Candidates Tournament, Final Round: Carlsen & Kramnik Both Lose; Carlsen Qualifies
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 7:39PM It was a final round suitable for April Fool's Day. Magnus Carlsen and Vladimir Kramnik entered the final round tied for first, but with Carlsen having "tie odds". If they finished the day on the same score, Carlsen would be declared the tournament winner and qualify for a title match with Viswanathan Anand (at this point scheduled to take place this November). With Carlsen having White against Peter Svidler, it was incumbent on Kramnik to take some risks with Black to try to defeat Vassily Ivanchuk.
Of course, not all risks are created equal. Both the casino and the sucker who walks in with a system for picking "lucky numbers" are gambling, it's true. It would not violate any physical or mathematical laws if Mr. Lucky Numbers won every single game he played and eventually won the property; the odds against it, however, are so far beyond those used even for astronomical values that we can discount the possibility for all practical purposes. In reality, while Mr. LN could win some money with a little luck and the self-discipline to leave forever in that happy eventuality, the casino will always win in the long run. They are gambling on a hand-by-hand basis, but in the long run there's no gamble at all - they are essentially guaranteed to take the sucker's money.
Why the digression? Well, in addition to wishing to offer the foregoing PSA, I thought it would be an entertaining way of expressing my feelings when I Kramnik uncorked 1...d6 in response to Chuky's 1.e4. Kramnik has been trying this on occasion the past few years, in blitz games, in desperate must-win situations and occasionally against comparatively weak players in classical games, but without much success. To my mind, the Pirc fits with neither his style nor his general repertoire over the past 20 years, and its employment struck me as a desperate and negatively foreboding sign.
Sure enough, he came out of the opening in poor shape, while Carlsen, on the white side of a Ruy, didn't have a whole lot but didn't have anything to worry about, either. But then things started getting squirrely on both boards. Ivanchuk allowed Kramnik to coordinate somewhat, and then sacrificed a pawn, and then as a result Carlsen shifted from safe to risky mode against Svidler. He (Carlsen) criticized his decision to play Ng4 without first swapping on e5; had he made the preliminary exchange he felt that it would be a position he couldn't (normally) lose. Without the trade, however, the position turned extremely complicated, and Svidler did a better job of navigating those complications. By the end of the first time control - which Carlsen made with just three seconds to spare - Svidler's position was winning.
So three cheers for Kramnik and his "miraculous" comeback? Not so fast. Perhaps getting a little optimistic about the favorable trend in his game, and a little nervous about what was going on in Carlsen's battle, he decided not to be satisfied with keeping his finally decent position, but somehow got confused and mixed bad activity (the pawn sac with ...h4 in particular) and passive play on the queenside. The result? Once they too made the time control, he (Kramnik) was just as lost as Carlsen.
Both Svidler and Ivanchuk finished their mighty opponents off, leaving Carlsen victorious on tiebreaks, based on his having won more games than Kramnik. Svidler, and Levon Aronian too, thanks to a nice finish against Teimour Radjabov, finished just half a point behind the "winners", and may join in Kramnik in thoughts of what might have been, had a break here or there gone otherwise. Further off the pace, Boris Gelfand and Alexander Grischuk drew their game, and finished tied for fifth and sixth.
Final Standings:
1. Carlsen 8.5
2. Kramnik 8.5
3-4. Svidler, Aronian 8 (I believe Svidler took third on tiebreaks, for whatever that's worth)
5-6. Grischuk, Gelfand 6.5
7. Ivanchuk 6
8. Radjabov 4
Reader Comments (27)
Kramnik's opening choice reminded me of the decisive final game of the 1978 Karpov-Korchnoi world championship match. Having come back from 5-2 down to 5-5 in the space of just four games, Korchnoi tried the Pirc and got crushed like a bug. 6-5 Karpov, match over.
[DM: I thought of that too. Also of Bobby Fischer's less-than-fantastic results with the Gruenfeld - two famous wins vs. the Byrne brothers, but several important losses to Spassky and Petrosian.]
Dennis, thank you for the excellent coverage! I made a donation as a token of my appreciation.
[DM: Much appreciated Andrey, especially in my incapacitated condition!]
"(I believe Svidler took third on tiebreaks, for whatever that's worth)"
It's actually worth 24,000 Euros! It turns out that the jump in prize money between 4th and 3rd place is the largest gap between any two consecutive positions.
[DM: That is some serious coin! As with the first 1st-2nd issue, I think it's absolutely nuts. Good for Svidler though!]
I'm a Vlad fan, so this was a bit heartbreaking. Yet this was still a wonderful tournament to watch - the first that I've seen in real time and with live commentary. Lots of interesting chess and lots of really nice "character" moments. Ivanchuk resembled a character from a hackneyed movie script. Gelfand won me over with his utter inability to "get" British humor. Aronian had what I feel was the line of the tournament when he responded to a commentator's suggestion that he could have beat Ivanchuk on time by just shuffling his king back and forth: "Yes, but that's not nice."
