Tap tap tap... Is this thing on? I guess the pixels can still be pushed around here. The combination of five Kasparov speeches in two weeks and the impending arrival of La Miglette (t-minus three weeks, give or take) have made it difficult to keep up with other endeavors.
But if anything can renew one's interest in top-level chess, it's another sighting of Comet Carlsen streaking through the sky en route to #1. Did anyone pick "yesterday" in our informal poll about when the Norwegian 17-year-old would reach the top spot on the rating list? We saw Ivanchuk rip up the M-Tel and then Morozevich went for the record books in Sarajevo. Now Magnus Carlsen is giving them both a big "oh yeah?" with his stunning performance at the Aerosvit tournament in Ukraine. After eight of eleven rounds he has 6.5 (five wins, three draws) for a full two-point lead over the otherwise well-balanced category 19 (2711) field. That's a 2960 performance rating, down from over 3000 earlier in the event. The local trio of Ivanchuk, Karjakin, and Eljanov share 2-4 with 4.5/8. Sure Carlsen is the top seed in the event, but still. Starting the event at 2765, he'll be tantalizingly close to Anand's top spot (2803) even if he only pars out in the last three rounds. He set the tone early with a smooth win over Ivanchuk's attempt at the King's Indian in the first round.Carlsen has his amazing score despite giving up two quick draws with his last two whites.
Getting back to the event, as opposed to the exhibition, there has been some good, bad, and ugly chess. In round 7 Nisipeanu gave an excellent demonstration of how not to play against the Dragon, Carlsen's Dragon in this case. Garry Kasparov is in NY this week to give two of his Foundation master classes to some of the top juniors in the US. He joked with KCF prez Michael Khodarkovsky that he would be afraid to show such a horrible game to the youngsters. Ouch. Anyway, playing on the queenside against the Dragon looked about as bad as it sounds. In the sixth round Alekseev was up a pawn against Carlsen with black after 14 moves. Of course he agreed to a draw four moves later. Eh? Even if he gives back the pawn after 19.Rc1 Qd7 20.Nb3 Ne6 21.Nxa5 Nxf4 he has the bishop pair and real chances.
Pansies taking quick draws a pawn up with black are nothing new of course. But Shirov blundering into mate in a drawn endgame doesn't happen every day. Carlsen's relentless pressure and stamina paid off in the 5th round when the Spatvian found just about the only losing move on the board with 61..Bg7??, wrapping his king up like a dolphin in a tuna net. Opening-wise, from now on only Radjabov should be allowed to play the King's Indian. And only Svidler can play the Grunfeld. And nobody can play the Petroff. Speaking of, Karjakin played an improvement against Jakovenko on move 23 after a few Kramnik games and won, so nothing is impossible. Karjakin seems to play more games with deep move-count novelties than anyone. On the other hand he seemed baffled by Ivanchuk's offbeat Petroff in the 5.Nc3 line. 7..Qf6 is almost comically direct. It was another one of these Petroffs in which White seems to get everything he could want and then nothing more than a quick draw five moves later. Hate the Petroff.
Dirt favorite and lowest seed Alexander Onischuk is having a rough time. He's at -3 and the only player without a win.
Shirov blundered terribly deep in a drawn endgame against Carlsen... and people think this is news?Carlsen's Bc1-d2-e3 maneuver in the Catalan is extremely unlikely to survive. Not sure what he thought he was doing; the bishop really doesn't belong on e3 anyway.
I was more impressed by Ivanchuk's win; the Bishop on a6 is very attractive and effective.
Van Wely confuses me; he's known as a Najdorf theoretician first and chessplayer second, but he loses Najdorfs and wins in the QGD?
the dirt is back!
In a controlled experiement, I think that by this time most nondysfunctional lab rats would have stopped pressing the refresh button on this page hoping for Mig's update on the Aerosvit tournament.
I kept on pressing and was finally rewarded!
Glad to see you back Mig! Best Wishes and Good Luck with 'lil Mig : )
One reason I'm looking forward to Magnus beating Kasparov's 2851 rating is that it will show that you can be the greatest player of all time and still be a pleasant person.
How do you know Kasparov is a pleasant person?
gmc:
"Shirov blundered terribly deep in a drawn endgame against Carlsen... and people think this is news?Carlsen's Bc1-d2-e3 maneuver in the Catalan is extremely unlikely to survive. Not sure what he thought he was doing; the bishop really doesn't belong on e3 anyway."
Thanks for that incredibly interesting insight.
gmc, that was really a superb selection of information and a great analysis of Carlsen's novelty against Onischuk. You really hit the target in your summary of Carlsen's +5 -0 =3 so far in this tournament.
This is not the first time I see such carefully balanced contributions from you in this forum. In fact, your high-class analyses and insights about Carlsen's recent achievements makes me awestruck.
Thank you, gmc.
Seriously, people: It is history in the making we are witnessing here. Carlsen may be the greatest talent ever to appear on the chess scene.
He is very young but keeps performing above 2800 in tournament after tournament. It is really unbelievable!
I think anyone who loves chess should appreciate that Carlsen's achievements are great for the game and give him the credit he deserves.
I agree with Bureaucrat here, Bce3 IMO is one of the finest while funniest ideas I've seen so far at Foros.
I got the impression during the game that Carlsen's Be3 was specially prepared for a not-so-serious occasion. It doesn't appear sound, but all immediate attepts at refutation are easily brushed off, because Nd5 can be met with Ng5. The move has probably been computer-checked, so Carlsen must have known that it was not a move that could objectively give White an advantage. But given the tournament standing, it was a good way to go for a draw and hope for more, in case Onischuk would miscalculate something.
Sure, the win against Shirov was lucky. But it's the kind of luck you never get as long as you play 20-move draws.
In some of these games, Carlsen reminds me of a clone between Tal and Capablanca: He will recklessly sacrifice anything to keep the game alive, so that he can win an equal endgame!
gmc is a keyboard warrior.
President GMC have a hot dog with me.
Oh, I'm just annoyed by everyone anointing Carlsen the next Kasparov or Fischer when his acheivements thus far are sub-Topalov. Topalov in the mid-90's was every bit as out-of-nowhere and dominant (won virtually every tournament one year). Now, I'm not saying that Carlsen won't be great, or won't be world champion, but he hasn't shown us much yet apart from ordinary 2700 play plus a very strong bladder.
That said; I agree with the analysis of the Bd2-e3 idea; it was just an amusing joke to see if a tail ender would bite.
My comment about Shirov was meant as a joke; this is the -second- totally drawn ending that Shirov has double-question-marked his way to a loss in against Carlsen this year. Hence why it isn't news.
Aerosvit is probably Carlsen's Banja Luka. First really dominant performance.
Well you know, he's seventeen. Can't even drive a car yet. Chess players usually peak around 30.
While of course there have been similar streaks and performances in the past, I think people are mostly impressed by the fact that Carlsen is matching, if not overtaking, those accomplishments at such a young age. Topalov was well into his twenties when he hit such a "streak". The fact that Carlsen is doing so well so young makes me understand how people could be talking about Carlsen as one of the best players of all time or possibly highest rated ever.
miglette?
hilarious.
