Or simply very good preparation by Nakamura. 10…g5 is a top “computer move,” but it looks suicidal to human eyes (dark-square weakness, two bishops). Of course Anand was aware of the risk, but Nakamura was probably better prepared for this & similar positions. Playing this position tight is not risk-free for Black either.
Yes, the ‘Silicon Monsters’ are not perfect. I enjoyed Caruana’s commentary on his game with Anand, where he pointed out a couple of places where ‘the computer’ evaluation was far different from his.
In the press conference today after another grueling game where he saved a draw, Caruana (when prompted by the host) made a comment at the end that it seemed Karjakin had such an easy win against Topalov. “Just push the kingside pawns and (win).” That’s all he said, but he didn’t say it in a joking way.
Reminds me of Fischer’s observation about Russians colluding. Yeah I know Topalov is Bulgarian, in fact the tournament schedule is designed to prevent same-country players from helping each other, but Bulgaria is not the same as Russia.
I hope Caruana holds on to qualify. His games are like jewels.
It’s cool that both Americans won miniatures against Anand!
Yes, that is quite cool. I suspect/hope Caruana is just starting another “growth” spurt in chess strength. I hope he makes it to the top one day, if not in this cycle.
This tiebreak method cannot be ideal. It puts Anand in a difficult situation. I predict a quick discreet draw between Svidler and Anand to let the leaders decide things on their own. If other players than these two fine gentlemen were involved there could be potential for shenanigans.
The following is from Chessbase:
[i]And this is how the tiebreak scenario works – we confirmed everything with the Chief Arbiter and his assistants. Karjakin and Caruana play against each other and only one amongst the two have a chance to win. The one who wins the game becomes the champion and the Challenger.
However, in case of a draw it becomes complicated. Both Sergey and Fabiano reach 8.0/13. If Anand draws or loses to Svidler, then Sergey Karjakin is the champion because head to head is equal between him and Caruana, but Sergey has more wins, which is the second tiebreak.
However: if Vishy wins against Svidler then things change completely, because all three would be on 8.0/13. Then the three players are a group in head to head encounters, and Caruana has 2.5/4 (1.5 against Vishy and 1 point against Sergey) while Karjakin has 2/4 (1 each against Vishy and Caruana). Then Caruana wins the tournament.[/i]
However, a Svidler-Anand draw only helps Kajarkin.
In fact, if the Svidler-Anand game is a quick “GM draw”, then Karjakin need not push for a win, even though he has the white pieces. And a few peanut-gallery post-game comments would be directed at Svidler and Anand’s integrity for not “playing out” a last-round game when significant prize-money depends on the outcome not only for themselves but also for everyone except Topalov.
Karjakin (and Caruana) will be glancing over at the Svidler-Anand game, and as long as Anand is better, dynamically-equal or only slightly-worse in a double-edged position with chances for Svidler to go wrong, Karjakin has to keep playing for a win same as Caruana.
To me, the ideal would be: An unclear “all three results possible” game on the Svidler-Anand board, which forces BOTH players on the Karjakin-Caruana board to play for a win.
P.S.: Fortunately, NFL fans are used to convoluted tie-break determinants between two, three or four teams vying for a playoff spot(s) (which can answer the question of why a team with a 24-point lead with four minutes left and possession of the ball still has all its starting offense on the field as well as calling pass plays).
I think an argument can be made here that the old system of candidates’ matches will produce a stronger challenger more adept at match play, which is what the title round still is, sort of, at present.
I think Caruana may have missed a chance. Instead of 105. Bf2, 105. Rb1! should be winning. It transposes to the Philador position if I’m not mistaken. The issue is there are only 11 moves left until 50 moves, so he may not quite be able to win in time. R + B vs. R is probably one of the hardest draws to hold.
Focus on more than Anand. Svidler with the white pieces needs only a draw to improve his countrymate’s chances. Only 3 of the 15 decisive games were won by white (2 of 13 if you exclude Nakamura’s sweep of Topalov). I’d guess that if Svidler was happy with a draw then it would be extremely difficult for Anand to win with black even if he is making a reasonable try to do so.
Well, Caruana went for it, as he essentially had to…but it appears that Karjakin is now clearly winning (as of move 40, anyway). Absent some shocking development, it’s Carlsen-Karjakin later this year (anyone wanting to bet against Carlsen, PM me your stakes ).
It’s not certain that there is money for a WC match in New York.
There would have been if Caruana had won.
But with a pro-Putin Crimean Russian as the challenger, that’s a much harder sell.
Agreed. Still no announcement of the venue in NYC for the match. I don’t think it will take place in NYC. I do hope I’m wrong about that both from a US chess fan’s point of view, and because I’d love to see Agon create a jurisdictional presence for itself in the US. If it does come off in NYC, maybe Agon will be able to get Sepp Blatter to make the symbolic first move of game one.
In classical chess, it appears from one online database that from 2006 to 2016, Carlsen is up over Karjakin +3 -1 witth 15 draws. Should be interesting especially as Karjakin just performed at about a 2835 level. But, match play is a different beast. Should be fun.
Focus on more than Anand. Svidler with the white pieces needs only a draw to improve his countrymate’s chances. Only 3 of the 15 decisive games were won by white (2 of 13 if you exclude Nakamura’s sweep of Topalov). I’d guess that if Svidler was happy with a draw then it would be extremely difficult for Anand to win with black even if he is making a reasonable try to do so.
[/quote]
why would you exclude Mr Nakamura’s wins when you wouldn’t any others? i don’t understand why you call that out.
).