Game Nine Carlsen Vs Anand

Game 9

A draw is a legitimate result in chess and draws can be utterly magnificent battles. Think of #7 for instance. The agreed draw is an abomination. But perpetual check and repetition are both perfectly reasonable drawing mechanisms and inherent to the game. (Most of the time, the perpetual is a subset of repeats). There are positions where play becomes forced and the repeat or the PP is the only sensible play. 

This wasn't one of those positions. Anand could not deviate but Carlsen could well have chosen to carry on when he forced the repeat. Under normal circumstances, the world champion might have played on since he doesn't particularly like draws, especially short draws with white.

But world championships are not normal circumstances.  Carlsen chose to take a break and ease half-a- point closer to retaining the title.  He can scarcely be blamed for that but it meant a game that lasted just about an hour. If the situation had been reversed, Anand would probably have done exactly the same thing.

So, three  games to go. Carlsen leads 5-4 and Anand has White in Game 10 and Game 12. The choice of the Berlin in this game implies that Anand would have been satisfied with a draw before he sat down. Since he got it easily and he got it early instead of co-creating another 122-move epic, he's given himself a little break.  

The next three games will probably be as much about nerves as about theoretical knowledge, or technical skill. Unless Carlsen wins #10 and extends his lead, the tension will ratchet up inexorably.

Anand has been in versions of this situation before, on several occasions. He's unlikely to suffer a nervous breakdown. Carlsen has never really been in this situation. In Chennai, he was leading 3-0 by the time #10 came along. In the candidates, he ended up losing two of his last three games, jeopardising his chances of qualification.

The game itself was nipped in the bud. Neither player was willing to discuss details of the opening. Anand took a total of 15 minutes while Carlsen took about 50 minutes. Carlsen said he was forced to take the draw because Anand was better-prepared.The timings might indicate that this was the simple truth. Or Carlsen was trying to recall analysis and/or steel himself to do something as pragmatic as repeating for the draw. 

On move 13, Carlsen seems to have produced a novelty  when he went 13. Nf4 and the subsequent e6 followed by the knight checks was certainly a safe way for him to proceed. Anand could not deviate because the black king has few good squares. But White has several reasonable alternatives to Ne4/ Nf3 -g5. He could play b3 and Nxd6 for instance.

Some interesting moments

 

Diagram after 12. -- Ba6.  In earlier games, White has played 13. Ned4 here to pull the Kt off attack.   Carlsen's natural 13. Nf4 seems like a novelty. He took 14 minutes to play it. Black's pullback to 13--Bb7 signals an imminent c5  break. White could also play 14. b3 as an alternative to the highly committal 14.e6. 

Diagram after 14.- Bd6. Black would probably be happy to play 15. Re1 f6!? and the e-pawn might be rounded up. Also a line like 15. b3 c5 16. Ng5 fxe6  17. Ngxe6  Rh6 18. Rxd6 cxd6 19. Nc7+ Kd7 20. Nxa8 Bxa8 seems fine for black.

Diagram after 17. Ne4 Kf7 . White could try 18. b3!?  here with intentions like 18. b3 Rae8 19. Ng5+ Kf6 20.  Nf3 and I can't see a better try than 20.--Kf7  but of course 18. b3 c5 is also possible and white really doesn't have any concrete advantage if black plays sensibly.

White : Carlsen ,Magnus Vs Black: Anand,Viswanathan  [C67]

Game 9 WCM

Sochi 2014  

 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0–0 Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.h3 Ke8 10.Nc3 h5 11.Ne2 b6 12.Rd1 Ba6 13.Nf4 Bb7 14.e6 Bd6 15.exf7+ Kxf7 16.Ng5+ Kf6 17.Ne4+ Kf7 18.Ng5+ Kf6 19.Ne4+ Kf7 20.Ng5+ (½–½)

Game Eight Anand Carlsen

Game eight

This was the smoothest and most boring professional draw we've seen so far (until #9 trumped it of course). Well, #8 was at the least played out till a dead-drawn minor piece endgame arose. But neither player tried very hard. The #7 marathon would have definitely had some bearing on the flat play.

Carlsen looked exhausted when he came to the board and he admitted in the press conference that he wasn't in the best of shape. He did have an innovation on offer, and it seemed to suck the life out of the position. Anand on his part played stolid "good moves". He might have found some sharper lines but he wasn't inclined to test the novelty by taking risks.