GMC, you're a chancer. Topalov in the mid-90's was not performing close to Carlsen's level. See here http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=2900084
gmc:
"Now, I'm not saying that Carlsen won't be great, or won't be world champion, but he hasn't shown us much yet apart from ordinary 2700 play plus a very strong bladder."
LOL. Man, you are just completely ridiculous. I mean, completely.
No less a commentator than Anand stated that Topalov was the dominant player of 1996. He was equal first in Dos Hermanas with Kramnik ahead of Anand and Kasparov, equal first with Kasparov (at +4) ahead of Anand and Kramnik, equal first at Madrid ahead of Salov and Shirov, and first alone at Novgorod ahead of Kramnik, Ivanchuk, and Short.
It is true that Topalov was older than Carlsen is now, and that his overall rated performance to that time was not #2 in the world. But his acheivements in 1996 are probably more significant than Carlsen's in '08. Certainly he played in more strong events.
As for Carlsen's ability to win drawn endgames, well, apparently Shirov and other 2700 players still have the ability to lose them. Carlsen's concentration is extremely impressive (in that area, at least, possibly equal to Kasparov); he reminds me a little of Tiger Woods in his singlemindedness and tenacity.
Still, maybe I'm being unfair but I haven't seen much really great chess yet. Nothing like Kasparov's at-the-board brilliancy against Topalov at Wijk in 1999 or Topalov's immensely deep preparation for San Luis.
Fair enough gmc, he is not producing "brilliancies" , but we also have to appreciate that he is NOT losing and is getting into very few even moderately disadvantageous positions. He is very steady- he "gets into" situations where his opponent is under constant pressure and often cracks. That is also a demonstration of great play! And especially against these elite players..who don't often give their opponents chances to blow them away..and why should Topalov's prep be a basis for comparison? I for one am glad that someone is showing that it is possible to win without necessarily having novelties on move 40.
If every World Champion played exactly the same or was known for exactly the same talent then chess would be very boring. Magnus is a rock-steady hammer, maybe going to be better than Kramnik at steady play. Glad to see it!
i simply don't get why people are even comparing carlsen to kasparov IN 1999?
* in 1999 kasparov had been world champion for 14 years
* in 1999 kasparov had been world number one for about equally long
* in 1999 kasparov turned 36 and has self stated that he played the best chess of his career that year
carlsen is a 17,5 year old teenager in high-school, for the first time starting a year as a 2700+ player.
[and he broke 2700 in july 2007 - by winning his two next games he could theoretically break 2800 before july 2008. i don't assume he'll do that, but that's kind of irrelevant.]
---
comparing banja luka 1979 with aerosvit 2008:
kasparov's opponents were in 1979 rated like this
9
shared 25-31
shared 34-38
shared 45-48
shared 60-64
shared 71-80
shared 87-92
shared 89-94 (in 1980, unrated in 1979)
shared 93-100
shared 93-100
shared 101-110
shared 101-110
shared 119-129
shared 147-158
shared 821-861
i'll be nice and count the "best" in these ranges (even though the median would be fair) - then we have the following ranks:
9, 25, 34, 45, 60, 71, 87, 89, 93, 94, 101, 102, 119, 147, 821
carlsen's opponents have the following ranks in april 2008 (using same system for shared ranks):
9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 33, 35, 36, 45, 55
not quite comparable, is it? and what is more "elite" one may ask, being ranked world 45 in 1979 or in 2008?
let's put it this way - kasparov's weakest opponent was rated around 2350. if we're going to make relative (percentage-wise) positions, not absolute, i'll suggest the following "picture":
in january 1979 there were about 1350 players above 2300. giving room for 100 point inflation (karpov was rated 2705 in 1979 - anand is rated 2803 in 2008), we instead consider number of _active_ players above 2400 in 2008 - that number is actually around 2000.
if we simply say that anyone below 2300 in 1979 and below 2400 in 2008 is "noise" in such a comparison (this is done in order to make a top x percent picture more _fair_ for kasparov's banja luka event), we have that kasparov's opponents were ranked
9, 25, 34, 45, 60, 71, 87, 89, 93, 94, 101, 102, 119, 147, 821 of 1350 who "knew how to play chess"
and carlsen's opponents are ranked
9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 33, 35, 36, 45, 55 of 2000 who "know how to play chess" or IM-level and above with today's standard.
who has/had the more elite opposition?
---
gmc, those were some strange comparisons on your part, i think.
gmc has a point though. This may be a dominant performance but coming second in this event is Pavel Eljanov. Now, Eljanov is a good chessplayer (and possibly even a pleasant person) but we do need to place this into context. Carlsen's doing well against the top player but I would hold my judgement on the 'best talent ever', 'Tal/Capablanca', etc. until we see a dominant performance against the likes of Anand, Kramnik, Topalov and Morozevich.
i.e. would argue very strongly the fields Topalov had to face were much stronger than the current crop.
Oooh, I love agnostics: "I don't believe in God, but I'm not ruling out that should he descend from the heavens, perform three miracles and provide me with next week's lottery numbers, my beliefs might be swayed".
The only way to prove that you can beat Kramnik or Anand in a match, is - unsurprisingly - to beat Kramnik or Anand in a match. Should you happen to beat Kramnik or Anand in a match, I doubt you'd care much that some internet kibitzer now approves of your talent.
Eli,
you would hold your judgement on 'best talent' - because a 17,5 year old hasn't yet shown a dominant performance against the 3 latest world champions (including the current one)?
* what does 'talent' mean to you?
* how "dominant" were topalov's wins? i thought we heard about 3 equal firsts above and one unshared?
* at which point in a player's career should we judge anyone's 'talent'? when he retires?
btw, carlsen has already placed in front of all the four (even 3 at the same time) players you mentioned in events where 3 or more of them participated - but only in rapids regarding moro, but that's mostly because moro seems to have avoided all top-flight classical events since mexico 2007. otherwise, the carlsen-moro stats are more fun for the carlsen fans.
another strange argument:
aerosvit isn't a strong event because eljanov is currently in 2nd place.
hm. so, ivanchuk (forgot 8/10 and 2977 in mtel?), svidler, shirov and karjakin just become weaker players because eljanov is "over-performing" slightly in this event?
it's like people were saying last year: linares 2007 was weak because carlsen (2690) finished 2nd and leko and topalov were tail-enders. did linares 2007 become a cat. 18 event because carlsen did well?
it seems like some people think that a strong event only is strong if the pre-tournament favourites do well and all finish in the top. but tell me then, when can a pre-tournament underdog/outsider do well without the tournament automatically becoming weak?
btw. eljanov is currently number 14 in the live ratings, 0,4 points behind karjakin. he's gained over 41 points since april, but it will probably be hard to defend his current kind of rating after such a jump. at least staying there demands more than getting there. but all this is rather irrelevant, isn't it?
I think, Carlsen is (and has been for some time) playing very well. I am enjoying his games and style (i.e. continue-play-since-I-am-young-and-have-the-stamina-to-outlast-my-opponents), and am glad with the results he achieved. Aside from Chucky and Moro, he is now my next favorite player.
How he won tournaments like this (e.g. blunder by Shirov) would be forgotten in years to come. Only result matters.