As far as Carlsen is concerned, I think this tournament both showed his class and does a bit to lessen the Carsen-mania that was starting to take hold. His strength is evident by the fact that he actually lost 4 points while winning the tournament! Yet his performance in the second half makes the upcoming encounter with Anand less of a foregone conclusion. I for one can't wait.
Finally, as always, thanks so much for your coverage of the event!
According to the website, Ivanchuk actually opened with 1 d4. That makes 1 ... d6 a little weirder. Or is the website incorrect?
[DM: You're correct. Bear in mind I've spent most of the past week doing little more than avoiding screaming pain.]
My analysis:
1. Wow.
2. That Vassily Ivanchuk is quite a character.
3. See #1.
Excellent read, Dennis.
[DM: You're welcome!]
Both Carlsen and Kramnik are supposed to be cool in all circumstances - but in this round their nerves were made of anything but steel. I can understand chosing the Pirc as a winning attempt, but I don't understand 6...a6 and 7...Nc6. Kramnik got precisely the slightly passive position he did not need. I thought that 6...e6 (see eg Dangerous Weapons) would have answered Kramnik's needs better.
[DM: Part of the question Kramnik had to answer was whether Ivanchuk would play a normal game or try to dry things up to make Kramnik go crazy. In general I think Ivanchuk plays normally, so I suspect I'd have gone more conventionally in Kramnik's shoes. But maybe I'm overly influenced by my low view of the Pirc, at least a la Kramnik vs. 2700s.]
A shootout in rapids might also be a problematic way of tiebreaks, but I sure wish we could have gotten some pyrotechnics instead of the absurd "most wins" format. (Which, of course, is another way of saying "most losses.") I was pulling for Carlsen, but it would have been much more interesting and much more sensible to have had a different tiebreak format.
While I agree that Kramnik's opening was poorly chosen, he is far from the only player of the Black pieces to choose that opening in search of winning chances in a desperate situation or against weaker opposition. (Aronian in London last year, Ivanchuk from time to time). It almost seemed as if his strategy was to flag Ivanchuk...
Unfortunately, as will happen, Ivanchuk played better in awful time trouble than Kramnik did in mild time trouble.
I do not relish Anand's chances this time around. Carlsen is not as easy to catch out in the opening as Topalov or Kramnik, because he doesn't play anything in particular. And until the second half of this tournament, his technical skills were second to none. I would think Anand's will play principled chess and seek to get "normal" advantages/equality against Carlsen's slightly offbeat choices. But his preparation team is not going to find it as easy to prepare for Carlsen as for Gelfand or Kramnik.
Hi Dennis,
thanks for your detailed coverage of the tournament; this page was the first thing that I accessed on the web every morning for the last two weeks. Thanks for the good work!
You ask what's it worth to be ahead in tiebreak and I see that that the rules say the prize money is shared, so presumably Carlsen had to also share first and second prize with Kramnik. Strikes me as inconsistent.
A couple of small corrections: Ivanchuk played 1.d4, and the exchange Carlsen could have made was on d5.
Incidentally, I'd love to see some of Ken Regan's IPR analysis of this event. My own impression is that Kramnik played the best overall and I'd like to see if something more objective backs that up.
Doesn't Svidler have a plus score against Carlsen. I think it is +3 -1 8=. Pretty impressive.
This is the way the tourney ends, the tourney ends, the tourney ends
This is the way the tourney ends
- not with a bang, but a whimper
(with apologies to T.S. Elliot)
How about a new tiebreak rule: A (classical? rapid? not blitz!) match, won by the first player to reach 3 wins
If the tiebreak rule was most wins, surely aronian finished 3rd? Or was the most wins tiebreak only for 1st place (that would be weird)
What an epic tournament, with opening theory progressed, tough fighting chess and high pressure situations making mincemeat of top players. The top 3 rated players showed their class, and you'd have to say carlsen deserves the win - the fact he lost rating points while winning this event shows just how far ahead of the rest he is.
[DM: I don't agree with that last sentence. As far as I can tell, it only indicates that he came into the event with a much higher rating. He was the dominant player from rounds 1-11 (excepting the near-loss to Radjabov in the first cycle), but Kramnik was just a missed win or two away from being right there or even ahead by that point. In round 12 Carlsen played badly, in round 13 he won by grinding away, and in round 14 both he and Kramnik faltered. Another metric: Kramnik went +2 against the other members of the top four (and it could easily have been +3 - he was winning by force against Aronian in the first cycle); Carlsen only managed an even score. I'm not claiming Kramnik should have won, but I don't at all see Carlsen showing that he's "far ahead" of Kramnik et al.]
> He (Carlsen) criticized his decision to play Ng4 without first swapping on e5;
d5
Thanks for all the recaps and analysis, Dennis. Hope you feel better.
All in all, it was a great tournament, with lots of excitement. Too bad about the tiebreak rules, but what can you do? The next candidates is set for next year, correct? Maybe Vlad is the early favorite, since Magnus probably won't be there ;).
Well this tournament was quite the ride! Carlsen and Kramnik seemingly duking it out to qualify at different boards, both losing their games (in some misery too).
