March 31, 2014 10:09

Back for more

© 2014, José Diaz




Share |
Jose Diaz's picture
Author: Jose Diaz


Pioneer's picture

Anand benefitted from being BY FAR the best player for 14 rounds. Nothing more.

Viking's picture

Perhaps you do not understand the difference between. Tournament and a match? In the tournament the other players beat each other to a standstill allowing Anand to get through with just 3 wins. When he plays a match with Carlsen he cannot benefit from this and the ageing Anand will be crushed even more badly than last time by the still young and improving Carlsen.

Huy's picture

So, what you're saying is that 1) Anand should withdraw from the match against Carlsen or 2) he should not have participated in the Candidates tournament since he risked winning it only to be crushed by Carlsen later?

What kind of logic is this?

Fugo's picture

When was Anand crushed by Carlsen?


Nah. Carlsen won 5th and 6th - both essentially drawn-end games by pushing without risk.

Winning drawn end-games against an opponent twice your age is about stamina, not chess brilliance.

The 9th game, Anand risked in desperation.

What crushed? Haha. Two inane games that stretched and stretched endlessly.

Jeffrey's picture

Yes, matches are different than tournaments. Because matches are so short (nowadays) and the person in the lead can play really close to the vest, what matters most in consistency: avoiding blunders, drawing hard endgames, taking advantage of opportunities as they come, etc.

Anand did all of those things. He had three wins but more importantly had and /no/ losses. Everyone else had at least two losses. So he not only won the tournament but also did it in exactly the style that you would want to be playing in if you were in a match.

Pioneer's picture

Viking, your comment demonstrates your lack of understanding of high-level tournament play. So, I will spell it out for you. Anand won the Candidates b/c he took the lead early, forcing the field to press in order to catch up with him. When they tried to do so, they blundered b/c of the pressure. This is what led the others to "beat each other to a standstill" as you say it.

Anand vs. Carlsen should still be won by Carlsen, but if Vishy gets a lead early, it will really be a toss-up. Rematches are usually even more competitive than the original match in World Championship play.

Thomas Richter's picture

Also, Anand 'might' or 'could' have scored +4 or +5 in the candidates event "in case of need" - by taking (acceptable) risks against Svidler and Andreikin. He didn't because it wasn't required in the given tournament situation. Of course a loss against Karjakin in the penultimate round would have changed everything, but he didn't lose and it's unclear if he was ever in danger of losing. As one report (don't remember which one) said, strangely Anand was the only participant of the candidates event who could have scored more points than he did.

"Anand vs. Carlsen should still be won by Carlsen" - yes, like the candidates event "should have been won" by Aronian or Kramnik!?

Anonymous's picture

Agree that Carlsen will fail just like Aronian and Kramnik!

Aditya's picture

Well, he won more convincingly than Carlsen did in the last Candidates. The point is he did not lose that endgame, not because of luck, but because he defended well. Fact is Carlsen is world champion, Carlsen played better than Anand in November, Carlsen has tremendous chess skills. Fact also is that Anand played with awesome form in the Candidates and lead it from start to finish. These facts do not invalidate each other.

Viking's picture

How was Anand in 2014 more convincing than Carlsen? They wer both plus 3 it was only because the results in 2013 were more asymmetric among the other players which meant that Kramnik was also +3 . Anand but in a good but not particularly high rating performance for a super tournament winner but had a larger winning margin because the other players results were remarkably symmetric.

Huy's picture

Anand was more convincing because he did not have to rely on other contestantns failure to win, like Magnus had.

Pioneer's picture

How was he more convincing? Simple...he didn't lose and clinched the tournament with a round to go.

RS's picture

Anand won more convincingly than Carlsen in 2013. Fanboys never appreciate someone else's success

Anonymous's picture

the convincingness of Anand's win is relative to how poorly his opposition performed however - i.e. the second place finisher Karjakin at only +1 and no one else even managing a plus score.

In 2014 Anand won the candidates on +3 and a TPR of 2845. In 2013 Carlsen won the candidates on +3 and a TPR of 2850. Seen in this light, their performances were nearly identical.

Jack's picture

If Kramnik had just drawn his last match in Candidates in 2013, he would have played the WCC instead of Carlsen last year. Who knows what would have happened. So there is no using thinking about ifs and buts.....

Ryan Paulis's picture


Ryan Paulis's picture

And I think Anand will also smile when he sees this.

Anony's picture

Anand is wearing his lucky shirt!

Extremophile's picture

Carlsen did not play in the candidates (naturally); that is why Anand's performance looks this good. Carlsen would be like +6 or somethng against this out-of-form field. Most probably he will crush Anand again, who is 100 elo belov him. This is Carlsen Era....

Jack's picture

Prophetic by Diaz... Anand will catch Carlsen napping next time... While Anand is full of energy and enthusiasm Carlsen will be overconfident, lazy and sleepy... May be Anand can beat him without even using his head... Wait and watch...

ChefBoyRDee's picture

Unfortunately, the last two Classical games between Anand and Carlsen didn't seem very exciting in Zurich. And in 2013, I remember watching a lot of paint dry.

I hope never to see this type of game again:

I do like Carlsen's eyes and jaw in the cartoon but Anand showed us resurgence in Khanty-Mansiysk. the bounce ;)


Latest articles