Carlsen Wins Zurich Chess Challenge; Caruana Second on Tiebreaks Ahead of Aronian
Magnus Carlsen had a very bad time of things in the (quick) rapid games on Tuesday, and came close to losing his lead at the Zurich Chess Challenge. Close, but not close enough for Levon Aronian and Fabiano Caruana to catch him. All three players won their first game - Carlsen over Boris Gelfand, Aronian over Viswanathan Anand and Caruana over Hikaru Nakamura - and it looked like the deal was done. Carlsen enjoyed a two point lead over Aronian and a three point lead on Caruana, with just four games to go.
But then it got interesting. Aronian outplayed Carlsen and won handily to close to within a point. Caruana only drew with Gelfand, so he only closed his gap to two and a half points. In round 3 Carlsen drew with Nakamura, and while Aronian remained a point behind after a draw with Gelfand, Caruana got another half a point closer by defeating Anand. (That was three losses in a row for Anand, incidentally.)
Round 4 was the big chance. Caruana outplayed Carlsen, coming to within a single point of the leader. Had Aronian managed to defeat Nakamura, he would have caught Carlsen in first. Nakamura has been a regular "customer" of his for some time now, but not today. Nakamura won a good game, and so Aronian remained a point behind.
Round 5 was a mere formality. Carlsen had White against Anand, and cynically (but understandably) repeated game 8 of their match pretty much move for move. The players conducted the whole game at blitz tempo, called it a draw, and Carlsen clinched. (I enjoyed Nakamura's disdainful expression as he looked up at the electronic display as this was going on.) Caruana and Aronian played a real game, which also ended in a draw, and thus they finished tied for second, a point behind Carlsen. (Caruana took second on tiebreak.) Here are the full final standings:
1. Carlsen 10 (out of 15 - the classical games were scored double)
2. Caruana 9
3. Aronian 9
4. Nakamura 7.5 (he finished the rapid with a very strong 3.5/4)
5. Anand 5
6. Gelfand 4.5
Reader Comments (3)
"Caruana outplayed Carlsen" yes, but after an unnecessary and insane sac of Carlsen. Whether at that stage Carlsen was already in (kind of) trouble I can not judge. At least Caruana did not hesitate to take the sac an precisly refuted it. Either Carlsen wanted too much, or he gambled, feeling uncomfortable in the position.
Generally Caruanas modest and determined personality is very convincig. He seems to be a Marathon Man, having different qualities compared with Carlsen. No big risk to bet, he will further improve and become a serious threat for the latter. Meanwhile I hope, this brillant Aronian will get the next shot for becoming WC.
It's probably worth noting that had Nakamura brought home the point vs Carlsen in classical, he wins the tournament and Carlsen ends up in 4th place. I'm sure Naka is grinding his teeth about this even now.
Would you call Nakamura's d6 a blunder!? Even the commentators initially thought it was the best candidate move and only realized the change in evaluation after they were told to check the computer. The move seems a bit of a freak and it just seems a little harsh to call it a blunder...just curious your take on it. Thanks!
[DM: "Blunder" is an ambiguous term. Some use it to refer to a move that's obviously bad even to a low-level club player, like leaving a piece en prise or allowing a simple mate in one or two. Nakamura's error certainly wasn't a blunder in that sense. But others (myself included) use it more expansively. If one goes from a position that is more or less easily winning to equal (and where the burden of proving equality suddenly rests on the player who had been winning), then the player has made a whopping error. If you want to restrict "blunder" to obvious errors, then we need a new term to cover mistakes like Nakamura's d6. Before it he enjoyed absolute domination of the board, had many ways to win (I just flipped on the computer and keep adding lines. So far its top 10 choices all give White an advantage of at least +3.69, going up to almost +8), had a humongous positive evaluation and was not even remotely forced to play d6. His error was very understandable, but I still think the term "blunder" applies.]