2016 World Championship: Carlsen Wins, Equalizes the Scores
It took ten games, but Magnus Carlsen finally got his first win, and thereby evened up the match with two games to go. It wasn't a perfect game, but it was a good, hard-fought, well-earned victory by Carlsen in his signature style, posing problem after problem and turning a tiny advantage into a 75-move win.
The big question, which will undoubtedly be addressed in the press conference, is why Sergey Karjakin twice rejected an idea that would have given him a draw (or an advantage, if Carlsen chose to play on): on both moves 20 and 21 the move ...Nxf2+ forces White to repeat moves or stand worse with a material deficit. So it was a good win by Carlsen, but if Karjakin ends up losing the match he may have years of nightmares and regrets about his missed opportunities in games 9 and 10.
Game 11 is on Saturday (Friday is a rest day), and then game 12 is on Monday after a further rest day. Meanwhile, here is game 10, with my notes. (They're not as thorough as they could have been for a grand battle like this, but it is Thanksgiving here in the U.S.)
Reader Comments (8)
Missed perpetual aside, what a game. Games like the last two make me particularly regret this isn't a 20 game match. They must be exhausted after the stress of playing this one.
I was waching, but swiched off just before Karjakin rejected to play for the perpetual. I was copletely convinced the game would end at his point - Karjakin would be happy with a draw and Carlsen would never risk to loose again. What a biased fool am I!
Now I raise my hat for Karjakins spirit to play on.
What I don't understand: They are able to examine very complex variations but miss easy variations from time to time.
It seems to me, that Karjakin never thought about taking on f2. But why?
Seems like the blitz will favor Carlsen. My dream would be that the whole thing is settled by an Evans Gambit victory in an armageddon game.
@MikeO: "make me particularly regret this isn't a 20 game match. They must be exhausted after the stress of playing this one." - So you want the match to continue with both players already very exhausted?
@Dennis: "The big question, which will undoubtedly be addressed in the press conference, is why Sergey Karjakin twice rejected an idea that would have given him a draw (or an advantage, if Carlsen chose to play on): on both moves 20 and 21 the move ...Nxf2+ forces White to repeat moves or stand worse with a material deficit." The answer was that Karjakin didn't spot 22.-Nhf4+ (or 22.-Ngf4+). Strange it might seem, but stranger things happened in the second Anand-Carlsen match (game 6) and, early in the match before Toiletgate, in Kramnik-Topalov: Both players missed a forced mate for Topalov, the game continued and Kramnik eventually won.
For what it's worth, several "weak" (sub-2700) GMs watching and tweeting about the game weren't sure about the possible position with rook and pawns vs. two knights. Twan Burg (twaburov): "makes sense that Karjakin avoid such position with ..d5 [later] Not everyone can value such -0.3 position with NN vs R :)". Erwin l'Ami: "Kind of like the knights there." Jonathan Rowson: "It's possible Sergey saw 20...Nxf2+ but felt 21.Kg1 Nh3+ 22.Kg2 Nhf4+ 23.gf Nxf4 24Rxf4 ef 25Nf1 might be better for White?" In these Twitter exchanges only an IM disagreed - Robert Ris: "I'd prefer the pawn army, but who am I? :)".
"So you want the match to continue with both players already very exhausted?"
This is a strange (and snarky) comment. I said they were probably exhausted after *this game*. If players are to be too exhausted to continue a match past 10 games, why not just play a 3 game match? 20+ game matches were fine for many decades, are the players made of so much less stern stuff now? Yeah, no adjournments make these games more grueling than in the old days, but they also commonly reel off 20+ moves of computer opening theory nowadays.
We are experiencing something that has rarely happened in chess history. Two player that are nearly the same age and at or very near their peak strength. Except for Anand - Gelfand, we most often had an aging Champion playing a much younger challenger whose was just beginning to reach their prime. Both Magnus and Sergey are under 30 years of age, so who ever wins could be looking at the loser being a rival for years to come. I agree with those chess fans that believe a longer match would have been better, given the quality of the play so far.
I expect this to be an easy win for Magnus, but I am thrilled that is turning out to be a +1 victory whether in regular or rapid play. Both deserve our praise.
@MikeO: "they also commonly reel off 20+ moves of computer opening theory nowadays" - in this match, it may have been the case in games 6 and 9 (pausing only to remember your prep). Generally, opening preparation became both easier and trickier with engines - the tricky part being how to assess/understand engine verdicts, and how to still (try to) surprise your opponent. In any case, the amount of required opening preparation probably multiplied, both before and during a match. Longer supertournaments were also more common decades ago, nowadays candidates (14 games) and Wijk aan Zee (13 games) are the maximum and already exceptions. Longer WCh matches would also 'remove' the participants from the supertournament scene for a longer time - before, during and after (more time needed to recover) the match.
@Larry L.: "something that has rarely happened in chess history" - maybe/probably with respect to both players being rather young (Ponomariov-Ivanchuk had a similar age average but is generally either overlooked or deliberately ignored). I limit myself to "chess history within my lifetime": The "aging Champion playing a much younger challenger whose was just beginning to reach their prime" scenario happened three times: first Kasparov-Karpov match, Kasparov-Kramnik and Anand-Carlsen. In two cases, the dethroned champion managed to qualify for at least one additional match, same story for the unsuccessful challenger Korchnoi against Karpov. Three other matches (Kramnik-Topalov, Anand-Kramnik and Anand-Topalov) I would describe as "both players at or near their peak strength", no clear favorite before the match. Kramnik and Topalov were/are also "nearly the same age" - they may not share much, but both were born in 1975. Unsure about the "status" of the Kramnik-Leko match.
"who ever wins could be looking at the loser being a rival for years to come" - maybe, but not quite comparable to Karpov-Korchnoi and later Kasparov-Karpov: there are many more players with legitimate WCh ambitions, I am not sure the loser of the Carlsen-Karjakin match will win the next candidates (also not if Carlsen should lose the current match).