structure for black as well now ...)

4) Considering 1), 2) and 3), what would now be the expectation for this position?
[d]8/4qpk1/3pr1pp/1p6/2pRP3/2P1P1QP/1P4PK/8 b - - 5 38
Black can win both white e-pawns against the single black d-pawn but it does not work without exchanging queens and the rook ending seems to be drawn according to what we saw above. Now sometimes there are cases where just attacking pieces (or pawns) without actually capturing them is already sufficient for an advantage. But this is not the case here since there are no additional pieces involved that can create more problems for white. There is no second weakness that black can create, the only way to try winning is the rook endgame with a pawn up. But the rook ending seems to be drawn.

And I am pretty confident that both players knew that the rook endgame is not a clear advantage for black. So that would mean that the Ra4 blunder was decisive, not the weak pawn structure which just wasn't weak enough. Active positions of rooks, queens and kings have a weight at least as big as that of pawn weaknesses in rook/queen endings.

Therefore I don't agree with your opinion that "Carlsen exploited Anand's demolished pawn structure to his own benefit".

Sven

Thanks Sven for the interesting analysis....

Although you don't agree with my observations,I enjoyed a lot reading through your post....
Cheers,
Dr.D

[M ANSARI]

Every lost chess game needs a bad move to make it into a loss. We can sit in our armchairs and criticize this or that move, but a loss is a loss that was caused by one or more bad moves. The whole concept of winning a chess game it to create an opportunity where your opponent will make a mistake, and that is what is called "creating chances". Anand had to continuously dodge bullet after bullet, and had to play perfectly to avoid a loss. He had an incredibly impressive defensive game where he managed to draw what looked like a sure loss, but was unable to keep that up for the other two games. Unfortunately he does not have the luxury of running a chess engine while playing like the rest of us, but has to calculate every move based on his intuition and calculating prowess. But if there is a serious weakness that Anand has in his chess is that he is sometimes impatient and impulsive, and I think that Carlsen has noticed that in his preparation and is playing for that weakness. The computer like precision combined with the human ability to understand what positions humans are most likely to misplay is one of Carlsen's hallmarks ... it is impressive that he is able to do that even at the highest levels.

[Kyodai]

Very nice performance by Carlsen today.

I haven't had a chance to analyze the game but it is remarkable that Carlsen won the last Rook endgame with a pawn up, and won this one a pawn down, with Black! This is what he is crazy good at: squeezing out wins in the endgame. I agree Anand will have trouble unless he can get Carlsen into positions that are uncomfortable for him.

--Jon

Anand's problems were present way before the endgame as he misunderstood the the very concept of the Ruy Lopez Berlin Defence even before the early stages of the endgame....

It's obviously that Carlsen has done his homework perfectly and demonstrated to the whole world that being a Kasparov's pupil is not a fact to be underestimated even by a world champion

Faith makes things possible not easy regards,
Dr.D

After quickly analyzing game 6 I get the impression that the game was always within the draw range until Anand blundered with 60.Ra4?. 60.b4! for instance seems to draw. The key concept may be that Ra4 loses a tempo compared to b4. [...]

Just take a closer look how Carlsen exploited Anand's demolished pawn structure to his own benifit in the endgame....

I still strongly believe that a big precentage of Anand's loss on this particular game is related to his destroyed pawns structure....

Hi,

there are static and dynamic aspects to consider when judging about the influence of pawn structure. In the given case the static aspects include that white had a double pawn on the e-file which became isolated later on (see below for a diagram) while black had a weak pawn on d6. The dynamic aspects are those that often decide whether certain weaknesses are sufficient for the opponent to take advantage and eventually win. In this game no. 6 I think it was not possible for black to take advantage from the doubled pawn. Let's look on my "retro analysis" below to see why I think so.

1) This endgame is drawn:
[d]8/8/7p/8/2R2p1p/2P1k1r1/1P4PK/8 w - - 0 60

2) So in the light of 1), how should black win this endgame?
[d]5R2/8/7p/5p1k/2p3rp/2P4K/1P4P1/8 b - - 7 55

3) And if 2) is already drawn, how should black win this endgame?
[d]8/1r3k2/3R1ppp/1p5P/2p5/2P5/1P4PK/8 b - - 0 44
After gxh5 black will lose either b5 or h5, and the white rook is more active than the black one. (Btw, this is a weak pawn structure for black as well now ...)

4) Considering 1), 2) and 3), what would now be the expectation for this position?
[d]8/4qpk1/3pr1pp/1p6/2pRP3/2P1P1QP/1P4PK/8 b - - 5 38
Black can win both white e-pawns against the single black d-pawn but it does not work without exchanging queens and the rook ending seems to be drawn according to what we saw above. Now sometimes there are cases where just attacking pieces (or pawns) without actually capturing them is already sufficient for an advantage. But this is not the case here since there are no additional pieces involved that can create more problems for white. There is no second weakness that black can create, the only way to try winning is the rook endgame with a pawn up. But the rook ending seems to be drawn.

And I am pretty confident that both players knew that the rook endgame is not a clear advantage for black. So that would mean that the Ra4 blunder was decisive, not the weak pawn structure which just wasn't weak enough. Active positions of rooks, queens and kings have a weight at least as big as that of pawn weaknesses in rook/queen endings.

Therefore I don't agree with your opinion that "Carlsen exploited Anand's demolished pawn structure to his own benefit".

Sven

A very competent and interesting analyse - thanks Sven! Also a very good example of the high level possible - when a rather low rated chess
player uses machine help in a constructive manner - i.e retro analysies.

Well done - and a pleasure to read! It's always interesting when the veils
are removed and a greater understanding of the positions is shown

[JuLieN]

The 7th game is a draw. Carlsen leads 4.5-2.5 with five games still to play (he'll have white three times.)