chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Magnus Carlsen vs Viswanathan Anand
Norway Chess (2013), Sandnes NOR, rd 2, May-09
Sicilian Defense: Canal Attack (B51)  ·  1/2-1/2

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening
find similar games 122 more Carlsen/Anand games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: Some games have annotation. These are denoted in the game list with the icon.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·  Later Kibitzing>
May-09-13  Pulo y Gata: Well, player or not, <Ulhumbrus> is one of my favorite analysts here.
May-09-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <Pulo y Gata>: You can have his tiresome generalities, unsubstantiated by anything worthy of mention, as he maunders on with much ado about nothing, all the while acting as though his ill-informed ideas are holy writ.
May-09-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: If you can't deliver mate with a Knight, well, you shouldn't even be here....
May-09-13  pbercker: I myself prefer to mate by Knight ...
May-09-13  frogbert: perfidious, I sometimes wonder, too. Anyway, we contribute what we can, regardless.
May-09-13  Archswindler: Has Ulhumbrus got round to rejecting the Najdorf yet? Surely the grave error of 5...a6 can't have escaped his attention.
May-09-13  Shams: <Archswindler> Rimshot for that one.
May-09-13  pbercker: @ <perfidious> there's something to what you say, but nevertheless I would not be so harsh on <ulhumbrus> and <pulo y gata> in part because because "tiresome generalities" is partly relative to your "epistemic surround" as philosophers like to call it ... i.e your background knowledge. Given that there must be all sorts of skill levels on this forum, it stands to reason that someone's "tiresome generality" is someone else's theoretical breakthrough that may well improve his future chess performance or understanding.

In that regards, I second <frogbert>'s generous suggestion, namely that we contribute what we can.

May-09-13  NGambit: It was interesting that Anand allowed Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack (B51) even after some recent bad experiences in this set-up, notably,

Tiviakov vs Anand, 2012

Carlsen vs Anand, 2012

It's almost as if he wanted to make a point "Allright, You think you can get me here, take a shot!" He might have made his point by coming even out of the opening but he certainly got himself into trouble soon after. I feel that it's no coincidence. This is exactly the kind of game MC likes (wherein only he has a small but nagging advantage and where he can "strangle his opponent to a slow death"). The fact that Anand defended so well bodes well for his form. But, if I were him, I would not play this system with Black in the coming WC match.

May-09-13  SetNoEscapeOn: I can't wait for this match. Check the post-mortem

http://chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211...

May-09-13  NGambit: Geez..made a point to see it live and now they have link for it. :/
May-09-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <frogbert> and <pbercker>: Fair enough; your views are reasonable to me. My contention is that <U> puts his own out there and closes himself off to the very idea that he could possibly be wrong.

A thread I well remember is one in which <U> tried to explain why the opening move of the Keres Attack must be bad and kept on with his dogmatism, even in the face of those kibitzers who explained why it has long been considered a viable line for White.

May-09-13  pbercker: <perfidious: <frogbert> and <pbercker>: My contention is that <U> puts his own out there and closes himself off to the very idea that he could possibly be wrong.>

I got well acquainted with this syndrome in my graduate philosophy days teaching philosophy ... there's no immediate cure for it except ... stoic patience .... and a 2x4! lol

May-09-13  RookFile: A good draw by Anand in this game.
May-10-13  anandrulez: <Eyal: According to what Carlsen said he simply missed 31...Nb7, thinking the best Black can do is 31...Ne6; so if he thought he was winning a pawn like that it probably explains why he was satisfied with playing 27.Rc3 and the resulting sequence. I think they didn't even mention the possibility of 27.Rxc6 Rxc6 28.Ndc7.> Thanks Eyal did Anand comment anything about Rc3 ...he said something but anything about Magnu's missed changes ? Did Magnus really have a chance there ?
May-10-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  Eyal: <Did Magnus really have a chance there?> Of course he did - there's no clear win for White in this line, but Black remains a pawn down with no clear compensation, so at the very least he's going to have a hard time. There's some analysis of this 27.Rxc6! Rxc6 28.Ndc7 line by Gilberto Milos in the chessbase round report (http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId...) & by Daniel King in his video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQd2...).
May-10-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  mike1: Black is only a pawn down after 54. Nxh5 and that does not count! but yes, White is better...till the very end
May-10-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  Eyal: The knight endgame is just a dead draw, at that stage the (temporary) pawn advantage that White gets doesn't really count.
May-10-13  DcGentle: Well, here there is some analysis showing that Carlsen could have won a pawn as <Eyal> already said during the game, and after this he could won the game as well:

[Event "Supreme Masters 2013"]
[Site "Sandnes NOR"]
[Date "2013.05.09"]
[Round "2.3"]
[White "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Black "Anand, Viswanathan"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "2868"]
[BlackElo "2783"]
[EventDate "2013.05.08"]
[ECO "B51"]
[Annotator "Gentle,DC"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Nd7 4. d4 cxd4 5. Qxd4 a6 6. Bxd7+ Bxd7 7. c4 e5 8. Qd3 b5 9. Nc3 bxc4 10. Qxc4 Be6 11. Qd3 h6 12. O-O Nf6 13. Rd1 Be7 14. Ne1 O-O 15. Nc2 Qb6 16. Ne3 Rfc8 17. b3 a5 18. Bd2 Qa6 19. Be1 Nd7 20. f3 Rc6 21. Qxa6 Rcxa6 22. Ned5 Bd8 23. Nb5 Rc8 24. Bf2 Kh7 25. Kf1 Rcc6 26. Rac1 Bg5 27. Rc3

(27. Rxc6 Rxc6 28. Ndc7 {Now Black cannot prevent the loss of a pawn. White threatens 29. Nxe6 fxe6 30 Nxd6.} 28...Rc2 29. Nxe6 fxe6 30. Rxd6 Rc1+ 31. Ke2 Rc2+ 32. Ke1 Nf8 33. a3 Rb2 34. Rd3 Be7

(34...Rb1+ 35. Ke2 Rb2+ 36. Kf1 Rb1+ 37. Be1 {is similar to the main line.})

35. g3 Rb1+

(35...Ng6 36. Bb6 Rxh2 37. Bxa5 {is not better for Black.})

36. Ke2 Rb2+ 37. Kf1 Rb1+ 38. Be1 {Interestingly White can use this bishop as a shield for his king in order to approach rook b1.} 38...h5 39. Ke2 Rb2+ 40. Bd2 Bg5 41. Nd6 {Black cannot defend against the threat 42. Nc4.} 41...Bxd2 42. Nc4 Bc3+ 43. Nxb2 Bxb2 44. b4 axb4 45. a4

(45. axb4 {is not so good, because Black has time to stop pawn b4:} 45...Bd4 46. Rd1 Kg6 47. Rc1 Nd7 48. Rc7 Nb6)

45...Bd4 46. Rb3 Bc3 47. Kd3 {heading to b5 in order to support the a-pawn.} 47...Nd7 48. Kc4 Nb8 49. Kb5 h4 50. a5 Kh6 51. Rb1 Kg5 52. a6 {Black has to give a piece for this pawn.} 52...Nxa6 53. Kxa6 hxg3 54. hxg3 Bd4 {Pawn b4 cannot be defended in the long run.} 55. Rxb4 Bf2 56. Rb7 g6 57. Rf7 {Now White will lose g3 but gains time to get his king to the remaining pawns.} 57...Bxg3 58. Kb5 Bf4 59. Kc4 Be3 60. Kd3 Bf2 61. Re7 Kf6 62. Rh7 Kg5 63. Rh2 Bg3 64. Rb2 Kf4 65. Rb8 Kg5

(65...Kxf3 {fails due to:} 66. Rg8 Kf4 67. Rxg6 Bh4 68. Rxe6 {-#25})

66. Re8 Kf6 67. Kc4 {heading to d7 in order to attack e6, the Achilles heel of Black's position.} 67...Kf7 68. Rb8 Bf2 69. Kb5 Kf6 70. Kc6 Ke7 71. Rh8 Be1 72. Rh7+ Kf6 73. Kd7 {Now it's only a matter of time until e6 will fall.} 73...Bc3 74. Rh8 Be1 75. Rg8 Bb4 76. Re8 Bc3 77. Rf8+ Kg5 78. Kxe6 Kh4 79. Rg8 Kg5 80. Kd5 Bb2 81. Rf8 Bc3 82. Rf7 Kh5

(82...Bb2 {is not better:} 83. f4+ exf4 84. e5 Ba3 85. Ke4 Bc1 86. e6 Ba3 87. Rxf4 {#17})

