Chess thread

[McGlashan]

watching game 3

is carlsen a bit underprepared? seemed out of his opening book quite early, and into a sharp position that doesn't really suit him

took over 30 minutes in response to Ng5 earlier

would Anand be generally be seen to have an advantage in computer prep, whereas carlsen is obviously good in dry grinding mid games where he finds wins others don't?

Absoslutely. Carlsen will play a blunter opening in order to reach a middle game he likes and it's up to you to stop him. Huge credit must go to team Anand as today's win is the result of a tremendous amount of hard work.

Top GM's have an encyclopedic knowledge of openings. The first 16 moves will be familiar to both players but 17 Ng5 is where it got interesting. Ng5 is a less common move as it's perceived to not be advantageous for white. If it's bad then it's bad, you don't need to memorise why, you will just be able to calculate why if the situation arises.

The first 19 moves of this game had been seen in Adams vs Aronian. Team Anand's masterstroke was in finding an improvement on move 20. They took an old encyclopedia chapter and re-wrote it. Vishy had memorised the new chapter word for word whilst Magnus spent a great deal of time recalling the original chapter.

[Tal]

I am out of action for most of today, so keep the chatter coming, please, for game four.

Anand has to find an answer for the Ruy Lopez variation with which Carlsen ground him down in game two. Or will the Norwegian sell him the dummy and play 1.c4 instead?

[McGlashan]

Pinnacle are offering odds and props on each game:

Magnus 17/10, draw 2/3, and Vishy 12-1.

Will Magnus open with E4 yes/no? 1/2 no, 2-1 yes.

Total number of moves over/under 44.5, with under the slight favourite.

[The Baron]

watching game 3

is carlsen a bit underprepared? seemed out of his opening book quite early, and into a sharp position that doesn't really suit him

took over 30 minutes in response to Ng5 earlier

would Anand be generally be seen to have an advantage in computer prep, whereas carlsen is obviously good in dry grinding mid games where he finds wins others don't?

Absoslutely. Carlsen will play a blunter opening in order to reach a middle game he likes and it's up to you to stop him. Huge credit must go to team Anand as today's win is the result of a tremendous amount of hard work.

Top GM's have an encyclopedic knowledge of openings. The first 16 moves will be familiar to both players but 17 Ng5 is where it got interesting. Ng5 is a less common move as it's perceived to not be advantageous for white. If it's bad then it's bad, you don't need to memorise why, you will just be able to calculate why if the situation arises.

The first 19 moves of this game had been seen in Adams vs Aronian. Team Anand's masterstroke was in finding an improvement on move 20. They took an old encyclopedia chapter and re-wrote it. Vishy had memorised the new chapter word for word whilst Magnus spent a great deal of time recalling the original chapter.

A very helpful insight tyty

[The Baron]

If you are Anand do you repeat tomorrow?

If he waits longer to repeat is there a chance of a diminishing return on his prep?

[Tal]

Round four ended the way it started:



A handshake in an even position.

Anand surprised pretty much everyone by playing the Sicilian Defence, demonstrating these twelve games are going to give us a full and fair assessment of both players' repertoires. Carlsen less surprisingly chose the quietest continuation (the only other option was the 3.Bb5 variation that he has played quite a bit in recent times) and the game looked equal for its entire duration.

That's never the whole story with Magnus, of course.

A tiny edge by the end of the middlegame in a slight weakness in Anand's pawn structure gave the Champ the fuel he needed to fight long into the night. Anand played impeccably from that point, however, and that is what he simply HAS to do every time a position like this is reached, because his opponent will almost inevitably be doing the same.

There were probably too many exchanges and the pawn structure on the queen side too exposed to be able to force a mistake. That wasn't Carlsen's fault; it's just the way the game panned out. He can't win every position like that. These are great players with no exaggeration.

Draw it is.

http://en.chessbase.com/post/sochi-g4-level-game-ends-in-draw

A day off now. Anand has the first move tomorrow.

[The Baron]

Can't find it now but read a GM's view that this match is similar to 2000 in some ways.

Can anyone explain a bit more about Kasparov's loss in 2000?

[MintTrav]

Can't find it now but read a GM's view that this match is similar to 2000 in some ways.

Can anyone explain a bit more about Kasparov's loss in 2000?

I was there (one day). Pretty dull.