That leaves the match situation in favour of Carlsen. But his play has also shown some signs of frailty. Apart from the tragic-comic errors of #6, there was the #3 steamroller. Also, Carlsen did not manage to covert good positions in #7 and #4.  Anand has white in #10 and #12, and the difference is one point. This could turn into a question of who holds onto their  nerves better if the last game is played in a "must-win" situation.

The classical Queens Gambit Declined with e6 is one of the soundest systems in existence.  It is almost impossible to get a meaningful edge in the mainlines where white plays Bg5. At some stage, black will play dxc4, and then start exchanging minor pieces with Nd5. Finally, black will usually get a pawn break with c5 or e5.  These equalising ideas have all been around for close to 100 years with Capablanca and Rubinstein being the reference points.

White has tried several different methods of keeping tension over the decades. 

One is an early exchange of pawns with cx5 exd5. That leads to the Exchange  Variation where white has three plans.  He can either keep a small edge by castling kingside and pushing his queenside pawns to create small weaknesses. This is the  so-called Minority Attack, championed by capablanca. Or he can castle kingside and  organise an e4 push with Rae1 (usually with Nge2-g3  and f3 to support e4 rather than Nf3). Botvinnik used to play this line. Or white  can castle queenside and play baldly for mate. The second and third plans are unclear and double-edged. Black has big counter-chances in both setups.

Another white method of trying to create QGD tension is the line Anand played in #3 and #8. That is Bf4 instead of Bg5.  It can lead to a complex of positions, which can also arise from NimzoIndians.

One idea is to avoid minor piece exchanges with Bg5 opposed by Be7. This Bf4 idea can also lead to white opting to go queenside castle followed by pawn storms against both kings.

Black's classical counter against Bf4 is to  hit back with an early c5 as Carlsen did in this game. One key difference from the Bg5 lines is that white's cxd5 can often be met by Nxd5 without any contortions from black.

In the Bf4 lines, we often see dynamic pawn centres with white's c4,d4 being opposed by c5,d5. That sort of situation requires good concrete analysis. Quite often, it dissolves into easy equality with massive exchanges in a wide-open centre. Sometimes, white gets an edge because he is developing faster. Once in a while, black gets too much play and wins, especially when white goes 0-0-0 and loses control. 

The alert reader will note that I have not given any move numbers in this explanations of QGD nuances. This is not accidental. Exact move orders are important, of course. But there are also multiple ways to reach the same sort of positions.

Some interesting moments

Diagram after 10 Bg5 . Both sides are "breaking rules". Development is incomplete and they're moving pieces twice without trying to complete development.

Black's last move 9.--Re8 threatens e5, or cd5 ed5, opening the e-file  for counterplay.  White plays Bf4-g5 to retard e5 (Nxd5 will be a serious threat). Now Carlsen played his novelty 10.-- Be7. One earlier game has gone 10. --d4 11. O-O-O e5 12. Nd5  

 Diagram after 16.--Bb7. This is optically good for white. He might have some sort of build-up with Bxf6 and Rd7 or Bxf6 and Ne4, maybe with Ng3-h5 or Bb1 (as played) hoping to penetrate along the long diagonal and deliver mate. One defensive key factor is that the Bf6 holds g7 and the black king can run to e7 even if white gets in Qh8+. Anand did a fair amount of calculation here but he couldn't find anything. The engines rate it as flat-equal or thereabout. 

Diagram after 21. Qxc5. White must have been hoping he could get some sort of activity down the c-file. Black just kills all the chances with 21.--b4! Looking at this with hindsight, there's nothing much anyway. Even if white has the move in this position, he has no serious threats.

Diagram after 29. --Nb6. The pawn structure is absolutely symmetrical. White would like to peg down the a6 pawn and some other pawn on the other side of the board and thus, attack two weaknesses. But he has no hope of doing so.

Final position  after 41. e5+

Play can continue 41.--fxe5+ 42. fxe5+ Kc6 and white is running out of options to maintain pressure after 43. Bc4 a5. There is no chance of penetrating with the king on the queenside and attempts to go to the kingside would be suicidal if black responded with Kc5.