Taking Banja Luka as example, who now could remember without digging the net on which players blundered against Kasparov?
Wow, frogbert. There is a lot to be said for a debating technique which revolves around interpreting the opposing debator's words in the most extreme manner and then pointing out how 'strange' that argument is. Well done.
Of course, Carlsen is an amazing talent. My point is that it is somewhat premature to proclaim him as the best ever as some previous posts did on the basis of his current results. The stage in a player's career when we can assess is once that player establishes a consistent pattern against top opposition. One of the many facets of 'talent' is longevity/consistency. Arguably Carlsen has not done so yet. May do in the next few years and good luck to him.
So, yes, I am supportive of gmc's view.
As for Pavel Eljanov, Foros and relative strength. Great players all at Foros, no doubt. But I would argue very strongly that Ivanchuk aside, not one other would make it to the top 25 best ever players, and probably not even top 50. So, to proclaim someone as the best talent ever on the basis of beating a bunch of good players none of whom are in the top 25 - ever - is a strange argument, whatever their current ranking.
The other aspect based on which you can evaluate talent is how amazing/dominant Carlsen's play may or may not be, as opposed to results. This is debatable but the play is a lot less impressive than the results IMO - again, see Shirov's blunder, Be3, and so on.
"The stage in a player's career when we can assess is once that player establishes a consistent pattern against top opposition. One of the many facets of 'talent' is longevity/consistency. Arguably Carlsen has not done so yet" - Eli
Where have you been? This teenager is hanging around top tournaments for what? A year? and already consistently shows how to own Topalov's, Moro's and Chucky's numbers. In terms of talent, I much consider this feat unprecedented.
To me, the kid is an artist, a painter drawing beautiful visions on boards for us to appreciate.
I wonder if this phenomenal performance may actually reduce his interest in chess in the long term. Just imagine World #1 by 17! His next shot at the world championship will be in 2011 when he is around 20. If he wins that, then what? Play the wijk, linares, monaco, dortmund, circuit for the next 20 years?
Eli:
"So, to proclaim someone as the best talent ever on the basis of beating a bunch of good players none of whom are in the top 25 - ever - is a strange argument, whatever their current ranking."
Nobody has "proclaimed" that Carlsen is the greatest ever.
I said that Carlsen MAY BE the greatest talent ever. It is too early to tell.
His results are unparallelled in the history of chess in that nobody of HIS AGE has ever achieved anything remotely close to what he has done.
By the way, his results include not merely the current tournament and your "bunch of players". You must add a string of fantastic results over more than a year, and even further back. Have you not paid attention to anything that has been going on?
P.S. It is completely ridiculous to say that Carlsen's results are nothing special because Kasparov performed better in 1999. Absolute and utter nonsense.
I realize while reading this rather silly argument that we probably have different understanding of the word "talent". (Or maybe all of you are in agreement, and I'm deceiving myself as per usual...)
I have always thought of talent as describing potential rather than proven skills; but looking it up I see it defined as gift or skill.
Q
"One of the many facets of 'talent' is longevity/consistency"
ok, when has Carlsen had the chance to show this? he's only 17, for god's sake. Pretty difficult to show long-term consistency when you only broke through on the big stage in the last year or 2.
Generally when you talk about talent in a young player (of any sport) you are, for obvious reasons, not talking about longevity/consistency, but potential (which of course does also include the potential to become a consistent top performer).
I know that a few people are getting caught up in the hype, but the vast majority of people seem quite able to distinguish between being the greatest player ever and (one of) the greatest talent(s) ever.
Is Carlsen, for example, a greater talent than Kasparov? for obvious reasons it's pretty difficult to say, but let's, for arguments sake, say that he is. Does that mean that he will automatically become a greater player than Kasparov? Of course not, and I haven't heard many people saying so.
So, does Carlsen have the potential to become the best player in the world. Based on his recent (consistently good!) results I would say the answer to that would be a pretty big yes. He clearly has the raw talent, but does he also have the work ethics, the will to win, the passion and all the other things it takes to become a truly great player? With the way he's improving it could certainly look like it, but only time will tell.
I, for one, am quite happy to sit back and enjoy 'The Carlsen Show' for as long as it lasts. Undoubtedly there will be both ups and downs but so far it looks like it's shaping up to be a pretty spectacular ride.
gmc and eli are pretty funny, LOL
I'm confused.
I said that Aerosvit was like Banka Luka in that it was a young player with a bright future's "first really dominant performance". I never claimed that Banja Luka was as strong a tournament as Foros (it wasn't).
I said I hadn't seen anything as deeply insightful and brilliant from Carlsen at the top level as Kasparov's win against Topalov at Wijk aan Zee 1999. I didn't claim that Carlsen wasn't playing at Kasparov's level circa 1999 (probably no one is), I said that Carlsen hadn't come up with (possibly due to lack of opportunity!) anything as impressive as a feat of chess play. I wasn't implying any general comparison in chess strength. I just picked that game because I rather liked it.
My point is not that Carlsen isn't playing well, or that he won't be a member of the world elite for years to come. My point is that we're extrapolating a few good results into a world championship (and putting way too much weight on it happening at 17). Karjakin's record to date is 95% as impressive as Carlsen's; within the margin of error I'd say as to which will be the higher rated player at age 25. In short, bureaucrat, there is another player his age -right now- who has performed almost as well. In fact, Volokitin should probably count too. So, two Ukrainians, AT FOROS, who have acheived just about what Carlsen has by their 18th birthday.
There's a new 12-14 year old GM every six months or so. I'm excited to have a new member of the world elite too (even if his chess so far bears more resemblance to Svidler or Kramnik's life-sucking style than Kasparov or Anand's), but all the coronations are a bit premature for a player who, after all, won't even have a chance at a WCH match.
gmc:
"In short, bureaucrat, there is another player his age -right now- who has performed almost as well. In fact, Volokitin should probably count too. So, two Ukrainians, AT FOROS, who have acheived just about what Carlsen has by their 18th birthday..."
Are you serious? What did they achieve even close to Carlsen's regular results (not the top ones, like Linares and Corus)?
gmc: In fact, Volokitin should probably count too.
Interesting story. I'm not sure why you're not counting Alekseev, though. Volo has won the Young Masters in Lausanne, but Alekseev did win the Aeroflot Open. Why isn't that equally impressive?
Alekseev wasn't Ukrainian, so it wasn't as funny. You are correct of course that there are a number of other young players in the top 50. Volokitin was fun to include because of his lopsided results one on one with Carlsen.
I would say winning Aeroflot is more impressive than the Lausanne event, actually.
Looking at the last FIDE list:
Karjakin is 18 and 2732
Wang Hao is 19 and 2684
Radjabov, Wang Yue, Nakamura, Volokitin all 20ish and in the top 50.
And that's just the most recent list. Interestingly, Fabiano Caruana (2620) is only 15 and about to crack the top 100. Yifan Hou, on the Women's list, is about to crack 2600 at 13 or 14. There are six 1990 or later birthdays above 2600.
On the July 2000 list, for comparison, Peter Leko was the youngest in the top 10, at 20. Rustam Kasimzhanov was close aand three months younger. There were no birthdays after 1980 in the top 50 (although Ruslan Ponomariov was #51!). In the top 100, the only player younger than Ponomariov was Alexander Grischuk, 10-31-1983.
