Round 9 was a great day at the world championship for leader Vishy Anand. This despite taking a 21-move draw against Aronian's Marshall. His closest pursuers, Gelfand and Kramnik, both lost, leaving Anand with a full-point lead with five rounds to play.
Round 10: Aronian-Grischuk, Gelfand-Leko, Kramnik-Anand, Svidler-Morozevich. LIVE
The idea that Anand's short draw with Aronian was therefore a clever ploy is silly, of course. It's wasn't the final round and even though Anand is now the huge favorite to take the title, chess still happens. You can't rely on your opponents to help you out. He still has a critical test with black against Kramnik on Monday and had Gelfand not blown an endgame draw against Grischuk today Anand's lead would still be just a half point.
But it's not. Not only did Gelfand lose, but defending champion Vladimir Kramnik also suffered his first defeat. He was lured into the swampy terrain of Morozania and slowly sank into the marsh. Morozevich is the consummate style player. Instead of a theoretical argument he'll go to extremes to reach unusual, imbalanced positions where his unique insight sees advantages others cannot. Kramnik, who scored his only win of the event against Moro in a spectacular game, made his first mistake by picking up the gauntlet and going into a weird Benoni instead of the expected ..e6 and eventual ..d5. Like many before him, Kramnik played the Benoni in a must-win situation against Leko in game 13 of their 2004 WCh match. He did well (but drew), and of course a player of his caliber can play anything well, but you can't believe a player of Kramnik's classical pedigree is at home with black in these positions. He almost seemed to want to out-Moro Moro when he lifted his rook all the way to a bizarre outpost on a5. Morozevich had already made this game one to hide from your beginning students by hurling his kingside pawns forward. Remember he did this with black against Grischuk in the fifth round and was duly punished. Here he exploited Kramnik's funky rook and took over the queenside while Black's pieces were still jumbled. Kramnik with a knight on e8? Morozevich kept himself out of time trouble and played the endgame precisely. It's remarkable how dominant the white position is with equal material and just three pawns per side. Kasparov thought Kramnik went wrong early, playing ..Bg4 ("the wrong idea, now the pawn on e3 can be useful. ..Re8 is natural.") instead of trying to work for Benoni play with White down a tempo. He also blamed Black's decision not to play ..f6 early to free up the Rf8.
Grischuk decided to be the grinder instead of the grindee after two tough losses in the Anti-Marshall dropped him out of contention for the top spot. Gelfand met his 1.d4 with the Nimzo-Indian and they followed a long theoretical line we've seen regularly at the top level lately. A couple of curious bishop maneuvers and a queen exchange didn't seem to promise much. But White's control of the open files was enough to get a good endgame chances. Gelfand defended well until losing his mind with 53..h3??, a classic example of the sort of super-GM move that makes you wonder what was going on in his super-brain to produce it. He must have seen something about the obvious 53..Kg5 he didn't like, but we'll have to wait till press conference comments come out. Keeping the white king back would have held the draw. After 54.Kg4 it's hopeless. Strange from the solid Gelfand, who has been in tremendous form and isn't the sort for endgame slips. Kasparov was impressed by Grischuk's decision to play Bf6 and chop the knight, after which it's "pure pressure" for White without worrying about a knight stirring up trouble. He was also forgiving of Gelfand's final mistake, saying it was a long and very difficult defense.
A Sicilian!! A Najdorf! That was enough to have me and Nick de Firmian rooting for Peter Svidler in his game with Leko. I figured some of the negative crew would drop 1..e5 as the tournament wound down. Svidler finally decided it was Bring Your Cojones to Work Day after eight rounds of pain and a winless -2 score. 12.Rg1 is a strange line, one that surprised Najdorf expert Nick. It's been played before at this level lately, twice by Anand in rapids, but it is a little hard to explain why it should be relevant instead of the usual immediate g5. One of the players with experience in this line is Lenier Dominguez, Leko's second in Mexico. We were wondering if Leko was really going to go for the pawn sac line Anand used to demolish van Wely at this year's Amber blindfold. (13..Qc7 14.g5 Nfd7 15. Nd5 Bxd5 16.exd5 Nxd5 17.Qxd5 Qxa5 18.Bd3.) Maybe Svidler was just trying to avoid Leko's prep in that sharp line when he played 13..Rc8. That doesn't explain 14..Ne8 (another knight on e8!) however. I thought the principle of these positions was forget about defense, get all forces into the attack asap. Black locks in a rook and relies on his other pieces to do enough damage on the queenside to keep White honest. Leko's slow-motion plan allowed Svidler to achieve the Sicilian dream move ..d5 and exchanges led to a draw in 29 moves. A fizzle for a Najdorf, but let's hope it starts a trend.
