Carlsen-Anand, Game 2: Carlsen Wins After Anand Blunders in a Bad Position
This is clearly not the way Viswanathan Anand hoped to start his second world championship match against Magnus Carlsen. The position he reached from the opening, a "Closed" Berlin (4.d3) was reasonable enough, objectively speaking, but Carlsen found a nice plan to whip up a dangerous kingside initiative - 14.Ra3 was the clear signal, but the previous moves had prepared the plan. Anand defended well for a while, but 20...Bxf5 rather than the tactically clever 20...Kh8 (21.Rxf6 Qf7) was a big concession. Soon the players reached their second straight heavy piece ending, but this time Carlsen entered it with a large positional advantage. Carlsen's technique was not up to its usual incredibly high standard, but he was still in control when Anand played 34...h5??, which lost on the spot. Carlsen played 35.Qb7 and Anand resigned on the move.
Anand's propensity to make concessions like 20...Bxf5 was part of what ruined his chances last year, and it looks like it's happening again. The trouble is that his keep-it-simple approach, one he has used to the point of cynicism over the years, has worked very effectively against everyone else in the chess world, at least since Garry Kasparov's retirement. Against Carlsen (as against Bobby Fischer and Anatoly Karpov in their primes) it is a disaster. He accepts the concession, then ramps up the tension again until the opponent makes another concession, which he again accepts and starts the process all over again. Most players, even great ones, tend to relax at least a little once they've extracted some gain from their opponents; most, but not Carlsen. Anand must try not to let Carlsen get risk-free positions, where he is simply the best player in the world, and by a significant margin.
For Anand to choose the Berlin against Carlsen is almost the exact inversion of Kasparov's problem in 2000 against Vladimir Kramnik. Kasparov kept banging his head against the Berlin ending, believing (with some justification, at least at the time) that White simply must be better there and thus sticking to the principled belief that he should keep at it. Had he switched to the less principled 4.d3, he might not have obtained any advantage but would have reached positions where his own natural gifts would be more likely to shine. For Anand, it's the opposite: he is playing the Berlin because he believes (with justification) that Black is doing fine there. That's true (or at least seems to be true at this point in time), but he is thereby heading into the kinds of positions where his opponent's gifts for chess are more likely to shine than his own. Giving Carlsen a position where he can just grind away with no risk at all is a ridiculously bad strategy. It's not that Carlsen can't play in sharper positions - of course he can - but there they can fight on a much more equal footing. So: if Anand has some Sicilian lines ready to go in his preparation, it's time to use them. Make Carlsen take strategic risks!
The game, with some light annotations, can be replayed here. (Subscribers' coverage is coming later today. For non-subscribers, it's not too late to sign up!)
Reader Comments (11)
With Carlsen having struck first, we must now wonder whether Anand will manage to win a single game or will lose heart. I am hoping that he will get his nerves under control, make use of what surely must be better preparation than last time round, and win one game, but further hopes must now diminish, even for Anand himself, and that could be a problem for him and for the world championship tournament itself. Two lackluster tournaments in a row may serve to lower the prize fund still further. Will Carlsen even want to play for less? Still, perhaps more money could be found if, say, Caruana were to win the right to challenge.
[DM: The next world championship match is a couple of years away, but - FIDE nuttiness aside - I don't think there will be too many difficulties financing a match with many of the likely challengers, e.g. Caruana, Aronian and Grischuk.]
Thank you, Dennis, for your open-hearted analysis of Anand´s strategic concepts so far. I think you are right with what you say - he should lure Carlsen into the muddy waters, and well, rely on his own strenghts and creativity. If he doesn´t, we will see more disappointing games like this, and a rather one-sided match (again).
Fingers crossed, Vishy, just go for it!
I doubt if switching to the Sicilian would solve Anand’s problems. Of course he would be happy to play the Najdorf, but after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 Carlsen as a rule goes to the 3.Bb5+ lines with a Maróczy Bind structure, which seems to suit his “grinding” style very well.
[DM: I was thinking of the Paulsen.]
That’s what happened in his last 3 Sicilian games with Anand, and the way they developed wasn’t very encouraging for the latter – Carlsen crushed him in Bilbao 2012 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1693032); tortured him quite a bit last year in Norway (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1716818 – at a certain point White could have won a pawn with winning chances after 27.Rxc6 Rxc6 28.N[d]c7); and got a winning position by move 30 – though he failed to convert it – in the final game of last year’s match (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1737924). More generally, I think the main strength of Carlsen’s opening play, which is often underestimated, is his ability to reach positions that suit his style from almost any opening – rather than coming up with specific novelties or new ideas.
[DM: That's a good point, and there are no guarantees that Anand will succeed. I do think that his odds go up a bit by avoiding 1...e5, however.]