[Tal]

Can't find it now but read a GM's view that this match is similar to 2000 in some ways.

Can anyone explain a bit more about Kasparov's loss in 2000?

It was just a wall of draws: 13 of 15 games were drawn. Kramnik won the second game with a novelty and never lost his lead.

I suppose the real similarity is that Anand and Kramnik are opening theoreticians, whereas Kasparov and Carlsen are more "feel" players (this is all relative, of course. Carlsen's opening knowledge is astounding. It's just that Anand's is in the stratosphere).

Kramnik's style is very similar to Carlsen's, though, and it was the complicated positions that Kasparov sought. The Berlin Defence countered Kasparov's sharper Ruy Lopez variations and Kasparov couldn't outplay his opponent in the quieter, technical endgames that resulted.

Matches where there's a chap wanting sharp games against a chap wanting positional games would include Fischer v Spassky and Tal v Petrosian.

Could you imagine commentating on the 1984 Karpov v Kasparov match, where they had eight decisive games and forty draws? Forty!

[The Baron]

Can't find it now but read a GM's view that this match is similar to 2000 in some ways.

Can anyone explain a bit more about Kasparov's loss in 2000?

It was just a wall of draws: 13 of 15 games were drawn. Kramnik won the second game with a novelty and never lost his lead.

I suppose the real similarity is that Anand and Kramnik are opening theoreticians, whereas Kasparov and Carlsen are more "feel" players (this is all relative, of course. Carlsen's opening knowledge is astounding. It's just that Anand's is in the stratosphere).

Kramnik's style is very similar to Carlsen's, though, and it was the complicated positions that Kasparov sought. The Berlin Defence countered Kasparov's sharper Ruy Lopez variations and Kasparov couldn't outplay his opponent in the quieter, technical endgames that resulted.

Matches where there's a chap wanting sharp games against a chap wanting positional games would include Fischer v Spassky and Tal v Petrosian.

Could you imagine commentating on the 1984 Karpov v Kasparov match, where they had eight decisive games and forty draws? Forty!

Fascinating stuff.

With reference to your analogy the other day I find the pulis stuff in football pretty painful but the clash of styles, opening knowledge, computer improvements etc that chess brings to be really intriguing. Will definitely look up more games of this nature tyty.

As you say its the difference between astounding and stratosphere. Its hard to quantify for someone like me. To bring a simpler analogy I guess its like picking between hulk and Thor. (Hulk wins obv)

Do you think Anand looks better or is it just a case of Carlsen being less in form than last year?

[The Baron]

Kasparov will maybe always be my favourite player, but with computer analysis and engines being so strong now we can argue Carlsen is better I think?

I guess what I'm asking is... We're not really going to see a threat to the crown are we? Carlsen is beyond this?

Got to my point in the end.

[McGlashan]

[McGlashan]

Today's opening looks like a transitional version of the Nimzo Indian to my untrained eye. It probably is based the Chess24 advert offering you the opportunity to learn the Nimzo-Indian defence.

@Inish Giri:
If this doesn't surprise Vishy, then nothing will surprise him...

Nope, Anand is prepared! You don't play 9.exd5 in 1 minute if you aren't..

@GMJanGustafsson
Carlsen is playing Tiviakov's pet line!

Agdestein:
7...c6 is an incredibly hard move to explain for a general audience. It doesn't really make sense.

@nigelshortchess
One of @MagnusCarlsen 's big advantages is that he has a very wide repertoire (although not always so deep - see game 3)

It is true that @vishy64theking also has a wide repertoire, but perhaps not quite so wide



 

[McGlashan]

Those who enjoy following live Twitter comments will enjoy this:

http://www.firstpost.com/sports/chess-world-championship-anand-vs-carlsen-game-3-live-1797783.html

Seems that Radjabov, Caruana, Short, Gupta, Polgàr, Rendle and Rowson are all giving interesting views on the game as played.

Lol @ short. It sort of reminds me of listening to Andy Gray who knew nothing but always had a way of saying I told you so.

Interesting that when reading chronologically Caruana is the first to really like Vishy's position.

And one more for the haters:
nigelshortchess: We have gone about 10 minutes without someone calling me a "faggot" Good day so far

[McGlashan]

Malcolm Pein : Magnus has not equalised yet but he is playing v fast suspect Vishy's edge can be neutralised but its a small += at least