This Week's ChessVideos Show: Grinding Out The Victory
Whatever we might want to say that's positive about the just-completed World Chess Championship, that it showed two players giving their all in every game, pushing until there was nothing left to do isn't among them. Viswanathan Anand and Boris Gelfand are great players, but they aren't infallible, and on those occasions when they did press the fight there were mistakes aplenty. Pressing brings about dividends!
One player who knows this all too well is world #1 Magnus Carlsen. Like any top player, he can do everything well in chess, but one of the things that sets him apart is his technical skill. He has defeated even the very best players in the world from "drawn" positions, and on a regular basis.
So to help remind you what a full-bodied technical struggle and masterpice looks like, check out this week's ChessVideos show. Magnus Carlsen chooses a rather quiet line against Pavel Eljanov's Gruenfeld and manages to come out of the opening with a very small edge. Material is fairly limited (two rooks, a bishop, knight and five pawns apiece), and had the game finished in a quick draw no one would have thought anything of it, except perhaps to complain about White's opening choice. But for Carlsen, that endgame wasn't the end of a sketch; rather, it was the start of a full-fledged work of art. He accumulated small advantages, and because he didn't hurry to cash them in he was able to keep accumulating them. Little by little he made progress, sometimes very slowly and sometimes more quickly as Eljanov would make unfortunate concessions. Throughout the game, Carlsen maintained a boa constrictor like grip, and one of the world's best players seemed totally outclassed.
There's much more detail in the video, of course: I carefully survey the variation's theory, try to analyze the game as a whole and attempt to show on a conceptual level why Carlsen's endgame play was so successful. As always, the video is free (one-time free registration is required) and will be available on-demand for the next month or so.
Reader Comments (5)
How come such a gifted player as Magnus Carlsen didn't qualify for the WCh match? Oh wait ... .
[DM: Does this have something to do with what I wrote or said in the video?]
On to the game: of course it was a nice performance by Carlsen (and a nice video by Dennis) but, with all due respect, I wouldn't include Eljanov among "the very best players in the world": He had Elo 2692 when the game was played, 2761 about 2 1/2 years later (with points accumulated mostly against sub-2700ers), now he is again down to 2693.
[DM: Why so fussy? I don't mean that he was in the top 5 at the time of the game, and I was fully aware of his rating when the game was played - it was right in front of me on the screen as I did the presentation. (The screen capture is set up to include the board alone, but I have the notation pane up on my monitor.) That put him at #27 in the world at that time, which I'd certainly consider pretty high up in the elite. Further, he had already been over 2700, soon returned there, and has remained there for the majority of the past four and a half years. So I'll grant your point if you took my comment as indicating that he was on the short list of world championship contenders, but that wasn't what I meant or meant to convey.]
"had the game finished in a quick draw no one would have thought anything of it" - the same would probably hold true if Carlsen had played on but couldn't convert his advantage. Anand and Gelfand are, or at least were capable of producing similar games. The most recent examples I could find are from 2010: Gelfand's Tal Memorial win against Shirov, and Anand's win in London against ... Carlsen. It's quite a different story to produce such games 'on demand' in a WCh match - I guess the reason they drew most of the classical games wasn't lazyness or lack of fighting spirit, but simply (in their perception at the board) lack of realistic winning chances.
[DM: Did I say they were incapable of such games? But note that you had to go back to 2010 to find examples. They rarely try. It could be that they are two of the most insightful players in chess history when it comes to recognizing positions where there's a lack of realistic winning chances, though.]
"when they [Anand and Gelfand] did press the fight there were mistakes aplenty" - I guess you refer to the rapid tiebreak games? An open question is if we had seen similar drama in the classical games if the players had chosen or had been forced to (Sofia rules) continue from their final positions in the 'main match'.
[DM: Of course I'm referring primarily to the rapid games, but there were examples in the classical games too. In game three Gelfand made plenty of mistakes, and Anand had a great chance to capitalize, while in game seven Gelfand succeeded in grinding out a win against Anand. On the other hand, Anand had to defend in games nine and 16 and succeeded in doing so. Sometimes the defense held, sometimes not. And that's the point, and the reason to play on. And it isn't just me, a very weak player by comparison, who is making this point, but others who are at or near their level: Kramnik and Nakamura come to mind, and then there are strong but not world-championship level GMs like Spraggett (a former Candidate) and Yermolinsky (peak rating 2660 and known for his fine technique) who have beaten the same drum.]
Your insightful comments on Carlsen were the same ones often attributed to Bobby Fischer. Both not only saw the possibilities for winning a dry position, they were willing to expend the energy to actually explore them. That is what set them apart from their contemporaries.
I look forward to watching the video.
[DM: Thanks. It's not just those two guys, but players like Topalov and Nakamura, and Karpov as well, especially with the white pieces. I think you're absolutely right that having energy is a big part of it, and that's a reason why one has to be in good physical shape to play one's very best.]
No argument with your other choices. Topalov and Nakamura are both high energy players (though Topalov seems to be slowing down) and have no fear as well. We probably could throw Kamsky in there as well. He often looks like he is playing for a draw when he actually he is playing for a win.
Karpov I think is a different kind of beast. Most of the time he played a slow constricting style of chess. As has been observed by other GM's. Karpov played to get his pieces setup to his liking. Then he either sprang a strong attack or ground you down with subtle moves given the position.
Kramnik could easily be one of these type players. I'm sure you could find examples. But the combination of past health issues and now his age makes him less risk adverse.
[DM: Yes, Kamsky's another good choice.]
This video is amazing ! Thanks a whole lot Dennis, great job.
Let me explain the rationale behind my previous post: In various chess forums people had questioned - before their match had even started - whether Gelfand is a worthy challenger, or even whether Anand is (still) a worthy champion. Hence suggestions to replace Anand-Gelfand with Anand-Carlsen, let alone Aronian-Carlsen. [There was one example - Shirov - where a qualifier was "disqualified", but it would be unprecedented to somehow disqualify the sitting world champion?]. Some people might think that you, Dennis, add fuel to that fire or "beat the same drum" - after all, you directly refer to the WCh match both in the blog post and in the video. I do not mean to imply that this was your (deliberate) intention, just that such a (mis)understanding might arise.
The fact that I had to go back to 2010 to find similar games by Anand and Gelfand just indicates that 2011 wasn't their best year (after Tata Steel as far as Anand is concerned, and obviously excluding the candidates event for Gelfand). So "they rarely try" is based on relatively few recent events? I consider Gelfand also a rather strong technical player, at least on par with Yermolinsky. Maybe that's why he was aiming for += positions against Anand, another reason could be that he was afraid of Anand's anti-Moscow preparation.