83. Re7 Kg5 84. Rxe5+ Kf4 85. Re7 Kxf3 {-#19})

27...Bxd5 28. Rxd5 Rxc3 29. Nxc3 Rc6 30. Be1 Nc5 31. Nb5 Nb7 32. h4 Be3 33. Ke2 Bc5 34. h5 Bb4 35. Bd2 g6 36. a3 Bxd2 37. hxg6+ Kxg6 38. Kxd2 h5 39. g3 f6 40. Na7 Rc7 41. Nb5 Rc6 42. Ke2 Kf7 43. b4 axb4 44. axb4 Ke6 45. Rd3 Rc4 46. Rb3 d5 47. Kd3 Rc6 48. exd5+ Kxd5 49. Rc3 f5 50. Nc7+ Kd6 51. Ne8+ Kd5 52. Rxc6 Kxc6 53. Ng7 Nd6 54. Nxh5 e4+ 55. fxe4 Nxe4 56. Kd4 Kb5 57. g4 fxg4 58. Kxe4 g3 59. Nxg3 Kxb4 1/2-1/2

May-10-13  Pulo y Gata: <perfidious: <Pulo y Gata>: You can have his tiresome generalities, unsubstantiated by anything worthy of mention, as he maunders on with much ado about nothing, all the while acting as though his ill-informed ideas are holy writ.>

You didn't catch my grin there, pal. Sorry about that. To clarify, I look at Ulhum's posts as form of entertainment, same way as I look at this site generally.

May-10-13  Pulo y Gata: Having cited Ulhumbrus, I would be remiss of my obligation if I would not mention <csmath>, who I think is on an entirely different level compared to all of us.
May-10-13  voyager39: Anand fired his shot across the bow by drawing an opening which remains Carlsen's only recent and noteworthy win over him. But I think Carlsen did equally well by forcing Anand to play accurately right down till the end. Anand and Gelfand would have shook hands around move 40. So I think they've both communicated their silent message.

The decisive factor in the match might be "time" and that is where Carlsen was unable to put Anand under the kind of pressure which he usually achieves against most others. In fact Anand was ahead on clock for most of the time.

Anand still plays fast for an old man and when he's playing preparation, Carlsen might find the tables have turned.

And if Carlsen can't manage to win outright in the regular games - I'll give Anand equal odds in a Rapid/Blitz playoff. That's been Anand's strategy too and it favours him that he's seldom had a problem finding a draw against Carlsen.

Trust Anand to come out with Semi-Slav Version 2 to frustrate Carlsen.

May-10-13  pbercker: @ <voyager39> While I often disagree with you, I must admit that your point about the "time" is well motivated. Carlsen is seldom ever in time trouble, and is often well ahead of his opponent, but this was not the case against Anand.

As you suggests, that's unusual for an older man, and together with his stellar performance at the blitz suggests maybe that he possesses a great deal of "cognitive reserve" ...

<The ability of an individual to demonstrate no cognitive signs of aging despite an aging brain is called cognitive reserve.>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognit...

In spite of all that, I still believe that MC will be the new WCC, but Anand may well be saying to Carlsen ...

<I'll give you my crown when you pry it from my cold, dead hands>

Jun-18-13  birthtimes: Carlsen missed a likely win. He should have played 27. Rxc6 Rxc6 28. Ndc7 Rc2 29. Nxe6 fxe6 30. Rxd6 and now he is a pawn up.

A probable line continues 30...Rc1+ 31. Ke2 Rc2+ 32. Ke1 Nf8 33. a3 Rb2 34. Rd3 Rb1+ 35. Ke2 Rb2+ 36. Kf1 Rb1+ 37. Be1 Be7 38. g3 g5 39. Ke2 Rb2+ 40. Bd2 Kg6 41. Kd1 Ra2 42. a4 and Carlsen is much better.

Sep-15-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <Archswindler: Has Ulhumbrus got round to rejecting the Najdorf yet? Surely the grave error of 5...a6 can't have escaped his attention.>

Delicious-I am sure that somewhere, a polemic by <U> on that patzer move exists.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 9)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, is totally anonymous, and 100% free—plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
  3. No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any member Iincludinfgall Admin and Owners or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. If you think someone is an idiot, then provide evidence that their reasoning is invalid and/or idiotic, instead of just calling them an idiot. It's a subtle but important distinction, even in political discussions.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
  6. NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
  7. Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
  8. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
  9. The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
  10. All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
  11. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a Moderator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All Moderator actions taken are at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
Sicilian Defense: Canal Attack (B51) 1/2-1/2 video
from "Ross For Boss" - We Should Have Listened by fredthebear
Carlsen plays the Canal-Sokolsky Attack
by verizondsl


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us


Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC