|Aug-03-04|| ||themindset: talk about domination |
|Aug-04-04|| ||acirce: I'm not sure if I'd <talk about domination>, without the blunder 31..f5 Anand could even have risked losing. I remember that Rublevsky was in time trouble here but not how bad it was, if it was bad enough maybe Anand was never in real danger. |
|Aug-04-04|| ||patzer2: Appearances can be deceptive. I had initially thought Anand had a dominating and deep winning position after 15. e5!?, which sets up the sacrifice 17. Nxf6!?|
However, Black defends very well and only commits an error after 31...f5? Instead, Black should have played 31...Be4! with a small but clear advantage.
So, it turns out Anand does not always prefer clarity and can play like Tal afterall, creating deep and unclear complications with a speculative exchange sacrifice. Also in Tal-like fashion, Anand swindles a win after a small defensive error on the part of his opponent.
|Aug-04-04|| ||PieceOffer: I found the game interesting in the fact that Black's mobility is severely curtailed and most of his moves are forced right from the 18th move. Besides the humor with the black a-file rook, I found it of interest that even on the 26th move black cannot move the rook e.g. through ...Rc7. That makes the white knight active with Nd5. And the black King and h-file Rook stay trapped for the length of the game.
Though 31...Be4 gives black even chances as per some commentaries, 31. Ne2 looks so innocuous that the mate enforcing move Nf5 or Nh5 is just not apparent leading to the blunder by black. |
|Aug-04-04|| ||Zenchess: I don't understand something here. Where does White mess up between move 17 and move 31 (where Black is slightly better)? |
|Aug-05-04|| ||patzer2: <Zenchess> The play from both sides is of outstanding quality from moves 17 to 31, at least until Black's error with 31...f5? It may well be that Anand figured out a way to hold for at least a draw after best play with 31...Be4!, in which case the entire variation beginning with 15. e5!? would be justified.|
In other words, Anand may have prepared a variation with lots of winning chances in the event of a slight Black error, and with no worse than a draw in the event of best play by Black.
It is unfortunate that his opponent missed 31...Be4! so we could see how Anand planned to defend his position in that event.
|Aug-05-04|| ||rags: I think Anand must have enticed Rublevesky in playing f5 ? by playing the pawn sacrifice 29. b4 ...not sure how these Super GM's brains work! |
|Aug-05-04|| ||arjunkakar: patzer your point of anand prefering unclear position sis well taken. he is a sharp tactician often going for unbalanced situations and coming out on trumps by out calculating the opnonet. I think he wears them down because all that is required is one mistake. aAnd againt lesser players he is so overwhelming. For those who had followed his carrer when he was just coming up - this explains why he used to win so many games against higher players. Kasparov is the one player who (given enough time) is able to out manouver him and therefore is able to read through anand and defeat him so so often. Everuyone else including kramnik can be thrown off with this special anand style - which frankly is most attractive to behold. This is what i call an attractive game - its fabulous - i wish anand would continue this style and take more risks againt kramnik too in classical format. Of late i think takes less of a chance againt kramnik. |
|Aug-05-04|| ||arjunkakar: the mind set - i am not so sure about the total domination stuff but yes - he was super aggressive and took a lot of risks in this game and came out on trumps. To me the balck bishop at b6 was just too strong. Even without the rook sacrifice i guess anand would have won playing precisely - but ah - i am not complaining about that extra bit of flair. Mkes it so attractive to follow anand. |
|Aug-05-04|| ||Zenchess: Not only that, he hardly takes any time on the clock at all. That means the opponent has to think on their time rather than try to think on his. He used to take only 30 minutes for the whole game until he had a candidate's match with Karpov where he squandered a ton of won positions and lost the match. So now he takes 60-90 minutes. |
|Nov-11-08|| ||notyetagm: <notyetagm: In an article entitled "The Best Game of 2004" in the August 2005 issue of the British Chess Magazine, this victory by Ivanchuk was the runaway winner. A panel of GMs, inlcuding Kasparov, voted on a selection of games. <<<Gary's top three choices were Anand vs Rublevsky, 2004 (#1)>>>, Sutovsky vs A Kovacevic, 2004 (#2), and this game third. Sutovsky's win is really very nice.>|
This magnificient Anand win was Kasparov's choice as <Best Game Of 2004>.
|Jun-17-11|| ||wordfunph: "Ok, Anand-Rublevsky from Dortmund 2004 is something that comes to mind."|
- Alexey Shirov (when asked for the best chess game he ever saw)
Source: NIC Magazine 2004/08