The last three rounds I was able to follow via livestream, had a lot of fun in the peanut gallery. In the last round, I believe it was after 2 minutes someone declared Ivanchuk was already in desperate time trouble.
As to this bit:
"3-4. Svidler, Aronian 8 (I believe Svidler took third on tiebreaks, for whatever that's worth)"
Aptly put, whatever that's worth:
€ 91,000 (3rd place) - € 67,000 = € 24,000, so that tiebreak over Aronian is worth € 24,000. That's always nice to have. Gelfand gets € 14,000 more than Grischuk (€ 48,000 - € 34,000).
What are your thoughts on the "number of wins" as part of the tiebreaking system Dennis?
[DM: I think I've been pretty straightforward about it, but in case there's any mystery remaining I hate it! First of all, I think going undefeated (or at least having fewer defeats) is a higher sign of excellence, but I think that's just as mistaken a way to determine huge differences in the prize fund and especially to determine the challenger. Split the lower prizes and have a playoff match for the ultimate prize. Now, for events that aren't qualifiers of various sorts, my feeling is slightly different. I'm inclined to go for the same policy, except when there are egregious violators - players who regularly go for short draws. In their case, you simple disinvite them for next year, and if they continue it you simply ban them from your tournaments. If someone is having a Radjabov-like tournament and takes a short draw or two at the end to put a miserable -4 or -5 score behind them, I'm fine with that. I can empathize. Some lazy guy with a -1 score who starts drawing 20-30 move games, however, is not going to receive one thin dime from me in the future. That's ridiculous.]
A couple of points:
- Chucky actually opened 1. d4 against Kramnik (and then it went 1... d6 2. e4 etc.).
- Kramnik's 33... h4 mightn't have been so bad. Chess Today gave a line I've not seen mentioned elsewhere which, if I recall, was 35 ... Rxa6 (rather than 35 ... Rc8) 36. Rxa6 Nf4+! 37. Bxf4 exf4 38. Bxf7+ Kh8 39. Qd3 Qxh4 with a draw.
[DM: Thanks - I hadn't noticed the line you mentioned at the time (of course, I wasn't really noticing much of anything, unfortunately), but did realize and recall that 35...Rc8 looked and was generally considered lousy as well.]
Interesting thoughts from Kasparov: http://chess-news.ru/node/11577
As I said in my earlier comment, the rules say:
"All prize money will be divided equally where players have the same score in the tournament (after 14 rounds)."
So presumably prize money is not allocated on tiebreak.
Thanks also from me Dennis for the excellent coverage - I always go to you first for game analysis.
If the tiebreak rule was most wins, surely aronian finished 3rd? Or was the most wins tiebreak only for 1st place (that would be weird)
Most wins was the SECOND tie-break. The first tie-break was head-to-head score, and Svidler beat Aronian 1.5 - 0.5 in their mini-match. That's how Svidler finishes higher in the listings.
...
Dennis, I realized I haven't wished you good health with your recent back issue. Here's hoping that resolves itself successfully, and soon. Back pain is just about the most miserable pain extant.
Kasparov's respect for Ivanchuk is pretty striking -- it's not as if he's known for effusively praising his rivals (past or present). I've wondered before if, when he's "on", Ivanchuk is the strongest player living. I suppose that's an unprovable assertion, but I'm reminded of certain players in tennis described by their peers as essentially impossible to beat when they're at their best.
(Andre Agassi once said that playing Pete Sampras was difficult in part because he knew that if Sampras brought his A+ game, there was nothing Agassi could do even at his own best. People have said similar things about Federer. Or, to take a more Ivanchuk-esque example, Marat Safin: at his best he looked literally unbeatable, with huge weapons and no weaknesses to speak of -- but he could turn around and spectacularly self-destruct.)
The amount of sheer calculational and intuitive force he brings to bear when he's "on" -- I've never seen anything else like it, and I think it even exceeds Kasparov's own abilities (hence, perhaps, his great respect for Chucky). I can't imagine facing it OTB, though at the same time it strikes me as totally unlike the ego-driven pressure that a Fischer or Kasparov bring to bear on their opponents.
Strangely, I wasn't at all surprised by Ivanchuk's showing in the tournament, including his victories over the leaders (would it be asking too much to say that I more or less expected him to beat Carlsen?). What surprised me more was Kramnik's decision to play the Pirc, not because I think it's a sub-par opening but because it seemed like a spectacularly poor choice against a player who's famously omnivorous in his opening choices, and won't be fazed by anything you throw at him. If you're Kramnik, why not play something where you feel you can be at your best?
An interesting interview with Kramnik, translated into English by Natalia Pogonina's site:
http://pogonina.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1600&Itemid=1&&lang=english
I think this one works well with the Kasparov article linked above by hylen.
...
I also see that Chess Base has an article up with computer analysis of the Candidate's Tournament. I haven't read the background articles to see how different this is from Regan's approach, and honestly I'm not sure I will! But here's the link to that article:
http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211/PostId/4009400/the-quality-of-play-at-the-candidates-080413.aspx
Lots of interesting comments and links to more.
Carlsen LOL