Anand tried an antique line against Aronian's Marshall, but the g2, Kf2 idea didn't have any punch. Aronian said afterward that all he did was play natural moves. Not exactly a pass from Vishy, but he clearly didn't mind saving his strength for the battle with Kramnik today. If Kramnik wins the tournament gets new life, otherwise the last rounds may turn into a coronation waltz for Anand. In the comments Jeff Sonas provides some of his stats with percentage chance to win that put Vishy's chances at 82% prior to round 10. Numbers have a way of making what they represent seem real, but with so much riding on the result of one game they don't really mean that much to me. They interest me more pre-event. Jeff also reminds that a win for Kramnik would be worth almost a point and a half in the fight for first because it would give him the first tiebreaker advantage over Anand.
Tough tournament for the Rodina so far. Half the field is Russian but none have better than an even score. Will Gelfand hold it together in the home stretch or will the veteran tire and falter? Will Anand go for sharp Semi-Slav or endure the Catalan torture that Kramnik beat him with at Corus this year? His black prep has been fantastic so far.
Btw, Ian Rogers' column on round 8 at CLO contains another support for move minimums. Svidler had a promising continuation against Kramnik but took the repetition because he didn't see it at the time. Most of these 20-movers are accompanied by "there was no play" justifications. (There are the occasional blatant ones with a board full of pieces of course.) Just ban the draw offers and let's find out, eh?
A triumph of will for Morozevich.
Mig, I do not like stupid congratulatory notes or annoying platitudes,
but the above was very well written. Fast and fluid, yet rich of ideas
and nuances - seems inspired? Nice!
D.
Omigawd Moro you beauty! Just when one starts to lose faith in the Moro machine, he comes back with something like this. Tell me now that he doesnt deserve to play for the WC.. To befuddle Kramnik of all people like that. Wow is all I can say. 3 cheers to the most original player on the circuit for ages, I am right now bowing in homage..
I join the veneration of Morozevich too. The man has tons of guts and plays exciting chess, like the young Kasparov. But it's interesting that when Kramnik is dragged into the swamp he does fight and fight hard.
Classical hd-to-hd between moro-kram ?
Moro-anand ?
Paradoxically, this loss may reduce the pressure on Kramnik and induce him to play freely. Anand, on the other hand realizes that a draw should be enough to sew up the championship and will be feeling the heat. There will be a strong temptation to play for a draw, much like Karpov in game 24, Seville 87 and Leko in Brissago, and as anyone can tell you, thats a sure way to play to lose.
Also, sometime earlier I'd made some none too subtle insuniations on Russian collusion, I'd have to take those words back. Hats off to Morozevich. A true devotee of Caissa!
Kramnik still has a must win game against Anand. If he doesnt win it's all over. If he does win then tournament commes alive ....... Should be very interesting tonight
Russian collusion? This is the new Russia, where capitalism is king. Self-interest is the name of the game. Great win by Morozevich. It's games like these that lends strength to the arguments for world championships decided by tournaments. (Umm .. perhaps minimatches could be used as tie-breakers?) Also, more players get a shot at the title, an important consideration given the erratic manner in which candidates are chosen. Even a Danialov (no apologies if I misspelled the name) would be hard put to take up a controversy in such a tournament.
About Svidler's premature draw against Kramnik, he has too much respect for Kramnik and Anand. Psychologically, he cannot believe he will beat them. Look at the way he collapsed against Anand.
Tonight's the night. Go, Vishy, go! Kramnik will be a wounded lion, but you can tame the beast. The world number one has kept out of all controversies, and is a dignified presence on the world chess stage. I remember the days when he was the Lightning Kid, beating experienced Soviet GMs while using up just 30 minutes or less on the clock. Not surprisingly, he's the best rapid player in the world today. Vishy looks to be in great form, and deserves to win this event. May he also win the match to follow.
A playar of Anand's caliper can draw by force if draw is all he wants, even with black against another player of the same class. Therefore, I think Kramnik's chances are really gone for good.
