Anand-Gelfand: Game 1 Drawn
Rather oddly, too. Gelfand got in the first surprise of the world championship by playing the Gruenfeld Defense, an opening he used to love crushing in years past.
The second surprise came a few moves later, when after the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Nf3 c5 Anand played 8.Bb5+. Perhaps this was a one-off idea, a stopgap measure prepared in the seemingly unlikely event that Gelfand prepared the Gruenfeld. Whatever the case, Gelfand reacted very well and even enjoyed the slightly better chances thanks to the bishop pair and an outside passed a-pawn.
The third surprise was the disappointing finish. Gelfand made a pair of unambitious moves at the end and then offered a draw, which was of course accepted. Maybe he didn't have much, but ...Bd7 on moves 22 or 23 seemed to keep an edge; at a minimum, it kept the onus on Anand to neutralize Black's bishops. But it was not to be, and the game was drawn after 24 moves.
Reader Comments (3)
Perhaps Anand also missed some chances in this game, when he played 15.Bg5 rather than Bf4. The latter move seems more challenging for Black - after 15...Rd7 16.Rd2! he has difficulties to castle with safety, and after 15...0-0 16.Ne5 he has to give up the pride of his position, Bg7.
Btw, in the press conference after the game Gelfand rather dismissed questions about advantage to Black in the endgame, even saying that such evaluations are probably influenced by computers. Specifically, he said that after the critical 23...Bd7 he couldn’t find anything promising in response to 24.Rfc1. Another thing worth mentioning is that in response to the question whether he was expecting the Gruenfeld, Anand said that he "was expecting to be surprised"...
[DM: Yes, I heard Gelfand say that. Of course, Short _wasn't_ using an engine, and I've seen at least one other 2700 confirm Short's evaluation. I have great respect for Gelfand, but I'm not going to get a bumper sticker that says "Gelfand said it, I believe it, that settles it."]
Is it just me, or does Gelfand seem to have a chip on his shoulder about computers.
In the press conference, he brought it up the topic 3 or 4 times in a snide way.
On another note, I find it bizarre that the glass windows are 2 way!
[DM: A friend of mine noted that as well, about Gelfand. You guys are probably right.]
The other 2700er was Karjakin? But I guess it's fair to assume that Gelfand went into the position more deeply than any of the commentators. As far as I remember he took his time for the final "unambitious moves", and his remarks in the press conference suggest that he _considered_ playing for a win.
It may also be a bit of match psychology: As it stands (rather easy draw with black) the game is a little success for Gelfand. If Anand had been forced to defend a slightly inferior position and Gelfand's winning attempts turned out to be futile, it would also be(come) a success for Anand?
[DM: In opinion, it would be a success for Anand only if he found it easier to defend than Gelfand did to push.]
Not saying whether Gelfand's decision or approach was right or wrong, just trying to understand it ... .