The sudden appearance of numerous strong teeneagers in the upper reaches suggests to me that players are developing younger than they did a decade ago; I would suggest that development is probably being moved forward in time and that we shouldn't treat reaching 2750 at 17 as different in kind from reaching that level at 20, or even 25.
gmc: I would suggest that development is probably being moved forward in time and that we shouldn't treat reaching 2750 at 17 as different in kind from reaching that level at 20, or even 25.
To put this in perspective: if Caruana suddenly leaps to 2750 at the age of 16, this doesn't not separate him from, say, Eljanov, who is 25 and making great strides into the 2750 level. Caruana might very well be stuck at 2750 for the rest of his life, while Eljanov could continue to blossom.
All good stuff, although I've no idea what it means.
"jaideepblue: I wonder if this phenomenal performance may actually reduce his interest in chess in the long term. Just imagine World #1 by 17! His next shot at the world championship will be in 2011 when he is around 20. If he wins that, then what? Play the wijk, linares, monaco, dortmund, circuit for the next 20 years?"
What about a Carlsen-2012 vs Rybka (or whatever ultra-engine would be in 2012) match?
Carlsen is a great and refreshing talent. Relative to the world's best, he seems to be about where Kamsky was at an equivalent age, with perhaps a slightly steeper trajectory. In 1994, at the age of 19, Kamsky qualified for both sets of candidates matches, FIDE & PCA. He won the FIDE cycle, beating Anand along the way, earning the right to play against Karpov for the title. He lost that match in 1996, at the age of 21. In the PCA cycle, he beat Kramnik & Short (don't laugh, Short was much stronger in the relative sense back then, having reached a WCC match against Kasparov), but lost to Anand, who then went on to lose to Kasparov. Of course after the Karpov loss, Kamsky "gave up" chess.
So, if Magnus came make it to the WCC title match in the next 2 - 3 years, he will equal the pace of Kamsky's rise, and in fact Kasparov's, who also got to the WCC match at approximately 21 years of age.
And if he wins ....
"The sudden appearance of numerous strong teeneagers in the upper reaches suggests to me that players are developing younger than they did a decade ago; I would suggest that development is probably being moved forward in time and that we shouldn't treat reaching 2750 at 17 as different in kind from reaching that level at 20, or even 25."
There is some validity to this. You now have a generation of young players who have access to better than World Champion (2900+) strength chess engines, more sophisticated training methods, the advent of unrestrained prodigy subcultures, with parents willing and eager to achieve vacarious success (and financial reward) through their preteen kids. The "youngest GM" record will go inexorably down, and it may not be far off before an under 10 year old child earns the title.
"Karjakin's record to date is 95% as impressive as Carlsen's; within the margin of error I'd say as to which will be the higher rated player at age 25."
Karjakin's *rating* is "95% as impressive" as Carlsen's, perhaps. Karjakin's record (of accomplishments) is only about half as impressive. I can't think of one high category event which Karjakin has won, let alone in a dominating fashion. There's a chance that he'll be the higher rated player at age 25, but the odds are against it.
Carlsen is undoubtedly the best of the up and coming players. He has clearly within a few points of a 2800+ rating and the number 1 ranking. It is unlikely that he has peaked. However, by reasonable and conservative extrapolation, one can posit that it is probable that he will surpass both Kramnik and Anand, in rating and in actual playing strength. The only question is whether Carlsen will succeed on his first serious (not counting the Candidates' match
vs. Aronian in 2007) attempt to get the title. If he does not succeed in 2011(?) there will be dozens of talented prodigies emerging, most of whom are not even on the radar of chess fans.
Carlsen is the most likely individual to succeed Anand/Kramnik (Topalov/Kamsky), but the field of all the rest of the title aspirants, in aggregate, probably has better chances yet.
If Carlsen gets the number 1 ranking, it'd be nice to see him play Fritz or even Rybka in a match.
If Carlsen becomes World Champion to boot, it'd be nice to see Kasparov come out of retirement and defend his legacy by playing a challenge match vs. Carlsen....
gmc:
"In short, bureaucrat, there is another player his age -right now- who has performed almost as well. In fact, Volokitin should probably count too. So, two Ukrainians, AT FOROS, who have acheived just about what Carlsen has by their 18th birthday."
OK, I misunderstood your previous posts. You are obviously joking. I give up trying to counter such nonsense.
"If Carlsen gets the number 1 ranking, it'd be nice to see him play Fritz or even Rybka in a match"
What on earth for?
"Karjakin's record to date is 95% as impressive as Carlsen's"
yeah, except it´s no-where near as impressive.
I think nothing can match Anand's genius. He has beaten GM's (must be like todays 2600s) in 15 minutes in classical games and he used to do it regularly taking only half hour for a whole game!!
Will there be a "Miglette" bobblehead? Or even a "La Miglette" Bobbleheadette?
gmc at 13:09 is the bomb. Could not agree more, especially re Ukrainians.
My point is not that Carlsen is not a phenomenal players - he is, on a relative scale - but only that we should tone down the hype. Not only are we putting too much pressure on a young guy, it also may or may not be warranted. Bureacrat: "too early to tell". Exactly.
The trouble with all of this is that as some of the previous posts imply there is a deeper issue. The fact that we have progressively younger players coming up the ranks is not in my view reflective of their superior strength (defined as positional understanding of chess, feel for deeper planning, erudition, and originality) but of increasing computerisation of chess and the greater emphasis on the memorisation and pratical, pragmatic application of standard schemes, ranging from opening theory to typical plans in the middle game. Carlsen's play is reflective of this trend and appears based on memory, stamina and emphasis on 'bagging the point' rather than making the 'right move'. It is not surprising grandmasters are getting younger: teenage memories are better... One of the young guns was always going to break into the top five at a tender age, and it happens to be Magnus. Could have been Volokitin, the difference is pretty marginal.
As a hypothetical, say a past player had the advantages of computer-assisted preparation and training. Would you rate that player a better or an inferior talent to Carlsen? To make it more specific and to pick a Scandinavian, say Bent Larsen had that luxury. I would actually rate Bent higher at thos point, as I know he knew chess deeply at the end of the day and Magnus has not yet shown that.
I've made this point before on this blog re Topalov's play and some of his 'brilliant' wins. May as well preempt by pointing out that I am neither trying to be a joykill nor I am some hopeless romantic. I just like original, exciting chess rather than computer love. Although I do like Kratwerk...
You may find Carlsen's moves unimpressive, but his results are truly staggering. I find it difficult to believe there are people who know and care enough about chess to post on this blog that would dispute a 17 year old player who is rated second in the world and within a hair of 2800/#1 overall does not belong in the conversation of who is the most talented player ever.
Consider the talent level of the players Carlsen has passed: Kramnik, Topalov, Ivanchuk, Morozevich, Leko, Kamsky, Svidler, Aronian.. these are terribly talented players in their own right and he has passed them so rapidly it has seemed effortless. I think he has already demonstrated enough to make a strong argument he is the greatest chess talent ever, though that is far from meaning he will become the greatest player ever. I'd not bet against it though.