Mysterious game, this Moro-Kramnik. After five moves, I thought exactly what Kasparov did: if black treats the position as a normal Benoni, white should have no way to justify his e3. Oh well, there was probably some subtle reason for black to go astray.
How i wish we had Ivanchuk, Topalov and Radjabov in this fiesta as well. Then we could have a veritable feast of fighting chess.So many talents..so many great players. I hope we get back to a sensible world championship format soon. The chess world needs it like yesterday.
>if black treats the position as a normal Benoni, white should have no way to justify his e3>
Moro plays unjustified plans but this only seems to trigger in his opponents an unease and and an acute need to do something equally absurd in order to restore the overall sense-- as Kramnik's Rc5-Ra5 in order to give the blocked by the e3-pawn Bd2 something to aim for.
It's like replying 1.h4 with 1..h5!
"Just when one starts to lose faith in the Moro machine, he comes back with something like this. Tell me now that he doesnt deserve to play for the WC."
Unfortunately, the championship is decided on overall consistency, not on the single best game you played. Moro has seldom been able to string enough of these games together to win a top tournament, and it doesn't look like it's going to happen this time either.
Should Kramnik beat Anand today, a most absurd result will take place, highlighting FIDE's stupidity:
Kramnik will "lose" the WC title to the man he beat 1.5-.5 in their individual match.
In other words, Kramnik will lose the title to Moro, but Anand will be the one getting it...
Marc, did it actually need to be said that the overall best game doesn't win the championship?! Well, I guess there must have been somebody out there who thought that and you set it straight. Well done. I agree it looks extremely unlikely that Moro will become WC in this tourney. However he continues to show his potential, and his ability to beat anybody on his day. That to me is very satisfying, being a great fan of his irrational style, and his raw talent. That he should demonstrate this ability against one of the greatest exponents of the pure classical style playing today, and one moreover in good form, is doubly satisfying.
About the Rybka-Zappa match...
I assume that both of these machines are using endgame databases. If they are, does anyone know why they would play a position out to K+Q v K? Both sides should know instantly once 6 (or is it 7?!) pieces are left the exact outcome of the game. They should see that posisiton 245,975 has been reached with mate in 73, or whatever.
Yes, but d_tal, there are a number of top players who exhibit strong, fighting, exciting chess, with the ability to beat anybody on any day. Gata Kamsky is another example. That doesn't mean those players have world champion potential. Everyone knew that Moro was likely to have an exciting win or two, coupled with too many losses to be the overall winner. In chess, as in most sports, the champion often goes to the most solid player, not necessarily the most exciting one. It's a beautiful thing when the two coincide, but they often don't.
"Should Kramnik beat Anand today, a most absurd result will take place, highlighting FIDE's stupidity: Kramnik will "lose" the WC title to the man he beat 1.5-.5 in their individual match."
Well, that's the reason why most chess fans (as well as Kramnik himself) consider the long match format superior. But Kramnik agreed to the format knowing that this was a possibility. This "problem" occurs in other sports too. In football, Team A might beat Team B head-to-head, but Team B could still win the championship by having a better overall record than Team A.
The rabid (is there any other kind?) Morozevich fan's memories are very short. Remember the crush he received from Big Vlady earlier in this tournament?
This was Kramnik's first loss in the last 5 top class tournaments he's been a part of. Morozevich has lost 3 games in this tournament. See the difference?
Moro's win over Kramnik, and indeed his overall playing style, refutes the arguments of chess critics / chess-variants proponents (the people I describe as wanting "to destroy the village in order to save it"), that chess in its present form is dead or "played out."
It also demonstrates the complexity, even absurdity (using that word in the Dada/existentialist sense - echoes of Marcel Duchamp?), of the way we think about chess "understanding."
If I'm not mistaken, this (Moro) is the very same man who said a year or so ago that Kasparov doesn't understand chess, and he himself (Moro) doesn't understand it either.
In conjunction with Moro-Kramnik, that comment evokes my two (latest) favorite chess teachers: Rowson and Simon Webb.
Rowson's The Seven Deadly Chess Sins, my most recent chess infatuation, could be described as a book-length exposition of the idea that chess understanding at the highest level is primarily intuitive. In Rowson's view, calculation plays a minor role in it, while pure memory (the lynchpin of technique) plays no role at all. He's not saying technique is unimportant; only that technique plus calculating power alone can't make someone a super-GM.
