Maybe, but not necessarily. If Kramnik NEEDS to warm up, NEEDS to establish a certain degree of control, etc., to play his best, then that first drawish-line game could POSITIVELY EFFECT the rest of the games - a possibility that must be put into the equation.

Compare a boxing match where a fighter doesn't go all out in the first round in a 12 round match, then goes on to lose the match on the judges cards by one round. If one then tried to say that the losing boxer's first "take it easy" round was key to loss, that would be completely illogical.

Only if we grant what you said in your first paragraph, that he NEEDS to warm up first. Sure, if he NEEDS it, and won't perform as well without it, then it wouldn't make much sense to blame the warmup round for his defeat.

On the other hand, you'd have to think that a fighter who didn't need it, and could hit the boards running might be a better fighter.

If we grant your assumption that he needed it, then it might have been better to lose the draw for colours. I wonder if it's ever happened that a player gave up his right to draw, and asked for Black in Game 1.

Exactly!

Look at it his way. Suppose Kramnik had gone all out in the first game, choosing an aggressive line. Suppose he ran into some stellar prep by Anand, got into some really hot water, almost lost, but pulled out a draw. The result would seem to be the same as in the real first game: a draw.

But that's true only if you don't take in the psychological dimension. The result in my hypothetical case might not be JUST a draw, but also a weakening of Kramnik's confidence. He might, after that result, have responded just slightly less well to Anand's surprise f3 Nimzo in the second game and ended up losing.

This is all pure conjecture of course, but the point remains: the match is a psychological totality, and you must take that fact into consideration when judging the results of any particular game.

Kramnik, I'm sure, has an excellent conception of his match psychology and likely had plenty of good reasons for playing the line he did in the first game.

PART 1

<INTRODUCTION>

Kramnik vs Anand, 2008 is the <first game of the 2008 title match>.

Quantitative mapping of this game between these players is below. Figures in brackets immediately after each move are the corrected engine evaluations generated on the return slide. The reverse slide smoothed out many, but not all fluctuation in the engine’s evaluations. The complexity of some variations was very likely too great to enable a fuller reconciliation from the forward slide. <General methods used are described in the bio.>

The evaluation values in the opening come at the end of a full forward slide to the last move of the game and a full return slide back to the starting position. Engine preferences are not included in this game because of the extremely tight evaluation (ie: negligible) differences between all moves, rendering the exercise meaningless.

<Summary>

The game is essentially divided into two phases:

- Opening, middle game and queen exchange, and a couple of more moves known to opening theory (moves 1-17), simplifying directly into a

- Highly drawish endgame (moves 17-32)

<THE GAME>

<1. d4> (=0.15) <1…d5> (=0.16)

<2. c4> (=0.11) <2…c6> (=0.16)

<3. Nc3> (=0.15) <3…Nf6> ( 0.23)

<4. cxd5> (=0.20) <4…cxd5> (=0.20)

<5. Bf4> (=0.00) <5…Nc6> (=0.18)

<6. e3> (=0.18) <6…Bf5> (=0.18)

<7. Nf3> (=0.12) <7…e6> (=0.17)

<8. Qb3> (=0.17) <8…Bb4> (=0.17)

<9. Bb5> (=0.17) <9…0-0> ( 0.31)

<10. Bxc6> ( 0.31) <10…Bxc3+> ( 0.31)

<11. Qxc3> ( 0.31) <11…Rc8> ( 0.31)

<12. Ne5> ( 0.31) <12…Ng4> ( 0.50)

<13. Nxg4> ( 0.50) <13…Bxg4> ( 0.50)

<14. Qb4> ( 0.50) <14…Rxc6> ( 0.50)

<15. Qxb7> ( 0.50) <15…Qc8> ( 0.50)

<16. Qxc8> ( 0.50) <16…Rfxc8> ( 0.50)

<17. 0-0> ( 0.50)

<17…a5> ( 0.61)

<18. f3> ( 0.61) <18…Bf5> ( 0.61)

<19. Rfe1> ( 0.47) <19…Bg6> ( 0.58)

<20. b3> ( 0.50) <20…f6> ( 0.50)

<21. e4> ( 0.35) <21…dxe4> ( 0.35)

<22. fxe4> ( 0.35) <22…Rd8> ( 0.35)

<23. Rad1> ( 0.35) <23…Rc2> ( 0.35)

<24. e5> (=0.19) <24…fxe5> (=0.19)

<25. Bxe5> (=0.19) <25…Rxa2> (=0.19)

<26. Ra1> (=0.19) <26…Rxa1> (=0.19)

<27. Rxa1> (=0.19) <27…Rd5> (=0.20)

<28. Rc1> (=0.20) <28…Rd7> (=0.20)

<29. Rc5> (=0.20) <29…Ra7> (=0.20)

<30. Rc7> (=0.00) <30…Rxc7> (0.00)

<31. Bxc7> (=0.00) <31…Bc2> (=0.00)

<32.Bxa5> (=0.00) <32…Bxb3> (=0.00)

<ANALYSIS>

<Note> The fluctuations generated in the relatively low (16 minimum) ply forward slide were smoothed out in the equivalent return slide. The corrected evaluations extracted from the return slide are used in this analysis, as they are considered more reliable than the raw evaluations generated on the initial forward slide. All moves have been evaluated on forward and return slide for completeness.

<Evaluation range>:

Between < 0.00> applying to the opening move <5.Bf4> and the move group <30. Rc7 Rxc7 31. Bxc7 Bc2 32. Bxa5 Bxb3> - representing complete equality - and < 0.61> in respect of the move <17…a5 18.f3 Bf5> representing a minor advantage for White.

<The largest evaluation shift(s)>:

- for White was 0.20 between <4…cxd5> (=0.20) and <5. Bf4> (=0.00). However this should be excluded from consideration because it is a strategic move in the early opening.

White had another evaluation shift of <0.20> between <29…Ra7> (=0.20) and <30.Rc7> (=0.00). However, the drawn nature of the position at this stage of the game indicates a minor level of evaluation inflation and will also be excluded from consideration.

The next largest evaluation shift for White was 0.16 between <23…Rc2> ( 0.35) and <24.e5> (=0.19).

- for Black were 0.19 between <12. Ne5> 0.31) and <12…Ng4> (=/ 0.50), followed by 0.18 between <5. Bf4> and <5…Nc6>. and 0.14 between <9.Bb5> (=0.18) and <9…0-0> (+/+0.31).

If these are excluded because of their established positions in opening theory, the next largest evaluation shift was 0.11 between <17. 0-0> ( 0.50) and <17…a5> ( 0.61).

<Computer statistics>:

• 93.8% of the ply in this game (60/64) coincided with engine preferences 1, 2 or 3

• 81.25% of the ply in the game (52/64) coincided with engine preferences 1 or 2

• 66.1% of the ply in the game (41/64) coincided with the engine’s first preference

• 90.6% of Kramnik’s moves (29/32) coincided with the engine preferences 1, 2 and 3

• 96.9% of Anand’s moves (31/32) coincided engine preferences 1, 2 and 3

• 81.3% of Kramnik’s moves (26/32) coincided with engine preferences 1 and 2

• 81.3% of Anand’s moves (26/32) coincided with engine preferences 1 and 2

• 65.6% of Kramnik’s moves (21/32) coincided with the engine’s first preference

• 62.5% (20/32) of Anand’s moves coincided with the engines first preference.

<The engine evaluation of the final position>:

was <=0.00> in a position agreed drawn.

<CONCLUSION>

<Using method A, the game is weighted at 0, representing 0 bad moves and 0 blunders by both Anand or Kramnik.