Eli, you posted as I was typing the above, and there is one thing I've got to question in your post, and that is your definition of "superior strength". I would think that expression would more accurately be described as "the skillset most useful in winning games of chess". The advent of 2900 level computers and the rising tide of teenage grandmasters argue strongly that raw calculation prowess, in both depth and accuracy, as well as precise opening and endgame preparation and accurate recollection thereof count for a lot more than other factors we may wish meant more.
Characteristics such as positional understanding, erudition and originality may have had greater importance to previous generations, but as the horizons on what remains to be discovered in chess are pushed back their competitive value seems to have dropped. It's impossible to prove of course, but I've no doubt Larsen at his strongest would be destroyed in a match against present day Carlsen, even though I'll cede Larsen the edge in originality and erudition. Those traits don't count for much these days against the relentless tactical accuracy and pressure of the new generation.
The same arguments were made against Fischer by the way. They said he had few original ideas, little strategic depth and lacked the erudition of those instructed in the Soviet school. All true perhaps, but it didn't stop him from crushing those original and erudite grandmasters. Wait, wasn't Larsen one of those? 6-0?
I would have loved to see what Alekhine or Tal could have done as a young player in the 1990's or this decade. Watching Carlsen's play reminds me most of (and I mean this in the best possible way) Portisch; clean, brilliant lines that don't necessarily win, but always hold out hope of winning. The difference of course being that Carlsen doesn't offer a draw at move 25 almost automatically (like Portisch).
Actually, I'm glad to see players looking at winning chess games in a more "practical" light. Still, it is no accident, I think, that Carlsen's problem opponents (Anand, Volokitin) are thought of as fast, accurate (even instinctive) players who are comfortable in positions many players find terrifying. Carlsen will get few wins from taking Anand or Volokitin (or Topalov, for that matter) 90 moves down the garden path in search of a blunder.
Shirov has always been a different matter, and Ivanchuk could get into time trouble in a king and pawn ending.
I look forward to the show, but at present, I'm still on the "Anand is the strongest player int he world, and it isn't close" bandwagon.
Andrew, thanks, I agree actually. Carlsen would smash Larsen right now. My point is take Larsen's raw talent and 'computerise' him right up from an early age. I am not so sure such a Larsen would get beaten.
I guess it's a matter of emphasis of what it is you are looking for in chess. As a pure sproting spectacle, it is somewhat lacking IMO so not sure I care about the 'skillset most useful in winning' if it comes at the expense of deeper understanding and exciting play...
Anyhoo, back to my Kraftwerk CD...
gmc, exzctly, nice post. I agree - again!
Have a look at the last chapter in Kasparov's 'Revolution in the 1970's' book and the opinions of some of the older players. Someone made the point that modern chess is like catenaccio football: first make sure you don;t make stupid mistakes (see opening prep), then press, press (see emphasis on throwing up pratical challenges rather than making the right move), wait for the opponent to make a mistake and then pounce with your superior technique. Carlsen's play to a tee.
I'm not entirely sure why you're saying Carlsen doesn't "make the right moves". His play is remarkably error free, and if a "right" move, as in a move that is demonstrably stronger than every other alternative, is available I'd think probably only Anand is more likely to find it right now. Could you please clarify?
As I understand it, a "practical" move compromises the position (violates positional principles) for the goal of presenting "challenges" to the opponent. That is, the probability of the opponent making a mistake increases. I suspect Eli is considering a move that is "right" to be a move that is "solid", i.e. one that solidifies defensive capability without committing to an attack.
Here's another angel. From a theoretical perspective, any move that preserves the game value (win or draw) is "right". Suppose a game is in the drawn state. The game-preserving moves may be Kasparov-style attacking, or Kramnik-style solidifying. Both are right, and both will work. Caissa does not consider style.
It's logical that the very best player makes accurate moves while battering the opponent with unrelenting challenges. Carlsen is expressing exactly this aspect of the game with his forward-pressing manner of play, I'm willing to suggest. If this doesn't seem "right" that is only because it doesn't conform to the traditional (more cautious?) expectations of grandmaster level play.
Or like Andrew I'll ask Eli to clarify. Not to put you on the defensive or anything, but 2600 level GMs often admit they don't know what the 2750+ players are up to when they crack open a plan, so to claim that Carlsen's moves aren't "right" ... well, you get my drift. What would you say you are basing your notion on?
My view is that the traditionally espoused principles expose only a portion of what constitutes strong play. It is based on years of analysis, but only that which is amenable to human understanding, deep though it may be. The top computer programs and the latest generation of computer-weaned super-grandmasters are introducing new territory.
Eli:
"So, to proclaim someone as the best talent ever on the basis of beating a bunch of good players none of whom are in the top 25 - ever - is a strange argument, whatever their current ranking."
hm... let me guess: you would probably place around 20 players already dead or not any longer active or elite players in some meaningless top 25 ever, conveniently forgetting that:
1) carlsen can never play dead or retired players (and if you think highly of korchnoi, he's still rated around 200 points below carlsen now - but maybe it would be great beating him, or karpov (2660-ish) if he entered a classical event again?)
2) the current level of play of most of carlsen's opponents in aerosvit are probably higher than at least half of anyone's historic top 25, assuming more than 15 pre-1970s players will be chosen for such a list
3) carlsen has already placed ahead of all current, active candidates for any (meaningless) historic top-25 or top-50 list - he did the trio kramnik/anand/topalov in corus this year, for instance - and he placed in front of ivanchuk in (start counting) linares 2007, linares 2008, corus 2008 and aerosvit 2008. how many times did ivanchuk finish ahead of carlsen in a classical event in 2007 and 2008?
unlike you, i see no need to start focusing on ohter people's "debate technique" and similar - being on top of facts is usually more than enough.
about bent larsen:
"I know he knew chess deeply at the end of the day and Magnus has not yet shown that."
about carlsen:
"Carlsen's play is reflective of this trend and appears based on memory, stamina and emphasis on 'bagging the point'"
about what carlsen lacks (?):
"superior strength (defined as positional understanding of chess, feel for deeper planning, erudition, and originality)"
a buddy of mine - he's just another gm - would say that carlsen posesses all of this, and most of all the intuitive positional understanding of chess and a very deep feel for the game. of course, this gm has only been able to follow carlsen closely for 8 years now, and has analyzed together with carlsen and played on the same national team as carlsen.
now eli - my buddy is just a regular gm with some expert knowledge on carlsen - so i assume your background is much more impressive than that, when you boldly claim that carlsen hasn't shown deep knowledge of chess yet?
"he placed in front of ivanchuk in (start counting) linares 2007, linares 2008, corus 2008 and aerosvit 2008. how many times did ivanchuk finish ahead of carlsen in a classical event in 2007 and 2008?"
sorry, i forgot tal memorial 2007 - carlsen finished ahead of ivanchuk there too.
so that's 5 to carlsen, out of how many? :o) [counting out the wcc, where carlsen reached the semi-finals and ivanchuk didn't, but cup is very different, so ...]
I am a little confused too. Frogbert seems to be arguing against a phantom point I never made that Carlsen is not a great player. I direct you to the earlier point re 'too early'/'place into context' and computer chess, which I believe to be the thrice-communicated point of my argument rather than denigration crusade I never embarked on.