Shortly after Rowson came out with Chess For Zebras (which I haven't yet read), Dennis Monokroussos devoted one of his Chessbase lectures to a wild, positionally "asbsurd" game McShane-Kotronias; I think it was included in Chess For Zebras to dramatize some ideas about the need to think outside the box. This too makes me think of Moro.
Finally, there is Simon Webb. Mig's reference to the "swamp" seems to have been inspired by Webb, who advised "tigers" (strong players) to fight "heffalumps" (still-stronger players) by trying to lure them into "the swamp" of difficult-to-evaluate positions, and/or unfathomable complications. That's an appealing portrait of what happened here, even though the tiger/heffalump metaphor doesn't apply in the strict sense that Webb used it. (Having read Chess For Tigers, which was aimed at amateurs, it's pretty clear to me that the strength difference he addressed was much wider than the gap between Moro and Kramnik.)
Jon,
Moro played a great game, even the best of the tournament if you want, but you draw too big conclusions out of a single rare bird (chess not dead, not understood, etc).
Overgeneralization methinks and I wonder why did you have to wait so long before a game which supports such wished-to-be-true conclusions to appear?
Isn't perpahs that in general the evidence points exactly to the contrary ?
Kramnik went wrong when he opened the position
without having first solved the play/postion for his pieces still blocked on Ks. Not clear with what he thought he would play after the trading of the active ones on the Qs.
Indeed a simple, intuitive, judgment error.
"Yes, but d_tal, there are a number of top players who exhibit strong, fighting, exciting chess, with the ability to beat anybody on any day. Gata Kamsky is another example."
Certainly Kamsky is a strong "fighting" chess player, but if you think he's anything like Moro, you're sadly mistaken.
"That doesn't mean those players have world champion potential."
Exactly what is your point? Moro qualified by the rules, and many people questioned this. Currently, he's half a point below the great Kramnik, (whom presumably you credit with having some chance of winning) despite playing his own unique brand of Chess (which is NOTHING like Kamsky incidentally). I'm happy about this, very, very happy. Is that a problem?
Jon wrote:
"Rowson's The Seven Deadly Chess Sins, my most recent chess infatuation, could be described as a book-length exposition of the idea that chess understanding at the highest level is primarily intuitive. In Rowson's view, calculation plays a minor role in it, while pure memory (the lynchpin of technique) plays no role at all. He's not saying technique is unimportant; only that technique plus calculating power alone can't make someone a super-GM."
mmmm...very interesting...
How does Rowson explain computers' super-GM playing strenght and rating, given that they lack "intuition"?
d_tal, my only point is that this isolated victory doesn't mean very much. Moro had a great game yesterday, about which I am sure he and his fans are quite happy—as they deserve to be. But his overall place in the tournament is turning out just about where most observers expected it to be, out of contention.
Kramnik, of course, is in a very different position, as he has something Moro does not: a guaranteed rematch.
Morozevich deserves credit for being faithful to his risky style even in this all-important event. He may not win the title, but he's already made a huge impact by bringing down the reigning champion. A tournament like this needs unpredictable players like him. As somebody here observed, throw in Rajdabov,Ivanchuk, Carlsen, and Karjakin and you can see why a tournament is more interesting than a match.
Contrast Morozevich with Svidler. Svidler made a revealing remark at a press conference, about trying to play "solid" here and "not enjoying it." Well, exactly! That explains his poor results. He should have stuck to his normal style by playing the Najdorf and the Grunfeld. I'm sure he would have fared better.
Anand is playing percentage chess. No unnecessary risks, but merciless on any mistakes (except that Mad Moro managed to confuse him). Unlike earlier in his career, he hardly makes serious errors these days. Plus, he has honed his defensive skills, making him that much more hard to beat.
From the tournament interest point of view, a Kramnik win is in order. But I'm hoping Vishy wins. He deserves his slice of chess immortality. India has just become the cricket 20Twenty world cup in South Africa; another triumph here would be doubly sweet ...
Irv asked, "How does Rowson explain computers' super-GM playing strenght and rating, given that they lack 'intuition'?"
Excellent question. Based on The Seven Deadly Chess Sins' discussion of the sin of "materialism," Rowson seems to attribute computers' superiority to their greater flexibility compared with humans. This manifests in a variety of ways. Although the book doesn't necessarily mention computers in each chapter (and I haven't even read the book in its entirety), I can easily imagine how he might contrast the human with the computer approach in terms of each of the seven "sins."
