Carlsen-Anand 2014

[ricard60]

about golden age and world chess championships here is this position:

[fen]8/7R/2r5/8/P3n3/R7/3nk1PP/6K1 w - - 0 1[/fen]

This comes from a Korchnoi-Karpov in Baguio Philipinnes 1978. Korchnoi with few time on the clock but with good advantage played 1.Ra1? which loses because it comes up a mate in 3. You know which is the right move?. Well a machine from the golden age, Boris found the right move for white with 1..g3

paranormal from soviets regards
Ricardo

[Monsieur Plastique]

Thanks Steve. I think it would take a fairly sophisticated dedicated to come up with Ka7, so I'm not really surprised at any of the three results you have provided

[Monsieur Plastique]

You know which is the right move?. Well a machine from the golden age, Boris found the right move for white with 1..g3

And I think the chances of Boris forseeing a mate in 3 beginning with a knight sac are approximately nil It probably came up with that move because it wanted to avoid a mate in 1 and it felt developing an undeveloped pawn was better than putting rook back where it started the game!

This reminds me of some of the early Scisys advertising, where they showed positions in the brochure together with the amazing results achieved by the machine being advertised. But of course, back in those days, not many machines could come up with the "right" move but also prove they "understood" why in terms of providing comprehensive information to substantiate their move choice. The Mark V, of course, went against the grain.

[Cyberchess]

I setup the position @ move 32… with Stockfish 4.64 running on my 5 year old PC and it found 32… Ka7 in about 11 seconds.
It’s interesting that Crafty played 32… Bc6 in about the same amount of time.


[fen]r7/1k1r1p2/1p2p1np/2p1P2R/b1P1B1R1/p1P2P2/P3K1P1/2B5 b - - 0 1[/fen]


Engine Comparison Regards,
John

[ricard60]

You know which is the right move?. Well a machine from the golden age, Boris found the right move for white with 1..g3

And I think the chances of Boris forseeing a mate in 3 beginning with a knight sac are approximately nil It probably came up with that move because it wanted to avoid a mate in 1 and it felt developing an undeveloped pawn was better than putting rook back where it started the game!

This reminds me of some of the early Scisys advertising, where they showed positions in the brochure together with the amazing results achieved by the machine being advertised. But of course, back in those days, not many machines could come up with the "right" move but also prove they "understood" why in terms of providing comprehensive information to substantiate their move choice. The Mark V, of course, went against the grain.

Well this position was also tested after 1.Ra1 and Boris solved the mate in 3. Also Chess Challenger was tested in this position after 1.Ra1 and solved the mate in 3. Of course Mark V is another generation machine.

[Monsieur Plastique]

for me...the fact that a $50 chess engine can crush the very best human players has in some way diminished my interest in today's chess scene and in the WC in particular
i am not suggesting that chess is dead because of computer chess or anything close to that
still love the game ..its the human competition that i am discussing

Hi Steve,

I am 100% with you on these points. It is very hard for me to have the same interest in top level human chess today that I had back in the 1970s or even up to the mid 80s. Yes, I do have the interest and I browse the Chessbase website, for example, virtually on a daily basis (as I do this forum) and still follow events and matches (but not to the extent where I will sit down for 8 hours to watch the games - it is more an interest in the results and in particular positions and / or games of interest).

But it seems to me that today's Super GMs - especially in the case of important events where they have a team of strong GMs behind the scenes - aren't even thinking for themselves for most of the time in OTB play. They will often have a 60-plus ply "opening library" and I honestly think that a good deal of their strength over mere mortals comes from the combined skills of memorisation and deep study of their opponent. Neither of those skills are chess-specific skills per se. The memory aspect, for example, is typical of the skill of a soloist musician and "knowing your opponent" is a huge aspect of many competitive sports, especially mixed martial arts.

I say the above in relative terms of course. Yes, obviously the World's top players are in a completely different realm to the strongest amateurs and even, say, a strong IM. But if we could all hypothetically go back to a time where every player's opening knowledge equalled the opening library in a Saitek Advanced Travel and we did not have the advantage of the internet, massive game databases to study opponents and chess engines that can get to the tactical "truth" of a position in seconds, how strong (or more specifically, how much weaker) would we play? And what would be the rating gap between a strong IM and a Super GM with his entourage of seconds?

Game 6 in this match was a good example of what I am getting at. How many moves in this match have come from each player's "opening library"? And in game 6, when they should have still been fairly fresh mentally, we witness not only a 1300 ELO blunder by Carlsen, but a 1300 ELO blunder by Anand on the very same move! And yes, I know we humans all make blunders and that our true playing strength is an amalgam of best play that far surpasses a machine of equivalent rating tempered by our blunders - so everything averages out to our "true" rating. It's the reason why humans wrongly claim they are perennially under-rated and it is also the reason why a patzer like me can occasionally blow a 2000 ELO Saitek Expert Travel out of the water like it is a complete and utter nincompoop.

But still, I honestly reckon that the players of a century ago would actually be at least as strong - if not stronger - than the Super GMs of today if we took away everyone's opening book, the massive databases of games, chess engines that play at 3000 plus ELO and the massive teams of elite players that support match participants. I say that because the players of yesteryear did not have any of the aids that players of today have and they had to be mentally stronger and fitter - there was simply no choice in the matter. Games went on much longer, time controls were longer and the players were thinking far earlier into the games than they do today and far more often they were played out to the very death.

All this makes we want to play some sort of fantasy match between two strong, identical dedicated machines. One machine can only use it's opening book to move 8 or whenever it actually goes out of book whilst the other machine can use the Biggest and Best Opening Book on the Planet for up to 60 ply, which seems to be a typical match-preparation "book depth" of today at the elite level. And even that sort of book would still not be of the same advantageous calibre of specialist opening preparation by a team of elite seconds that requires highly specific knowledge of the opponent.

What do you think the match score would be after 20 games? I'd be reckoning on a score of about 17.5 - 2.5 in favour of the machine using the massive book resource.

[Cyberchess]

All this makes we want to play some sort of fantasy match between two strong, identical dedicated machines. One machine can only use it's opening book to move 8 or whenever it actually goes out of book whilst the other machine can use the Biggest and Best Opening Book on the Planet for up to 60 ply, which seems to be a typical match-preparation "book depth" of today at the elite level. And even that sort of book would still not be of the same advantageous calibre of specialist opening preparation by a team of elite seconds that requires highly specific knowledge of the opponent.

What do you think the match score would be after 20 games? I'd be reckoning on a score of about 17.5 - 2.5 in favour of the machine using the massive book resource.

Yes indeed, I have to agree with you, Jon. Back in the dedicated era, I recall how units were created to be sold as “stronger than their predecessors,” that were in actuality only improved by an opening book that was specifically designed to exploit the weaknesses of their competitors’ opening books.
This would yield a higher standing in the microcomputer championship without incurring the additional expense of a faster/more efficient microprocessor, more effective program, etc.

This was a chess phenomenon that I didn’t care for in….

The Roaring ‘80s Regards,
John

[Harvey Williamson]

Game 7

[Event "WCh 2014"]
[Site "Sochi RUS"]
[Date "2014.11.17"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Carlsen,M"]
[Black "Anand,V"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[BlackElo "2792"]
[ECO "C67"]
[EventDate "2014.11.08"]
[Mark "1"]
[WhiteElo "2863"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.h3 Ke8 10.Nc3 h5 11.Bf4 Be7 12.Rad1 Be6 13.Ng5 Rh6 14.g3 Bxg5 15.Bxg5 Rg6 16.h4 f6 17.exf6 gxf6 18.Bf4 Nxh4 19.f3 Rd8 20.Kf2 Rxd1 21.Nxd1 Nf5 22.Rh1 Bxa2 23.Rxh5 Be6 24.g4 Nd6 25.Rh7 Nf7 26.Ne3 Kd8 27.Nf5 c5 28.Ng3 Ne5 29.Rh8+ Rg8 30.Bxe5 fxe5 31.Rh5 Bxg4 32.fxg4 Rxg4 33.Rxe5 b6 34.Ne4 Rh4 35.Ke2 Rh6 36.b3 Kd7 37.Kd2 Kc6 38.Nc3 a6 39.Re4 Rh2+ 40.Kc1 Rh1+ 41.Kb2 Rh6 42.Nd1 Rg6 43.Ne3 Rh6 44.Re7 Rh2 45.Re6+ Kb7 46.Kc3 Rh4 47.Kb2 Rh2 48.Nd5 Rd2 49.Nf6 Rf2 50.Kc3 Rf4 51.Ne4 Rh4 52.Nf2 Rh2 53.Rf6 Rh7 54.Nd3 Rh3 55.Kd2 Rh2+ 56.Rf2 Rh4 57.c4 Rh3 58.Kc2 Rh7 59.Nb2 Rh5 60.Re2 Rg5 61.Nd1 b5 62.Nc3 c6 63.Ne4 Rh5 64.Nf6 Rg5 65.Re7+ Kb6 66.Nd7+ Ka5 67.Re4 Rg2+ 68.Kc1 Rg1+ 69.Kd2 Rg2+ 70.Ke1 bxc4 71.Rxc4 Rg3 72.Nxc5 Kb5 73.Rc2 a5 74.Kf2 Rh3 75.Rc1 Kb4 76.Ke2 Rc3 77.Nd3+ Kxb3 78.Ra1 Kc4 79.Nf2 Kb5 80.Rb1+ Kc4 81.Ne4 Ra3 82.Nd2+ Kd5 83.Rh1 a4 84.Rh5+ Kd4 85.Rh4+ Kc5 86.Kd1 Kb5 87.Kc2 Rg3 88.Ne4 Rg2+ 89.Kd3 a3 90.Nc3+ Kb6 91.Ra4 a2 92.Nxa2 Rg3+ 93.Kc2 Rg2+ 94.Kb3 Rg3+ 95.Nc3 Rh3 96.Rb4+ Kc7 97.Rg4 Rh7 98.Kc4 Rf7 99.Rg5 Kb6 100.Na4+ Kc7 101.Kc5 Kd7 102.Kb6 Rf1 103.Nc5+ Ke7 104.Kxc6 Rd1 105.Rg6 Kf7 106.Rh6 Rg1 107.Kd5 Rg5+ 108.Kd4 Rg6 109.Rh1 Rg2 110.Ne4 Ra2 111.Rf1+ Ke7 112.Nc3 Rh2 113.Nd5+ Kd6 114.Rf6+ Kd7 115.Nf4 Rh1 116.Rg6 Rd1+ 117.Nd3 Ke7 118.Ra6 Kd7 119.Ke4 Ke7 120.Rc6 Kd7 121.Rc1 Rxc1 122.Nxc1 1/2-1/2

[Harvey Williamson]

Game 8

[Event "WCh 2014"]
[Site "Sochi RUS"]
[Date "2014.11.18"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Anand,V"]
[Black "Carlsen,M"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[BlackElo "2863"]
[ECO "D37"]
[EventDate "2014.11.08"]
[WhiteElo "2792"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bf4 O-O 6.e3 c5 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.a3 Nc6 9.Qc2 Re8 10.Bg5 Be7 11.Rd1 Qa5 12.Bd3 h6 13.Bh4 dxc4 14.Bxc4 a6 15.O-O b5 16.Ba2 Bb7 17.Bb1 Rad8 18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.Ne4 Be7 20.Nc5 Bxc5 21.Qxc5 b4 22.Rc1 bxa3 23.bxa3 Qxc5 24.Rxc5 Ne7 25.Rfc1 Rc8 26.Bd3 Red8 27.Rxc8 Rxc8 28.Rxc8+ Nxc8 29.Nd2 Nb6 30.Nb3 Nd7 31.Na5 Bc8 32.Kf1 Kf8 33.Ke1 Ke7 34.Kd2 Kd6 35.Kc3 Ne5 36.Be2 Kc5 37.f4 Nc6 38.Nxc6 Kxc6 39.Kd4 f6 40.e4 Kd6 41.e5+ 1/2-1/2

[ricard60]

Now both players have faced with black the game they lost with a Berlin and a Queens Gambit. But this time Carlsen makes a draw easily in the 8th game against the Queens Gambit. Anand in the 7th had to play 122 moves to come up with a draw.

Carlsen team better prepared regards
Ricardo

[Cubeman]

Been following this match and have been tuning in early morning (approx 5:30 am over here in NZ) to start catching the exciting phase of the game before I have to go to work. Some days there has been no games as they are rest days but did not really pay much attention how many there are, well I found out that they play 2 games and then have a rest day then 2 games rest day etc. Never known a Championship contest to have so many rest days. Tried to explain to my friend who finds it amusing that a game that players just sit down most of the time need so many rest days.