I am not sure with regard to points (1) and (2) of frogbert's post. Point (2) in particular. What, Alexeev or Yakovenko are stronger than e.g. Larsen, Bronstein, Smyslov or Chigorin? And, yes, I do think highly of Korchnoi. Point (3) is fair enough, as I said before there is a gulf of difference between 'best talent ever' and 'this kid is the best of the computer generation and his results and manner of play reflect the nature of his training as well as what is probably inconsiderable but unproven talent'.
I beleive this debate to have exhausted itself btw so happy to agree that Magnus is a champ. Good luck to him certainly.
On the other hand, the discussion about the 'right' move is quite interesting actually. I suppose one way to define it as the move presenting the biggest concrete, over-the-board challenge. Another way is to define as the strongest move based on fundamental understanding of the position. All grandmasters, Carlsen including, make both types of move. Some moves are both. My feeling (and I would be happy to stand corrected) that his play emhasise the former at the expense of the latter.
For once, this ritual discussion is actually turning up some interesting posts on the nature of talent, the modern demands on chess, the qualities we think most representative of chess (in whatever era), the incommensurability of past and present, etc. And all this with only minimal offense all round. Keep it up, guys!
I think two games I remember from Carlsen: against Kramnik and another against Anand. Even though Carlsen lost to Anand, the tiger lived only to realize that the danger was real - even though the route the young hunter selected was too difficult for him at the moment.
However, The safer path against Kramnik produced results and this might have had some effect to Carlsens career later on - it showed that he can beat the big guys by letting them do the mistakes rather than trying to grind them down by force.
I hope the best for Magnus and I truly hope that he will be the new Kasparov of the 21st century. But he's still young and unexpected things could happen. At some point I expect him to focus on other things in live than chess - maybe he starts studying, meets girls, get's a car, wants to see more of the world and so on. I wouldn't blame him for that, actually I would be very disappointted if he wouldn't. But I hope as a chess fan that he would keep chess as a profession.
There will be good years and bad years and it looks like this is a good first half for Magnus. It is possible that he will break all the records even this year, but my only fear is that after that what kind of motivation he has to continue?
I always think that 'what if past great player x had had access to computers?' is a strange argument; after all past great player x played only against opponents without computers. And if it comes to whose moves were actually stronger or would have been stronger had GPX had computer training, how on earth could we tell?
I don't know where Kramnik's gone in this who's-the-best-right-now discussion, btw. It depends what you mean by best, of course, but if we were going to choose someone to play a match against the best of Mars, I reckon he'd still be the obvious choice.
I agree that Kramnik ought to be in the discussion, but his results of late haven't been particularly stunning; he's never proved a real superiority to his fellows in tournaments. "Mr. +2" is as accurate a moniker as it was before 2000 London or Elista 2007.
I'd still bet money he would win a match against Carlsen outright (against anyone under age 20), but Anand is a lot scarier for the top players right now. I'm already looking forward to Bilbao.
you mean as a sort of filter, before playing the best of the current?
my comment was meant for rdh
rdh--
Agreed.
The year's big tournaments are wonderfully fun, but they are essentially exhibition games compared to a WC match for which the competitors
--save their best novelties,
--prepare, physically and "chessically," with seconds and trainers for a year or more,
--and play for far, far, higher stakes.
Anyone who'd favor another player over Kramnik in a WCC match based on rating alone hasn't been paying attention for the last eight years.
If one would follow live ratings then Kramnik is now #4. Thats intriguing because I thought he had regained his "natural" place by going above 2800. Now he seems to be again in a mini-slump. I hope he gets back because it would be nice for the WCC to be a match between 1 & 2.
Kramnik will actually be no. 5, as Kramnik hasn't played any rated games since the last list. FIDe has confirmed that Aerosvit 2008 will count for the July list. Magnus Carlsen is clear no. 2 for the last time. From Oct. 2008 he will probably be the clear no. 1 for the next 20 years or so.
"Anyone who'd favor another player over Kramnik in a WCC match based on rating alone hasn't been paying attention for the last eight years."
Amen to all that. Look at Ivanchuk, who will never challenge for a world title, now #3 ahead of Kramnik. It just ain't about ELO anymore, as in the Petrosian era when the world champion never took an undivided first prize in any tournament during his title reign. Anand will not be as difficult an opponent as Topalov in Elista.
As something of an Anand cheerleader, I'd like to suggest that there is a difference between Anand and Topalov, just as there is a difference between Topalov and Carlsen.
Anand and Kramnik have each played a hotly contested WCH match with Garry Kasparov; Anand lost his, but was leading at one point and (more relevantly) is a substantially stronger player now than he was in 1995. I still think he has to be favored over anyone in a match.
Kramnik would defeat a lot of players (anyone but Ivanchuk, Morozevich, Anand, Topalov, Carlsen, Aronian, Leko, Shirov, and possibly Karjakin or Radjabov) simply on class. He would prepare and have a plan, and then outplay them in simple middlegames. However, Kramnik has never demonstrated any actual superiority to the truly top class players (drawing matches with Topalov and Leko, how long has it been since he had clear first in anything?).
In a way, it's rather odd that the matches of 1993-2000 worked out the way they did. Of the top ranked players of the time, it's easy to imagine Anand and Short being easy targets for Kasparov; both career 1. e4 players with limited repertoires (at the time, in Anand's case; he's moved around a lot since then) and emphasis on aggressive middlegame play. Kramnik was the opposite; an aficionado of 1. Nf3 who loved nothing better than an equal endgame.
I agree that Kramnik belongs in the discussion of who the best player currently is, and I did not mean my comment that Carlsen had passed Kramnik to be interpreted any more broadly than on the rating list. My opinion, if it makes any sense, is that Anand is the player most likely to win a match against anyone and Kramnik is the player least likely to lose a match against anyone.
As to the nature of "right moves": My personal belief is that the right move is the move which is most likely to result in winning the game, so long as that move does not change an objectively won position to an objectively drawn one, or an objectively drawn position to an objectively lost one. Exception: In a losing position, the move which offers the best chance of drawing is often different from (and a better practical choice than) a move which offerse the greatest (but still infintisimal) chance of winning.
Psychological and competitive factors figure into such an analysis. Basically, I think positions are won, drawn or lost. There is usually a lot of scope in moves that don't shift the position from one category to the other, and such moves tend to define style (Kasparov and Tal attacked, Karpov and now Carlsen grind, but that doesn't mean the moves of attackers are stronger than those of grinders or visa-versa).
""Anyone who'd favor another player over Kramnik in a WCC match based on rating alone hasn't been paying attention for the last eight years."
Amen to all that. Look at Ivanchuk, who will never challenge for a world title, now #3 ahead of Kramnik. It just ain't about ELO anymore, as in the Petrosian era when the world champion never took an undivided first prize in any tournament during his title reign. Anand will not be as difficult an opponent as Topalov in Elista."