A striking thing about Rowson is that, although his purpose is to elucidate how we can harness our emotions to work FOR us, most of his words are about how our emotions work AGAINST us in so many concrete situations. For instance, he makes the seemingly paradoxical argument that humans are "more materialistic than computers." That's because we typically evaluate "material" and "positional" features of positions SEPARATELY -- we first add up all the material, then make a separate ledger of positional pluses and minuses -- whereas computers boil BOTH material and positional factors down to hard numbers. While the latter approach is vulnerable to rigidities of its own, Rowson clearly approves of it in this instance, as a healthy counter to humans' tendency to tote up material and strategic balances in separate columns (which can easily devolve into elevating material balance over strategic balance, which is close to how Rowson defines the sin of "materialism").
Much of the argument in The Seven Deadly Chess Sins is that humans -- even very strong humans -- often go wrong by applying principles too rigidly.
Interestingly, I just opened the book looking for computer references, and lighted upon the chapter on the sin of "Perfectionism" -- a likely place for a computer reference, I thought. And what was the first game I found there? Morozevich-Rowson!
The author uses that game to dissect his own "perfectionism", which he defines as being moralistic or judgmental. When playing Morozevich, Rowson went wrong by judging a couple of his opponent's moves to be not best, and then, not merely LOOKING for a way to "punish" them, but ASSUMING that because the moves didn't look "right" to Rowson, there MUST be a way to punish the deviations! (Moro wound up winning the game in 26 moves.)
Anyway, one can see that computers are obviously free of "perfectionism" as Rowson defines it. While they do assign numerical valuations to each position, they don't let the evaluation bias their search for the best moves in any particular position.
In contrast, a human -- like Rowson did against Morozevich, and like I do all the time against practically anyone (ESPECIALLY when I'm playing a computer!) -- will consciously or unconsciously decide that if an opponent's move looks funny, then it "must" be bad...and we then concentrate most of our search time on highly aggressive rejoinders that hold out promise of "punishing" our opponent's "transgression."
Thanks, Jon, for the long explanation. It confirms what I feared: Rowson theories are the usual chessic snake oil.
Rowson is a student of philosophy. Maybe he has a PhD now. This is what happens when you mix chess and philosophy.
Jon,
don't know for sure if Moro did say that Kasparov doesn't understand chess. Actually chessbase published a short addendum to that article, in which Moro said he had been grossly misquoted: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2874
@Jon Jacobs
"If I'm not mistaken, this (Moro) is the very same man who said a year or so ago that Kasparov doesn't understand chess, and he himself (Moro) doesn't understand it either."
As far as I can remember, there was a mistranslation or imprecise quotation in a headline on a major chess site and actually he said that Kasparov did not understand everything in chess, not anything. But I can be wrong - it was long ago.
It's well known that Grischuk smokes and drinks. What about Morozevich? Does anybody know? Also,has Kramnik given up smoking?
Paul wrote: "Rowson is a student of philosophy. Maybe he has a PhD now. This is what happens when you mix chess and philosophy."
That's only the half of it. The book's 2-page bibliography is divided into 4 sections -- the first and longest of which is headed, "Psychology, Philosophy and Science." It includes such works as "Godel, Escher, Bach"; "The Tao of Physics"; Plato's Symposium; and 3 works by De Bono.
On the first page of the Preface (the first page!) there appears an extended definition of "sin", quoted from The Lutterworth Dictionary of the Bible. Other religious sources in the bibliograhy include The New Dictionary of Christian Ethics, and 4 books that have "Zen" in their name.
I must confess that I actually admire a writer who would have the cheek to draw from that sort of intellectual framework, when compiling a work about chess. (Of course, I'm biased: the chess article of mine that I am most proud of, quoted from Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Tennyson. http://main.uschess.org/content/view/6993/132/ And I've got a chess-themed short story in the works that's based on Sartre.)
P.S.
Thanks to iulian's link I get to the original (but as Moro said, he didn't recognize his own words):
"Каспаров же вообще ничего в шахматах не понимает."
So Chessbase's translation was precise: it was "anything".
It seems that Morozevich is only capable to play
confidently against the top dogs, only when he realizes he is not going to win. For example, in his comeback in Linares, the most probably reason that happened was because he knew everyone was expecting him last after the first half, and anything but last place would be good.