White : Anand, Viswanathan  Vs Black : Carlsen ,Magnus [D37]

Game 8, WCM, Sochi 2014, 18.11.2014

 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bf4 0–0 6.e3 c5 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.a3 Nc6 9.Qc2 Re8 10.Bg5 Be7 11.Rd1 Qa5 12.Bd3 h6 13.Bh4 dxc4 14.Bxc4 a6 15.0–0 b5 16.Ba2 Bb7 17.Bb1 Rad8 18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.Ne4 Be7 20.Nc5 Bxc5 21.Qxc5 b4 22.Rc1 bxa3 23.bxa3 Qxc5 24.Rxc5 Ne7 25.Rfc1 Rc8 26.Bd3 Red8 27.Rxc8 Rxc8 28.Rxc8+ Nxc8 29.Nd2 Nb6 30.Nb3 Nd7 31.Na5 Bc8 32.Kf1 Kf8 33.Ke1 Ke7 34.Kd2 Kd6 35.Kc3 Ne5 36.Be2 Kc5 37.f4 Nc6 38.Nxc6 Kxc6 39.Kd4 f6 40.e4 Kd6 41.e5+ (½–½).

 

Game 7 Carlsen- Anand

Game Seven

Whoof!  About the longest game that I've ever sat through "live". The first 25 moves were theory and reeled off very quickly by both players. The last 20-odd moves were almost superfluous. In-between, we saw a deeply technical endgame with a lot of buried tactics. Both players displayed great accuracy not only in terms of calculation but also in terms of judgement. Neither made a discernible error.

The draw by exhaustion was a reasonable result. Carlsen tried everything, carrying on playing to the point of near-absurdity. Anand defended steadily and took activity when it was on offer, to ensure that his match chances stayed alive.

At the post-game press conference, the challenger actually looked happier than the champion but then, Carlsen rarely looks very happy. In terms of energy, this marathon would certainly have taken a  fair amount out of them both. If you believe the neurologists, they would have blown over 3000 calories each in those seven hours. The energy accounting goes in Carlsen's favour, given the 20-year age-handicap.

The end-result begs the question though.

Why did Anand play this way?

What did he miss, if anything?

If the Sicilian Paulsen needed shoring up after Game Six, the Berlin is certainly a reasonable try. The opening is one of those heavily theoretical monsters arising from the Spanish Berlin. The queens come off early; white concedes the two bishops, a pair of rooks is exchanged, opposite-coloured bishops arise. White sacrifices a pawn to tie up the black pieces. It's more a Carlsen type of position than an Anand type of position.

But Anand knows this specific position very well and he's played both sides of it (including against Carlsen) multiple times. On move 25, Anand even produced the first novelty. He improved on a game, Giri Radjabov Tashkent 2014  when he pulled out 25.-- Nf7.

On move 28,  Anand thought for 28 minutes (1691 seconds to be precise) before he came up with Ne5!? That committed black to the piece sacrifice and maybe the position is objectively drawn after that. But black has to grovel through an interminable defence.

There must be better ways to play the position with some improved plan for black somewhere between move 26-28. One point worth mentioning is that Kramnik originally championed the Berlin against Kasparov back in 2000 because these positions are not amenable to easy computer analysis.

It is possible that Team Anand just decided this position was playable and he opted to work things out at the board. As Anand said at the PC, he couldn't find more pleasant options faced with the threat of Nh5 and Nf4 so, he chose to defend this.

Some interesting moments 

Diagram after 18.-- Nxh4 Apparently the obvious 19 bxc7 Nf3+ 20. Kg2 Bg4 21. Rd3 h4 22. Ne4 has been analysed out to as a drawish endgame. This is only true if both players know how to play endgames of course since there is plenty of play left in the position. 

Diagram after 20. -- Rxd1. If white plays 21. Rxd1?! Nxf3!? 22. Kxf3 Bg4+ 23. Ke4 Bxd1 24. Nxd1 is once again supposed to be a drawish endgame. Black's rook achieves some mobility with g7-d7 and it's difficult to coordinate White's pieces to play on both sides of the board. It is worth noting that this sort of position is deadly with either colour against a poor endgame player - it is materially unbalanced and it requires strong calculation as well as good positional sense.

That sort of endgame is one reason why the Berlin can be a killer defence against any player below master level. Essentially, black cuts down on the chances of being steamrolled because queens are exchanged early. The resulting endgames are imbalanced, with white holding some edge. But if white doesn't know how to play it, black can take over. But at 2750-plus, the winning chances with black are close to zero.