[Harvey Williamson]

Round 9

[Event "WCh 2014"]
[Site "Sochi RUS"]
[Date "2014.11.20"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Carlsen,M"]
[Black "Anand,V"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[BlackElo "2792"]
[ECO "C67"]
[EventDate "2014.11.08"]
[WhiteElo "2863"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.h3 Ke8 10.Nc3 h5 11.Ne2 b6 12.Rd1 Ba6 13.Nf4 Bb7 14.e6 Bd6 15.exf7+ Kxf7 16.Ng5+ Kf6 17.Ne4+ Kf7 18.Ng5+ Kf6 19.Ne4+ Kf7 20.Ng5+ 1/2-1/2

[Reinfeld]

Today we can see a rematch between these great players. Sadly there was no rematch between Alekhine and Capablanca. I wonder why Alekhine never gave this rematch?.

one of the greatest rematch lost in Histroy regards
Ricardo

Alekhine didn't give the rematch for a couple of reasons, stated and unstated:

1) Stated: He wanted to punish Capablanca for demanding a match fee of $10,000 prior to the 1927 match. Alekhine had pursued Capablanca for years before the match, and been hindered by the demand for the stake. Afterwards, he insisted that Capablanca had to meet the same terms.

2) Unstated: He likely feared he would lose - because Capa, known for laziness and not studying, would have studied hard for this one. Alekhine granted matches to other players (Bogolyubov twice, Euwe) who were great masters, but not the equal of Capablanca.

Other great WC-level matches that should have taken place:

1. Morphy-Steinitz
2. Rubinstein-Lasker
3. Reshevsky-Botvinnik
4. Fischer-Botvinnik
5. Karpov-Fischer

- R.

[Harvey Williamson]

Round 10

[Event "WCh 2014"]
[Site "Sochi RUS"]
[Date "2014.11.21"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Anand, Viswanathan"]
[Black "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[BlackElo "2863"]
[BlackFideId "1503014"]
[BlackTitle "GM"]
[ECO "D97"]
[EventDate "2014.11.08"]
[Opening "Gruenfeld"]
[Variation "Russian, Prins variation"]
[WhiteElo "2792"]
[WhiteFideId "5000017"]
[WhiteTitle "GM"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Qb3 dxc4 6.Qxc4 O-O 7.e4 Na6 8.Be2 c5 9.d5 e6 10.O-O exd5 11.exd5 Re8 12.Bg5 h6 13.Be3 Bf5 14.Rad1 Ne4 15.Nxe4 Bxe4 16.Qc1 Qf6 17.Bxh6 Qxb2 18.Qxb2 Bxb2 19.Ng5 Bd4 20.Nxe4 Rxe4 21.Bf3 Re7 22.d6 Rd7 23.Bf4 Nb4 24.Rd2 Re8 25.Rc1 Re6 26.h4 Be5 27.Bxe5 Rxe5 28.Bxb7 Rxb7 29.d7 Nc6 30.d8=Q+ Nxd8 31.Rxd8+ Kg7 32.Rd2 1/2-1/2

[Harvey Williamson]

Game 11 and its all over

[Event "WCh 2014"]
[Site "Sochi RUS"]
[Date "2014.11.23"]
[Round "11"]
[White "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Black "Anand, Viswanathan"]
[Result "1-0"]
[BlackElo "2792"]
[BlackFideId "5000017"]
[BlackTitle "GM"]
[ECO "C67"]
[EventDate "2014.11.08"]
[Opening "Ruy Lopez"]
[Variation "Berlin defence, open variation"]
[WhiteElo "2863"]
[WhiteFideId "1503014"]
[WhiteTitle "GM"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.h3 Bd7 10.Nc3 h6 11.b3 Kc8 12.Bb2 c5 13.Rad1 b6 14.Rfe1 Be6 15.Nd5 g5 16.c4 Kb7 17.Kh2 a5 18.a4 Ne7 19.g4 Ng6 20.Kg3 Be7 21.Nd2 Rhd8 22.Ne4 Bf8 23.Nef6 b5 24.Bc3 bxa4 25.bxa4 Kc6 26.Kf3 Rdb8 27.Ke4 Rb4 28.Bxb4 cxb4 29.Nh5 Kb7 30.f4 gxf4 31.Nhxf4 Nxf4 32.Nxf4 Bxc4 33.Rd7 Ra6 34.Nd5 Rc6 35.Rxf7 Bc5 36.Rxc7+ Rxc7 37.Nxc7 Kc6 38.Nb5 Bxb5 39.axb5+ Kxb5 40.e6 b3 41.Kd3 Be7 42.h4 a4 43.g5 hxg5 44.hxg5 a3 45.Kc3 1-0

An exciting game. Carlsen misses 23...b5!


but Vishy plays a dubious sacrifice. 26...Be7 and Black has chances