I guess he has defeated so easily lower rated players, that he might feel he can defeat them just by believing in himself, but he probably feels more pressure in top tournaments because 2700's does not lose that easily. So, only when he feels he has nothing to lose against them his results are better.
So Moro's problem is not only atributed to lack of preparation and dedication as he usually says
in interviews. I guess he might work as hard as other super GM's, but he needs an explanation of his failures. It has the typical pattern of the talented person who fails under pressure and needs to see the tournament in a relaxed environment in order to perform positively.
So, I guess the current circumstances in Mexico would be good to see the interesting chess he is capable to play! Be careful Anand and Gelfand!
On Rowson and philosophy: Jon, I have Rowson's Grunfeld book. It's a verbose book, and I can imagine the results when he lets himself go. But I must admit I like the book a lot.
Kramnik-Anand 27.Qh5 Nd5 28.Qxh6 Nf4 29.Qxg5 Ne2+ 30.Kh1 Qxh2+ 31.Kxh2 Rh8+ 32.Qh4 Rxh4#
I am afraid Kramnik will not fall for this cheapo Ovidiu. Looking at the position without a chess engine I am of the opinion that Kramnik is winning.
he is not winning, it is equal, dynamic equlibrium
I am sure it is dynamic equilibrium for chess engines. For human players White is an exchange up and Black's King is exposed. This position looks unconfortable for Black in OTB play.
isn't Gelfand simply winning a pawn with 20.Nd7 gf6 21.Nf6?
It seems that it has been prepared by Anand (up to 24.Bf3 when he started thinking) so he is familiar with its resources.
It's dynamic stuff, black is comfortable here with the the d5-f4 square for knight..
Kramnik may even lose if he exchanges the Qs, the endgame is K+passed pawn vs. R is won for black
You are probably right Ovidiu, Black is full of resources. Very interesting position. Kramnik has nothing to lose so it is going to be interesting to see how he plays this position.
Anand-Kramnik looks great! I so have no clue what's going on. But I think I'd prefer White. Black's king looks a bit vulnerable to me.
I've read all of Rownson's books, he is very thought-provoking. But it's not true that he believes calculation plays a minor role. What he does say in a nutshell in Seven Deadly Sins is that you have to get your inner stuff working correctly if you want your calculations to come out right. We're not computers, we can't do it by brute force; we need our intuition to tell us what lines to look at, and we need our emotions (fear, sense of superiority / inferiority, a too strong attachment to the "safety" of material, etc) not to keep us away from the best lines.
There's a great game in Seven Deadly Sins where a strong GM (I think Nick de Firmian) allows a mate in two to a much lower-ranked player by trying to avoid a three-fold repetition, a simple mate which he would most likely have seen if he had been playing a strong GM. Against a weaker player he just couldn't "see" the mate, despite its simplicity.
It's definitely not a book for people who believe they are entirely rational beings, though. If you are allergic to Freud and Jung and buddhism, don't touch the book, it'll drive you mental.
The game of De Firmian in Rowsons book is against Tiger Hillarp-Persson, Copenhagen 1996
>It's definitely not a book for people who believe they are entirely rational beings>
They are rational, chess isn't.
"Whereas the popularizers think of chess as being amenable to order, logic, exactitude, calculation, foresight and other comparable qualities chess can be, and often is, as irrational as life itself. It is full of disorder, imperfection, blunders, inexactitudes, fortuitous happenings, and unforeseen consequences." (Reinfeld or Lasker ?)
Mig:"The idea that Anand's short draw with Aronian was a clever ploy is silly"
but going home in 90 minutes is of course a very smart move - given that even had vishy won in 5 hours yesterday, today's game against kramnik would still be decisive in the context of the tournament and what fans think about who the better player is..
However, I quite agree with Mig that players have a responsibility to prove to the audience why a draw is a draw. But, under the rules in place for this event, a short draw against Aronian to conserve energy for the following day is indeed a very clever ploy by Vishy.
Mungono wrote: "But it's not true that he (Rowson) believes calculation plays a minor role. What he does say in a nutshell in Seven Deadly Sins is that you have to get your inner stuff working correctly if you want your calculations to come out right. We're not computers, we can't do it by brute force; we need our intuition to tell us what lines to look at, and we need our emotions (fear, sense of superiority / inferiority, a too strong attachment to the "safety" of material, etc) not to keep us away from the best lines."