Diagram after 25. Rh7. White's a pawn down. It scarcely matters. His 2-1 majority is much more dangerous than black's mangled 4-2. The opposite coloured bishops are good for white, helping develop the initiative. Giri-Radjabov Tashkent continued 25... f5 26. g5 Nf7 27. Rh5 Rg8 with a draw. But 26. Rxc7! Nb5 27. gxf5 Bxf5 28. Rxb7 Bxc2 29. Ne3 Bb3 30. Ng4 and white has substantial advantage. Black's king is trapped on the eighth and it could be hit by three pieces via say, Be5-Nf6. Also white's passed pawn counts for something.  

 Anand improved on Radjabov with 25.--Nf7. Now if 26. Bxc7 f5 easily equalises. 
 

Diagram after 28. Ng3. This is where Anand thought hard and played 28.--Ne5.

The engines suggest 28..-Kd7 But 29. Nh5 Kc6 30. Bg3! is very nasty (30. Bxc7 Kxc7 31. Nf4 Rh6 32. Nxe6+ Kd6 33. Rxf7 Kxe6 34. Rxb7 Rh2 is equal). After 30. Bg3 Nd6 31. Nf4 or 31. Bh4 are both close to winning.  

Diagram after 31. Rh5 Anand played 31.-- Bxg4! This is probably the best move according to him and Carlsen. The engines disagree due to a horizon effect.

After the alternate 31...Rf8 32.Ke3 Bd5 33.Ne4 Bxe4 34.Kxe4 Rf4+ 35.Ke3 Rb4 36.Rxe5 Rxb2 37.Rxc5 b6, the following position is reached


(Analysis diagram) White's free passed pawns will run faster.   

Diagram after 33.--b6

Carlsen thought this Rook+Kt Vs R endgame is winning. He does have two pawns, which are difficult to eliminate.  But he can't force black to open up his fortress and Anand found exact active defensive lines to hold on. It would take days of analysis to dissect the endgame. Suffice it to say that consensus opinion including engines and top players is that it is drawn and best play was seen by both sides. 

One of the themes for black is to keep the rook as far away (preferably h-file) as possible to avoid chances of being forked. Another theme that arose later was to look for King penetration via b6-a5-b4. There are some stalemate lines with Black Ka5, Ps on a6,b4,c5.c6  and White's Kt on d7. When white plays c4, with Kt on b2 black has to respond with b5 ASAP. The theme of checking along first/second rank until the white king moves away from c2,b3 is also important to the defence.

For the attack, it would be nice if a dual attack could be launched on c7, via say Re7, Ne8/ Nd5. That might force concession. Black prevented this happening without the concession of c4 (to support d5). Once the c-pawn moves, the white king is vulnerable to checks and also pawn exchanges are forced.

Diagram after 56.-- Rh4. White finally plays c4 because he can't see any other way to support d5. Black reorganises his pawn structure to control d5. 

Diagram after 67. Re4. The checking mechanism with Rg1+/g2+ forces the White king to e1 and then 70--bxc4! dissolves into drawishness. 

Diagram after 70.--bxc4 

The alternate 71. bxc4  Kb4 is relatively trivial with a draw after 71.bxc4 Kb4 72.Nb8 (or 72.Kd1 a5) 72...Ra2 73.Nxc6+ Kc3 74.Na7 Ra4 holds.

Footnote:  The pure R+Kt Vs R endgame is supposedly an almost-trivial draw. Black's defensive algorithm  is to check until the Kt is pinned and not allow his king to be forced to the edge of the board. Amazingly Carlsen won this endgame once against GM Erwin L'Ami at Corus. And, of course he's entitled to play on till exhaustion as he did.

