There are no positions that Carlsen can't win from yet there certainly are other positions where he almost certainly will win from.

Huge difference so go for the positions that give you the maximum odds if never an advantage per say. He is still the favorite if you have 30% odds, but why give yourself 5% odds.

A very interesting and instructive game. I feel it's a shame Vishy missed that chance, and not such a difficult one to have found. I dont know if he planned a sequence with .... a4, possibly he saw it as the best strategy to restrict W on the Qside. FWIW my engine does not favour it Before Kd2?? it judges W was clearly ahead and maybe Vishy considered a somewhat "special" move was necessary..

I was busy yesterday so didn't have a chance to follow it then, or see any pictures. I imagine unless Magnus was a practised poker-player it would have been well-nigh impossible to conceal his consternation at seeing his mistake and the logical outcome. So it remains a bit puzzling IMO.

Later Black should have played 11. .... f5 instead of 11. ... Bxc3 which gives up the B pair, but also the more pieces Black has the better he can create counter play. The weakness of the doubled pawns was almost irrelevant to the game as it was countered by Carlsen's 2 Bishops.

[11...f5 12. h4 Kc7 13. Rh3 b6 14. Be2 Be7! 15. 0-0-0 Be7=)

Even earlier I don't think 7. ... Nc6 is better than Qc7. And then while dxc6 isn't better it keeps the Q on.

<Your opponent has the 2B's and is pressuring you on one side of the board - now you stretch your own defenses and create a weakness, a liability, on the other side of the board.>

Well, of course, that's not what Anand thought he was doing! He thought he was creating counterplay. I mean, isn't defending passively supposed to be a bad idea in general, but especially bad against Carlsen? Maybe Anand's problem was that he played the man rather than the board. :-)

Does White have anything after 10....Ne4? Answer seems to be yes, a little.

What if, instead of playing 14....h6, Black just lets Carlsen's pawn advance, playing ...g6 when it does? Can W exploit his advantage?

What if, instead of advancing the a-pawn, Black does nothing? One idea was to just post the B on a6 and the K on c7. What can W do?

What about the exchange sacrifice on move 32? The following was posted by <erniecohen>.

<Does 32...Ka7 draw for Black? For example, 32...Ka7 33. Bxa8 Kxa8 34. Bxa3 Rd1 35. Rxh6 Ra1 36. Rg5 Rxa2+ 37. Ke1 Ra1+ 38. Kf2 Rxa3 39. Rh7 Be8 40. Rxg6 fxg6 41. Rh8 Rxc3 42. Rxe8+ Kb7 43. Re7+ Kc6 44. Rxe6+ Kc7 45. Rxg6 Rxc4 46. Ke3 b5 47. Rg7+ Kc6 >

It's an amazing idea, taking advantage of the fact that dark-square bishop doesn't have a lot of squares on the queenside.

(Incidentally, ernie, if you use the figurine algebraic feature when you post moves on this site, if someone copies and re-posts your work, the figurines disappear. You can better propagate your ideas by just using K, Q, R, B, N!)

Anand may have gained at least one valuable thing from game 6: Carlsen has proven that he can make blunders. One lesson which Anand may have learnt from this game is that when on the defensive Anand is advised to be on the lookout for blunders as Carlsen probably would be if in his place.

White has a lot of extra pawns.

User: king

User: crusher

User: you

User: are

User: the

User: man

User: supremo

I'd like to say one thing that I'm reminded of now -- especially considering the recent exchange of blunders occurring even at this level between Carlsen and Anand.

I recall Carlsen stating at least a couple of times (I don't care to fetch the exact quote), that he just plays chess without really thinking about winning or drawing, but rather, demanding from the opponent that he/she make at least 40 or 50 good moves on the board.

Now, this had me thinking about how this simple, almost trivial 'philosophy' could be a huge psychological edge that Carlsen has over his contemporaries: he doesn't really collapse in games (even in bad positions), because he doesn't care so much about the outcome as he does about the mindset of "okay, my position is bad, let's see if you can continue making 10 or 15 more good moves -- and if you can do this, I will resign..."

This explains why he has an almost magical ability to draw (probably) lost games (and even win some of them -- a recent Nakamura - Carlsen game comes to mind!) and win (probably) drawn games.

It's not that Carlsen is sitting there thinking "I have to draw/win at all costs, respectively," but more like "please keep playing good moves until our naked kings are on the board. If you fail to do this, I will capitalize on your failure."

Now of course this doesn't always happen. Sometimes there's the inevitable perpetual check. Sometimes Magnus sees no better move than to force a draw or resign (which is almost always hard fought, keep in mind).

But the general rule of thumb is: "prove to me that you can make 40 or 50 good moves. Chances are you can't, which is why I am going to crush you, both over the board and psychologically." This also explains why Carlsen prefers off-beat lines than overly analyzed ones -- it forces the opponent out of his/her preparation and into the "prove to me you can make your *OWN* good moves" arena.

Now, is this just a wild guess, or is there some data to back this up?

Well, who can forget how Carlsen continued playing Aronian (one of the strongest players ever) in a game where Aronian offered a draw (in a drawish looking position) despite the fact that merely accepting the draw would have guaranteed Carlsen's first place finish at the Sinquefield Cup 2013?

Please also remember that Aronian, who was black, actually had an advantage in the game prior to the draw offer. Yes, he did let the advantage slip, but he was by no means losing. So, Carlsen had to find precise moves to survive. I put it to you that anybody else on the planet, be it Kramnik, Kasparov, Anand, Caruana, whoever, would have breathed a sigh of relief and accepted the winner's check and looked back on another lovely super tournament victory with pride. Also remember (I am not completely sure about this), but I think if Aronian had actually won the game, then Carlsen would not have finished sole first, but tied it with Aronian and possibly second on tiebreaks!

Thank you. I had the same question but have zero time to research.>

So - establish even a slight pressuring position, then sit and wait for Anand to self-destruct.>

<solskytz: This kibitzer saw ...a3 coming before Anand played it. He also predicted the exact fashion in which Carlsen later exploited that error, and in detail.

There was nothing seriously wrong with Anand's position (even discounting the fact that he didn't find ...Nxe5 when it counted) before he went ...a4. This kibitzer would never in a million years have played this move in this kind of position, engines or not.

However - you saw me write about Anand's ...a3 and its consequences BEFORE Anand played that yesterday. How can you explain such a move from Anand?

Why not simply "stand in one place" and wait?>

A couple of comments from the live commentary concerning these points:

Kramnik (position at move 24): <I really doubt you can keep a draw by just staying, making nothing.> (Surely you can't accuse Kramnik of being a player that generally refrains from "standing in one place" and waiting.)