That is an excellent description of what I was trying to get at in my initial remarks about Rowson. When I said that "calculation plays a minor role," I either oversimplified or misspoke; what I meant to say about calculation was actually, "we need our intuition to tell us what lines to look at." (Mungono's words)
The above remarks about calculation represent one of two antidotes to those voices who keep insisting that engines "understand" chess because they play better than the best humans. (The other antidote is simply that human understanding of chess is embedded in engines by the humans who program them.)
Such people often focus on chess' ultimate "solvability", through the use of pure calculating power. Often they exult in the idea (or the fact?) that theoretically, at some level of computing power (far greater than available today), engines could dispense with any human-imposed rules or principles at all, and simply calculate their way to a tablebase from the starting position, or from some middlegame position reached at the very point where opening theory ends.
My response is, so what? Rules and principles (human chess knowledge) ultimately may become totally useless for computers, but that will never make rules and principles any less useful for humans -- whether super-GMs, or 1200-players. We will never calculate like computers, therefore "understanding" in the human sense will always remain valid (even as its contents will slowly evolve over time) for play between humans.
In short, computers and humans are not comparable; the kind of statements and lessons that apply to human chess play and the nature of chess knowledge, simply don't apply to computers, and vice versa. Human chess and computer chess are the same game, but played in different ways, due to the inherent differences between humans and computers. (Again: I admit that computers play it better. They can add to our chess knowledge in limited ways; but on the whole, no human no matter how talented can hope to become better by emulating their style, because we aren't computers and don't have perfect memory, infallible calculating ability, etc.)
Kramnik-Anand 1/2-1/2.
Kramnik-Anand 1/2 just goes to show that Vishy chose to quietly pocket the title instead of crushing Kramnik in a very promising position. I don't know if it was a 'professional favor' or if he was just lazy to convert.
Anyway, congratulations World Champion Vishy Anand!
Hey, Nair, do not jinx it. Keep your mouth shut, exercise some humility –- there's always plenty of room for Anand to blow it. It's not like it hasn't happened before.
D.
Good game, Vishy kept his cool in defense after Kramnik out-manouvered him a bit from 29.Kh1--on...but not enough.
> I don't know if it was a 'professional favor' or if he was just lazy to convert>
neither, pushing here would be asking for defeat
Anand Nair would you stop trolling its getting boring to read your crap.
Looking forward to some good chess in the next few rounds. It will be sweet to see Anand be the No. 1 on all counts (Rating, Title and the best player around ...)
"I don't know if it was a 'professional favor' or if he was just lazy to convert."
How about none of the above?
Congrats Anand!!!
To Anand nair: Pl get matured.
I did like Anand's position a lot and thought he still had winning chances, but i agree that 3-4 posts about Vishy being god on every thread related to this gets annoying.
The Vishy being god posts certainly make more sense the even more frequent and more annoying "Morozevich is god" claims.
Did Anand really give up on a possible win? Letting the engines loose and checking their lines shows black's advantage rising in every line so far .. however there are a couple of only moves that black needs to find with his knight ..
It was a good effort from Kramnik also - the draw was the "just" result. So, correct me if wrong, if Vishy draws all four remaining games, that will be enough? Kramnik will have to score 3.5/4 in the remaining rounds and Gelfand has to score 3/4, not very likely. And what happens if there is a tie somehow?
It will be interesting to see if the player with the most individual wins will be WC?
Here is the current wins breakdown
Anand 3
Gelfand 2
Aronian 2
Grishchuk 2
Morozevich 2
Leko 1
Kramnik 1
Svidler 0
Did Anand miss a win? Did a draw after Qg8?
JaiDB,
I was thinking the same thing, shouldn't Vishy just draw from here on out? It will probably be enough; but another win or two would sure put an exclamation point on his WC!
Will he object if someone calls him the First Indian Champion, or the First Asian Champion of chess? He claims to have been champion once before... is he now one of the WCs who 'regained' his title?
tjallen
tjallen,
When he won the FIDE world championship in 2000, there were 2 champions. If he wins this, he'll be undisputed world champion.
BTW osbender,
I loved your phrase yesterday, "a more dynamic Kramnick" - such alliteration! and assonance! and oxymoronity!