The Game for reference

WHITE: Carlsen ,Magnus  BLACK: Anand ,Viswanathan  [C67]

Game 7, WCM Sochi 2014, 17.11.2014

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0–0 Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.h3 Ke8 10.Nc3 h5 11.Bf4 Be7 12.Rad1 Be6 13.Ng5 Rh6 14.g3 Bxg5 15.Bxg5 Rg6 16.h4 f6 17.exf6 gxf6 18.Bf4 Nxh4 19.f3 [19.Bxc7 Nf3+ 20.Kg2 Bg4 21.Rd3 h4 22.Ne4]

19...Rd8 20.Kf2 Rxd1 21.Nxd1 [21.Rxd1 Nxf3 22.Kxf3 Bg4+ 23.Ke4 Bxd1 24.Nxd1]

21...Nf5 22.Rh1 Bxa2 23.Rxh5 Be6 24.g4 Nd6 25.Rh7 Nf7

An improvement [25...f5 26.Rxc7 (26.g5 Nf7 27.Rh5 Rg8 Giri-Radjabov Tashkent 2014) 26...Nb5 27.gxf5 Bxf5 28.Rxb7 Bxc2 29.Ne3 Bb3 30.Ng4 White is better]

26.Ne3 Kd8 27.Nf5 c5 28.Ng3 Ne5!?

 The alternative defence with [28...Kd7 29.Nh5 Kc6 30.Bg3 Nd6 31. Nf4 is close to being a win for white (30.Bxc7 Kxc7 31.Nf4 Rh6 32.Nxe6+ Kd6 33.Rxf7 Kxe6 34.Rxb7 Rh2+ 35.Ke3 Rxc2 is drawn)]

29.Rh8+ Rg8 30.Bxe5 fxe5 31.Rh5 Bxg4 [31...Rf8 32.Ke3 Bd5 33.Ne4 Bxe4 34.Kxe4 Rf4+ 35.Ke3 Rb4 36.Rxe5 Rxb2 37.Rxc5 b6]

32.fxg4 Rxg4 33.Rxe5 b6 34.Ne4 Rh4 35.Ke2 Rh6 36.b3 Kd7 37.Kd2 Kc6 38.Nc3 a6 39.Re4 Rh2+ 40.Kc1 Rh1+ 41.Kb2 Rh6 42.Nd1 Rg6 43.Ne3 Rh6 44.Re7 Rh2 45.Re6+ Kb7 46.Kc3 Rh4 47.Kb2 Rh2 48.Nd5 Rd2 49.Nf6 Rf2 50.Kc3 Rf4 51.Ne4 Rh4 52.Nf2 Rh2 53.Rf6 Rh7 54.Nd3 Rh3 55.Kd2 Rh2+ 56.Rf2 Rh4 57.c4 Rh3 58.Kc2 Rh7 59.Nb2 Rh5 60.Re2 Rg5 61.Nd1 b5 62.Nc3 c6 63.Ne4 Rh5 64.Nf6 Rg5 65.Re7+ Kb6 66.Nd7+ Ka5 67.Re4 Rg2+ 68.Kc1 Rg1+ 69.Kd2 Rg2+ 70.Ke1 bxc4 71.Rxc4 [71.bxc4 Kb4 72.Nb8 (72.Kd1 a5) 72...Ra2 73.Nxc6+ Kc3 74.Na7 Ra4]

71...Rg3 72.Nxc5 Kb5 73.Rc2 a5 74.Kf2 Rh3 75.Rc1 Kb4 76.Ke2 Rc3 77.Nd3+ Kxb3 78.Ra1 Kc4 79.Nf2 Kb5 80.Rb1+ Kc4 81.Ne4 Ra3 82.Nd2+ Kd5 83.Rh1 a4 84.Rh5+ Kd4 85.Rh4+ Kc5 86.Kd1 Kb5 87.Kc2 Rg3 88.Ne4 Rg2+ 89.Kd3 a3 90.Nc3+ Kb6 91.Ra4 a2 92.Nxa2 Rg3+ 93.Kc2 Rg2+ 94.Kb3 Rg3+ 95.Nc3 Rh3 96.Rb4+ Kc7 97.Rg4 Rh7 98.Kc4 Rf7 99.Rg5 Kb6 100.Na4+ Kc7 101.Kc5 Kd7 102.Kb6 Rf1 103.Nc5+ Ke7 104.Kxc6 Rd1 105.Rg6 Kf7 106.Rh6 Rg1 107.Kd5 Rg5+ 108.Kd4 Rg6 109.Rh1 Rg2 110.Ne4 Ra2 111.Rf1+ Ke7 112.Nc3 Rh2 113.Nd5+ Kd6 114.Rf6+ Kd7 115.Nf4 Rh1 116.Rg6 Rd1+ 117.Nd3 Ke7 118.Ra6 Kd7 119.Ke4 Ke7 120.Rc6 Kd7 121.Rc1 Rxc1 122.Nxc1

½–½