Petrosian did well enough in the qualification tournaments and matches though. Hard to see what OBJECTIVE argument above is based on. Perhaps Kramnik's match record of wins against Kasparov and Yudasin? Certainly impressive. Or his draws against Leko and Topalov? Or could it be his losses against Kamsky, Gelfand and Shirov. Oh wait, those don't count, he was too young. Then perhaps its his tournament record? or his ELO. No wait, these are discounted in the argument above. Oh well, one of life's mysteries.
Lest we forget... Topalov lost the over-the-board classical match with Kramnik.
Anyway, his real claim to fame is that he's the only player of his generation who was never dominated by another player. Anand, Ivanchuk and Topalov all played second fiddle to Kasparov (and arguably Kramnik), while Kramnik matched him in individual games and then won their match by a clear margin.
The only player around at the moment who seems to have the potential to reach a level where he would be a match favourite against the current Kramnik is Carslen.
Anand's a very strong tournament player, but being able to efficiently beat the weaker players isn't enough to make him favourite against Kramnik.
"Kramnik has never demonstrated any actual superiority to the truly top class players (drawing matches with Topalov"
Drawing with Topalov!!??? Are you joking? You didn't follow that match, you did? Kramnik beat Topalov OTB despite having one game less with white pieces (and despite the dirty tricks of Topailov).
Yes, I recognize that a forfeit win was involved in the Kramnik-Topalov match, and that this resulted in multiple Blacks in a row for Kramnik. Still, the final score was dead even, and Kramnik could have showed up for that game.
Forfeit wins are wins in the books.
"Forfeit wins are wins in the books".
That may be true, but the present debate is about strength in OTB match play, and here Kramnik outperformed Topalov; both in the main match and in the playoff.
A "world champion" who actually played chess would be nice. In that respect, Carlsen > Anand >> Kramnik.
Kramnik has a bit of an excuse; he is not actually terribly healthy, especially during the period 2003-2005. Anand has other obligations, including a wife. Carlsen is 17, he can do whatever he wants.
Still, it's nice to see the top players more than the obligatory twice a year at Corus and Linares. It would be nice if they could put together a few made-for-TV exhibition matches between the top players, perhaps with two other (lower-class) GM's doing a real time video "pre-post-mortem" during the game to provide movement. You could get decent American players for $10K and a buffet.
Anand-Carlsen or Anand-Topalov, 5 classical games over a week, resort location, simuls on the weekends, high enough production values to get on the Fox Sports Network or thereabouts, Sofia rules (although that might lose you Anand - maybe Topalov-Carlsen or Ivanchuk-Carlsen).
Better yet, it would be a great dry run for a World Championship broadcast. The problem with internet broadcasts is monetization; TV is pre-monetized.
Kramnik's chances:
--He lost his first few matches and succeeded in his last three. Would it be going too far out on a limb to conclude that since his early losses he got better at chess?
--He succeeded in Brissago, overcoming serious health problems. Bareev's book shows a picture of him at the board looking like a skeleton. He's healthier now.
--He overcame huge distractions and the forfeit loss of a white game in Elista. Anand & co. will conduct themselves appropriately, and in any case Team Kramnik may have finally figured out how to competently handle such things.
--Anand is a well-balanced, content person. He will train appropriately. It would take him fifteen minutes to get over a match loss in Bonn. Anand's been FIDE champion several times before, so what's the big deal?
--Kramnik puts this mstch in its "proper" historical perspective: if he wins, he vaults past the great Anand and remains on track to contend for highest honors in world championship competition. He is quietly obsessed and will train like a maniac.
--Kramnik has designed his entire hold as black win with white opening repertoire around his WC ambitions.
--Kramnik has the experience of three recent, successful, long matches.
--Anand is pushing forty, when the brain starts turning to mush.
On the other hand, Anand may be physically healthier than Vlad. And he's probably taken better care of himself.
Vlad by +2.
"You could get decent American players for $10K and a buffet."
There are two things wrong with this sentence.
"--He lost his first few matches and succeeded in his last three. Would it be going too far out on a limb to conclude that since his early losses he got better at chess?"
Only a fool would persist in the pre-2000 match losses = fraudulent champion argument against Kramnik. But here it could also be observed that even with his illness layoff, Kramnik managed to compete in rapid, advanced, computer and (if you count the 2-K Botvinnik Memorial) blitz matches since taking the title from Kasparov. Health permitting, an active champion, match veteran and exemplary chess ambassador.
Vlad by +1.
Great job by carlsen. Very small gap in the top.
Carlsen will compete next time in Biel, where he will have to score very high to gain any ratingpoints. Tjuk and Vlad will play in Dortmund and they too can offcause gain ratingpoints.
About the upcoming WC-match. I believe that, if Kramnik shows up in tiptop shape and well prepared, he will winn.
But chances are that Anand wants the title more and therefore will be better prepared and in better shape (he is allways in good shape by the way) The big questionnmark concerning Vishy is his nerves - can he handle the pressure, especially if he gets behind in the Match. About the openings. If Vishy playes E4 (I think he has too) will we see Vlad play the Petroff or are we in for a big surprise - what about Ruy Lopez or even the Berlin again. i Dont think we will se any Sicilians. Vlad with white will try to get a small edge with queenless endings.
Oh dear, we're back on the "who is the best match-player" thread. (Popular variants include "my favourite player is better than your favourite player", "explain what you mean by talent", and "look at how many results I can dredge up from 1983".)
Does this never get tiresome? You know, if you wait long enough, there are actually matches that will settle (most of) these questions.
Regarding openings in Anand-Kramnik 2008:
Anand is a career 1. e4 player as White, and is unlikely to vary, especially considering that Kramnik's Berlin and Petroff have been showing signs of creakiness of late (Although, it should be said, apart from Anand himself (and even Anand failed to win the game) no one has managed to dent -Kramnik- too badly. there have just been a few significant Petroff and Berlin losses lately.) I'd expect Kramnik to show up with something new; maybe the Schliemann or the Marshall.
The interesting part of the match from an opening theory perspective is Anand-as-Black, since Kramnik's usual 1. Nf3 is so flexible. I would expect Semi-Slav lines from Anand in a tournament, but sharp stuff isn't really World Championship kosher as Black (supposedly - that never stopped Kasparov playing the Sicilian). That means QID and Catalan lines, and a lot of draws.
You never know, though; with six months to prepare maybe Anand will show up with the English.
" "You could get decent American players for $10K and a buffet."
There are two things wrong with this sentence. "
Babson, you beat me to it. But I must say, Americans are always entertaining judging their own worth. Unless Kamsky or Kaidanov (for entertainment value of his accent) are among those decent American players, you should get at least 10 Americans for that astronomous amount.
Well, I see your point (and agree with it).
But my point was that in an event with Anand and Carlsen, $10K shouldn't be a huge deal. And there used to be some decent American players, it's just that they all eventually get straight jobs and ruin their chess careers by, you know, making money.
De Firmian, Kamsky, etc. And I didn't necessarily mean homegrown Americans. Onischuk may not be able to play with the elite, but he's a strong player, and Shabalov is a good analyst.
My point was to get english speaking guys (Short?) who didn't cost too much to do televised commentary on a match.