Isn't that just exactly what we wish for, a more dynamic Kramnick? But it just wouldn't be Kramnick, were he more dynamic! As you suggest, a more dynamic Kramnick has a lower rating.
Chess is full of paradox.
analysis for 41...Kb4 42.Qg8 please
guest aim said: "If he wins this, he'll be undisputed world champion."
Indeed, I agree completely. Many in the chess world have waited since the mid-90s for this moment, and have expected it since sometime in the late 80s. Kinda how we look at young Magnus now. You feel like you know what must be coming sometime in the future. Honestly, I wondered sometimes if the moment had passed Anand by... I remember people lamenting how unfortunate for Anand to have lived in the time of Kasparov. But now it seems Anand will fulfill his predicted destiny at last.
Will Vishy be allowed to "just draw" the remaining games? Morozevich, for one, will have his tails up after beating Kramnik. Actually, he did succeed in bamboozling Anand in their game.
Looking at his remaining games, he's highly unlikely to lose to Svidler and Leko. His games versus Moro and Grischuk could be bumpy. I don't think they'll give him an easy time.
It ain't over till it's over.
Paul, you have to think about the motivation levels. Svidler and Leko right now would be very glad to draw with Anand and just go home. Grischuk does have white and perhaps thoughts of revenge but Anand looks rock steady with black. Morozevich is unpredictable but misplaced aggression could rebound on him.
I think the biggest obstacle is not in these four but within Anand himself. We fans can blithely talk about "just" drawing everything but Anand should not allow himself to think in those terms.
Looking at the remaining rounds, I guess the last potential threat to Anand could be his black against Grischuk on the 13th round.
Let us just say he loses this (and draws the rest). He would then score 8/14. Even then it is not easy for Gelfand and Kramnik to overhaul him. If Gelfand wins one more and draws the remaining, then he would tie with Anand. No clue on who would prevail.
Certainly, Grischuk is dangerous. Someone who smokes and drinks and looks like a rock star is unlikely to give away an easy draw. I don't know if Morozevich smokes or drinks and so cannot say the same for him, but just look at his eyes. Dangerous eyes. Killer eyes. The eyes of an assasin. These two play like a pair of rogue elephants in musth.
none of u guys have an egine to check the 41...Kb4 42.Qg8 line in Kramnik vs Anand? I don't have one guys. if anyone has rybka or a strong engine, cna you check this line?
"d_tal, my only point is that this isolated victory doesn't mean very much. Moro had a great game yesterday, about which I am sure he and his fans are quite happy—as they deserve to be. But his overall place in the tournament is turning out just about where most observers expected it to be, out of contention.
Kramnik, of course, is in a very different position, as he has something Moro does not: a guaranteed rematch."
There are only a handful of people who can be considered favourites to win such an event, in fact I can only think of 3, Kramnik, Anand and Topalov. One isnt playing, so obviously the other two are favourites. Does Svidler or Gelfand or Grischuk have a better chance on paper than Moro? I dont think so.
Kramnik's rematch is completely beside the point, a red herring. What has that got to do with anything, unless you are suggesting that Kramnik is playing deliberately poorly because he has that guarantee. That to me is frankly ridiculous.
The point is, Moro was written off by many, and he's holding his own with no compromise on his playing style which is the amateur player's dream model. No memorising complex lines till move 300, no respect to traditional "rules". He just plays chess, and that he can pull it off at the highest level, is truly remarkable. (Reminds me of the late great Tony Miles in some respects.) Yes, I am an unashamed fan of his. His chess is not about risk for risk's sake, nor is it purely about tactics, nor is it purely about complex positions, nor particular opening systems. His positional sense is remarkable, his endgame play is as inventive as his middle game, and he fights to the last. Its often frustrating being a Moro fan, and perhaps he's going to fade in the end this time too, because his energy level is notoriously low. But by golly, I'm going to enjoy the fact that he's in holding his own with the World's elite in Mexico.
Sorry guys...I was without an engine when following live from work yesterday...for the amateur that I am, Black's two pawns looked very strong...also, some live commentary sites suggested that black was well on his way to 0-1.
As far as the rest of the event is concerned, I'd be really surprised if Gelfand makes more than +1 from here and if Kramnik makes more than +2. Also, I don't see Vishy making any worse than an even score in the last 4 rounds. All this adds up to a clear first for Vishy, I think..
BTW, could someone please let us know whether or not this event will be included on the Oct 1 FIDE rankings??