My final essay of term has at last gone in, and whilst the spectre of revision for January exams is still looming, I'm hoping to have time to annotate my recent games (there are 3 in the queue) very soon. First though I decided to make this digression. Unless you've spent this month living under a rock, you presumably know that a World Championship Match has recently finished in Chennai, where Carlsen took the top prize in chess from Anand by an unbeaten 6.5-3.5, thus justifying his status as overwhelming favourite.
Why did Carlsen win? I think it was because he was more able to impose his character on the positions. The match was billed as a clash between his frightening ability in simplified positions and Anand's legendary opening preparation, and whilst the former was very much in evidence, we didn't really get to see Anand's strengths.
Perhaps Carlsen needed a few games to settle down. The proliferation of 1. Nf3/c4 as white, the Berlin Defence as black, and plenty of endgames was only ever going to suit him. Only in game 9 did Anand get his sort of position - a very exciting struggle developed, but the tragic 28. Nf1?? cut the game short. (Actually, that was a notable game for me, for it seems there is someone out there who likes my antidote to 4. f3...)
I cannot help but recall the match 50 years ago, when Botvinnik, by then 51, finally lost the crown for good. Despite crushing Petrosian in the first game, eventually fatigue and adjournments caught up with him. Later he reflected, "I played the match with a great deal of tension and constraint [...] Yes, sometimes that happens to a chess master. He appears to fight for victory, but he himself does not know beforehand whether he really wants it."
Needless to say, I was firmly rooting for Anand: despite being young and fairly healthy, I refuse to believe that winning games by attrition rather than all-out effort from move 1 is right, morally or objectively. Of course, that's unfair to the Norwegian - he was excellent value for his win, and his technique was remarkable as usual - but someone will solve the riddle eventually, I'm sure. Personally I'm hoping Kramnik will come through the Candidates Tournament, but we'll see.
But where next for the newest ex-World Champion? He has achieved everything of note; Lasker and Capablanca would baulk at having to defend the Championship four times in six years. Hopefully he isn't done yet though, even if motivation inevitably wanes: at his best he produces wonderful games. Botvinnik found a second wind after losing the title, winning a string of top tournaments; even at the age of 57 he was ranked second in the world. Smyslov famously reached the Candidates Final at 63, and Korchnoi's defiance of Father Time is legendary. Perhaps it's a different game now, but at 44 next month Anand is by no means washed up.
Such are my thoughts; as ever though it's just an opinion piece, of which this match will doubtless generate many. But next I return to less exalted heights, and the bottom division of the 4NCL...
No comments:
Post a Comment