I think you're bang on with your thoughts on Anand and Kasparov's faulty strategy. If Magnus wins this one, the next WC match is certain to contain somebody besides Anand which will bring in the money, as you say. Hopefully they can move it to a location where a bit of money might be made with a full playing hall.
I, too, have not understood why Anand hasn't gone to the Sicilian. It doesn't seem like he has played it very much in recent years (haven't verified by database), but wasn't it a favorite of his in the '90s? The Berlin seems like a terrible choice against Carlsen, since, as you note, it allows Carlsen to sort of positionally grind away with little risk. Even if Anand hadn't blundered there, it's hard to imagine Carlsen not converting that position, even if it took him two more hours.
[DM: Anand has been playing a lot of 1...e5 lately (who hasn't?), but over the years he has also played the Paulsen and Najdorf variations of the Sicilian, lots of Caro-Kanns and the (very) occasional French.]
I'm not convinced that the position was too bad at the end. Anand seemingly got of the hook with the concept ...b5 and...Rb4 only to blunder a few moves later. Had he chosen ...Qd2 instead of ...h5 the outcome would have been different I think.
[DM: Maybe, maybe not, but he certainly would have had chances. It would have been psychologically very interesting if he held, as Carlsen would have blown first a superior position in game 1 and a winning position in game 2.]
Dennis:
Nigel Short mentioned 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 on Twitter as well, and Anand used to play the Paulsen with success in the 1990's. Not only that, but he had a Black win in the Scheveningen (although I do not remember whether he reached it via a Paulsen move order) against Carlsen himself a few years ago.
There are a lot of panicky people out there, but there are ten games left and Anand did show good preparation in Game 1. The Berlin was a shock, and I recalled the stubborn insistence on the Elista ending in the Slav that eventually brought him a loss in the Topalov match. Anand's greatest match successes have been in situations where he intentionally livened things up with both colors (Kramnik, Game 12 with Topalov). Anand has always been at his best in unbalanced positions, and notably weaker in symmetrical and technical defenses.
[DM: I'm with you on the general points, but I wouldn't really call Lasker's Defense (as in game 12 vs. Topalov) "livening things up". He won that game because Topalov went berserk out of fear of facing Anand in the rapid tiebreaks.]
There's still a match on (Anand lost to Topalov and Gelfand early too), but Carlsen has to be a prohibitive favorite at this point.
That said, rooting for the old guy.
I looked at the ending closely again and found that even without the mistake it was hard to hold the game. So my former post seems irrelevant.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who's afraid this match is about to turn into an absolute slaughter. Agreed that Anand is basically making the same mistake again. He needs to aim for maximally sharp/unbalanced positions at all costs, and conjure the creative spirit of that remarkable game against Ivanchuk in 1992 with 17...gxf6 and 22...Rh3.
What about the Winawer French? Fischer always struggled against it, and White has no really effective way of avoiding it and keeping the position locked down -- unless Carlsen is so cynical as to play the Exchange French, I suppose, but that's a bridge too far even for him.
Another option would be Alekhine's Defense, which Fischer famously pulled out twice in the Spassky 1972 match. It doesn't seem like an intuitive choice for Anand, but then again he got a fine position with the Scandinavian against Kasparov.
[DM: I can't say I believe much in the Alekhine, especially at their level, but the French may deserve consideration. May. The problem is that even if 3.Nc3 Bb4 is totally sound, 3.Nd2 seems to fit very nicely with the Carlsen modus operandi.]
Sorry if this is not appropriate to your forum but I just wanted to know your thoughts. After the third [game] win from Anand, many people on Twitter seem to give the credit to Anand's home-preparation than his skills (understandably I think). Nigel Short said this on Twitter "This is exactly the sort of chess I dislike playing. It has more to do with homework and memory than innate ability".
So, the question I have is - does it matter? If one wins the match because of memory (which is a skill in itself) more than the ability - should it be inferior than playing just with ability? Sorry, I don't mean to start a controversy, I just love your blog and would like to know your thoughts, if you would like to. Please note that I am not questioning Anand's ability at all, the way he has bounced back is a massive inspiration to anyone. Thanks - SD.
[DM: Garry Kasparov, who certainly belongs to the deep preparation camp, argued that it isn't "knowing chess" vs. "knowing book"; rather, knowing positions deeply is part of what it means to know chess. Part of what makes Nigel Short a world-class player is that he knows a lot of positions very deeply; he isn't like a computer without an opening book. He just doesn't want to delve as deeply as some other players, that's all. There's nothing wrong with that, but if he doesn't want to be as industrious as some other players, that's not the fault of those players or of the game of chess. And some people enjoying being researchers - they are just different attitudes. Finally, Short can be cheered by the successes of players like Rapport and Jobava, who play offbeat lines with incredible success.]
Thanks a lot Dennis for your taking time to provide your valuable insight. Really really appreciated! -SD