The opening battle in Kramnik-Anand figures to be very interesting indeed. It's very clear that Kramnik has an edge in positional/technical play. Maybe it's not a huge edge, but it would be enough to win the match if Kramnik gets his positions with white. On the other hand, Anand is clearly superior in dynamic/unbalanced/irrational positions. If he finds a way to stir the games in that direction, he will win.
I doubt Anand will switch to 1.d4. I think he tried 1.d4 a couple of times recently (in rapids) and got nothing. Looks like it just doesn't work for him. So he will stick to e4, but I doubt he will crack the Petroff. Currently there is only one line in the Petroff where white can even get the game going (see Anand-Kramnik and Karjakin-Jakovenko). I expect Kramnik to neutralize white Anand completely.
The match will be decided on Kramnik's white games. The good news for Anand though is that he possesses very sharp weapons in his black repertoire both against 1.e4 and closed openings. Against 1.e4 he has Najdorf, I doubt Kramnik will even try to go in that direction.
Kramnik will try to play 1. d4 and get some long grinds. If Anand chickens out and goes for "solid" QGD/Nimzo/QID/Catalan lines he's going to lose. One of the grinds is going to work out and that will be the end of the match. On the other hand, if Anand sticks to his strength and goes into Meran/Moscow lines, it's going to be one hell of a match and I wouldn't dare to pick a winner.
Let me get this right - if Kramnik holds a draw against White Anand, its Kramnik neutralizing Anand's White, but if Anand does the same against Kramnik's White using "solid QGD etc", that's Anand chieckening out?
The point is that Anand has two options:
1) Try to get the draw in slightly inferior position: QGD, etc.
2) Go for sharp fight with black.
I would not criticize Anand if he goes for option 1 the whole match and holds. I'm simply saying that option 1 is unlikely to work for him, so he better go for option 2.
G Koster you are an isiot as you have proven time and time again....put your money down on Kramnik and lose it as Anand will destroy the pretender, you will get even odds so you should bety all you own ( the van you live in down by the side of the river) as your comments are worth enouigh combinned withe a nickel to get you a cup of JACK SQUAT you sputid TROLL.
osbender,
I really like your analysis of the match. I would like to add, Anand can only play the slav if the match score is equal or in his favor. If Kramnik leads the match he will play the exchange variation. From a strategic perspective this gives Kramnik an advantage. He will play the Petrov untill he has to win every game. Then he will switch.
The FIDE guys never stop amazing me! They have now changed their minds again,
and the Aerosvit tournament will not be included in the July list after all!
See http://reports.chessdom.com/measure-up/final-july-arting-list-estimate for
more information.
Regarding the Kramnik-Anand match my first guesstimate is that Anand is the favourite.
Kramnik has an edge in the first 12 games making him the favourite to win given the match is decided after the 12 games. Giving Anand the same numerical edge in the tiebrakers I have Anand as the favourite overall because I think the probability of the match going into tiebreakers is higher than 1/2.
However, Kramnik just seems to want this more than Anand. Its like winning would be cool to Anand, wheras for Kramnik this title is something he designs his chess career around.
At the moment I imagine Anand is pretty laid back about eg. opening preparation. If he chooses to only work with Nielsen on this, I think he is toast against team Kramnik, whoever Kramnik chooses to bring in (or has already brought in).
One of Kramniks advantages is that if he is the first one to win a game, it will be very hard for Anand. On the other hand, as their earlier classical encounters show, Anand is more likely to win with black than Kramnik is.
I really hope that they will refuse to let ownership of the title be decided by an Armageddon game! Looking forward to this match, only problem is the waiting having to be done.
For the purposes of commentary on TV, I would highly recommend English GM James Plaskett.
I am not sure what sort of figure he would command following his £250,000 win on millionaire, but his memory for positions and games is astonishing.
He once did a series of videos with GK, and seemed pretty comfortable in front of a camera.
With half the players Van Wely's strength or weaker, Ivanchuk has a great chance to reach 2800+ from Dortmund- he needs only +3.
(+2 would leave him with virtual rating of 2796.5
not quite enough to catch Anand)
"Anand-Carlsen or Anand-Topalov, 5 classical games over a week"
why the hell would they play an odd number of games.
"The FIDE guys never stop amazing me! They have now changed their minds again,
and the Aerosvit tournament will not be included in the July list after all! "
I guess they would have do it if Carlsen would pass Anand in the rating list. Now that he didn't the whole matter is irrelevant and is better to reinforce the publication of rating list and reports in the established deadlines. I am glad by the way that the reports of the National Open in Las Vegas arrived; some people was guessing the organizers wouldn't do it just to keep Nakamura above the 2700 mark. Of course, people would bash for anything ... that FIDE negated Carlsen and Ivanchuk the chance of being in the top 3, or wanted Aronian to be outside the top 10 for the first time in three years, or any other absurd reason.
Looking forward to Dortmund... By the way, after looking the field, it looks even worse the absurd decision from the Spanish organizers of not inviting Van Wely to the Linares tournament. If someone was invited to Corus, Dortmund and other tournaments because of his merits, I don't understand why Sofia and Linares fans were deprived from the chance of seeing him play there. Fortunately, Dortmund organizers were wiser and we will see him in a few days.
I think osbender has Kramnik-Anand exactly right. Anand's best chance is to play the semi-Slav and hope to win from a bad position.
I once looked through all the decisive K-A slowplay games. All K's wins were basically seamless crushes. Of Anand's four, in one Kramnik blundered his queen in the opening, in another he lost after obtaining a big advantage with a piece sacrifice (albeit this was a brilliant and typical effort by Anand), in another K misplayed a winning attack and lost, and I forget the fourth, but it waws equally 'fortuitous' (of course these things are not chance, but you know what I mean.
I think the moral is clear: Anand needs sharp play even with Black.
"Carlsen is 17, he can do whatever he wants."
nah, carlsen is 17, and he needs to attend high school (when not playing tournaments). carlsen needs to pass his exams. carlsen needs to study all the stuff we studied when we were in high school. :o)
While I would like to see an amazing match, I think it will go to the rapid tie-breaks which Anand will win. There will probably be two or even just one wins apiece in the classical games.
My two cents:
I think Anand will bypass the Slav and Catalan and go for the QGA. Against Nf3 + c4 he could play 1...d5 and dc or d4, or 1...c5. If he does play the Slav I think Kramnik may well play the Exchange, not to draw but to win. Anand dislikes static positions with no counterplay. Also Kramnik is fearsome with the Catalan but Carlsen and Fritz (yes ok machine play very hard to follow) managed to fight it, if Anand plays it he may follow their model of play. Doubt he will ditch e4 completely but he will probably have a backup in case things go nasty with it like against Kasparov. 1.c4 maybe? He will try to crack the Petroff I think but not in the current main lines. Kramnik will keep the Petroff until (if) Anand cracks it; then Berlin and/or Caro-Kann. Want Anand to win but I give Kramnik the edge. Will be a cracking match.
He is brilliant, ironically exposing others by playing computer-bad moves that are human-good complicating moves. I love this kid!
Carlsen is 17. If he sticks with chess he will be the world champion. He is showing unique talents as I mentioned above, exploiting the weaknesses of computer preparation while taking advantage of it himself.
He is the YouTube generation of chess.
What on earth is the youtube generation and what is special about them?