Carlsen vs Wang Yue, 2010

Playing the King's Gambit in a world championship is another thing, though. This game thrilled a lot of people:

Kasparov vs Anand, 1995

Whenever I look at your avatar I see the death star, half constructed!! It's probably just me, haha, but I really do like that avatar for star wars reasons. ;)

Its over already and even Anand knows it. >

If you think about what Morphy was doing, he was playing positional chess; as all great players do. People are fooled because he in fact played int the time of the popularity of the KG. Now, many of his games went to endings.

I thin people forget that chess is not as "sophisticated" as it seems - so the days are NOT "long gone". What happens is that various openings come and go in fashion. There is nothing inherently wrong with the King's Gambit. Now Kasparov played the Evans. If he had regularly played gambits every one would. What is the Najdorf but a long drawn out insane Gambit? It is full of sacrifices and crazy play and the English Attack is the most popular opening.

Of course there is nothing wrong with the kind of chess played as no one can avoid these long complex "positional" games (all games are positional really): but it is now that Anand has to take risks, or create some inbalance. Other strategies will see him slowly die.

His forte - I have his book, the earlier version - is those complex or "random" situations: this doesn't mean he is gauche. He showed how to beat Topalov and Kramnik et al. It is now a question of how to break this "wall". It is no excuse the Berlin (which is fascinating opening) leads to a draw, as Anand has won games from positions much like those that have arisen.

There seems to me to be a psychological reason. It seems now that he has lost heart: and that happened to me when I knew that people were aware on here I was playing in the NZ Champs in 2011. That fact threw me. I played some extraordinary stupid moves, and sacrificed (once twice in a game even though I saw how I could win with only one sac, and had intended to play that but decided to do it "for the hell of it"), and this kind of thing continued, with unforced errors and blunders against players I could adn did beat either before or after.

So, no shared room, no Mr Niceguy. But you can be polite etc - but you have to play in style that doesn't suit your opponent. I won a game recently against a younger player who is quite strong as I avoided the more sharp lines and he admitted he had expected me to go on the attack (as I had against him before) but the type of position was not his cup of tea and I slowly Carlsened him. Ok it takes a little skill but it is about not playing their game, not about how good you are as such.

But Kasparov didn't try the Evans in their subsequent match. >

There you are! Carlsen played the KG - that proves there is nothing wrong with it!! And Kasparov played the Evans. Just the ticket! (That sort of thing).

<But Kasparov didn't try the Evans in their subsequent match.>

In Topalov - Morozevich their personal animosity was a factor, against Adams he was simply worse.

Anyway at the end of the first half of San Luis, Topalov was leading by 2 points (6 wins and one draw), in the second half he drew all his games, 7 draws with an average length of 32.57 moves, 4 of which lasted 24 moves or less.

<Garry Kasparovþ@Kasparov6312h Can't say about next games but clear Anand didn't want to fight today. You take on e3 with the pawn if you want to play.>

I am not complaining, I already noted that aggressive play with pawns when Q+N battery is present is not a clever thing to do for either. Unless there is an obvious advantage I do not see what would be the gain for Carlsen to move his pawns nor for Anand to move his. Keeping standoff is the most prudent thing to do.

Agree 100%. This fear from spoiling pawn structure prevented him from fighting today. After 18 moves the game was even and over with.>

I did not watch the game live but looking at it later I thought 8 g4!? was the only way to question Black's opening set up and fight for a win. After 8...Bg6 9 Nb3 Bd6 (forced) 10 Na5! Bb4 11 Bd2 Ba5 (forced) 12 Ba5 Qd6 13 Qe2 Nd7 14 Nh4

click for larger view

Not really. White committed himself to 0-0-0 so black can safely do that. White won't get anything to exchange knight for lousy bishop with Nf5 (or worse Nxg6?). Both would end up with broken pawns.

But if he does not do that then what is his knight doing on the rim?

Kasparov proposal is the same I saw in the game which is to open f-file and open battle there. That promises the fight at least.>

Black will play standard

...c5 & ...0-0-0

and f4 will not be giving him problems:

14. ... c5
15. Bd2 [preparing f4 or Bg5] 0-0-0
16. 0-0-0 Kb8
17. f4 exf4
18. Qh2 c4
19. Bxf4 Qc6

and I still do not know what is knight doing on the rim other than looking for exchange.

Can someone post up a link to today's press conference please?

They are stuck in "theory" which is great in normal situations. I have also been beaten by that 1. e4 c5 2. d4...

Say as Black Anand had said - well to hell with it - the only thing their team haven't prepared is 1. e4 Nf6...now you have a game. There is this: 2. e5 Ng8 (which I played in a simul vs. Spassky)...now that is all the theory I had prepared + I knew the ideas of counterattacking in such unbalanced positions. Korchnoi's favourite game was an Alekhine's by him. Now if the 2.Nc3 happens then d5!? 3. e5 d4 4. exf6 dxc3 5. fxg2 cxe2+ 6. Qxd2 Qxd2+ 7. Bxd2 Bxg7 and although it is theoretically better for White (slightly) if Anand knew it (it is a line that would follow) there are lots of ways for Black to attack from that position...and much of the Alekhines is still unknown and if they get out of theory it will favour Anand in this situation. He then has to think for himself and that pushes you. That gets the ideas going. Anand will "remember" his tactical genius. He will play like a fighter (like Tal or Fischer who rolled out a Sicilian against Spassky): look Kasparov has said that there are with say the exceptions of a few really silly things "no bad openings". I say this not because I want either side to win as I'm not playing but I am thinking what I would do. I would certainly not go down without a fight. I would just mix it even if it mean a loss.

Imagine he gets in the 2 d4 or 2f4 all the fans will be rapt. Tal would do it as he loved to play to an audience.

We've seen Anand play deep "normal" chess and a lot of complex games (the English variation of the Sicilian is only one): and Carlsen can do the sharp stuff. You have to goad him into pressing and then counter attacking. In the early games he was really nervous and didn't play well at all. Then in that game with the Bxa3 Anand got just the kind of position he wanted and Carlsen made errors. There were chances for Anand to win as there were in games 1 and 2.

But if he just draws the rest it will be sad ending. Larsen and Topalov would be on the attack come hell or high water even Ivanchuk would be lashing out.

When you think about it it was Botvinnik who attacked Tal and started teh fireworks in 1960 with a pawn sac with the Black side of a French.

Taking that further: it is not inconceivable that I was wrong (@@!!) and indeed he could come back, having studied Carlsen's play and win: jsut as Botvinnik did. Botvinnik played very spirited chess in 1962 to win so well Tal praised his play.

Another thing: if Carlsen himself uncorks a masterpiece (and he is a great player of course) Anand will applaud him as Spassky did when he lost that great game Fischer played when he targeted Spassky's isolated pawn couple: he actually stood up at the end a joined the huge applause, facing Fischer as if he was in the audience. When we saw him, he said of Fischer that he "loved Fischer"...so there was a recognition there that in a way Fischer had done him a favour and I think he understood Fischer's "madness"...lol}}

My recollection is different. Fischer did not coast, he kept playing rather aggressive in the second half of the match but it was Spassky that had found more balance.>