It has now been 1,830 days since anyone won a regulation game in the World Chess Championship.
That is astounding. Yes, wins have always been difficult to come by at the highest level because the players are so darn talented and trained, but more than five years?
Nepomniachtchi moved first, minding the white pieces. The grandmasters played the Ruy Lopez opening, specifically its anti-Marshall variation, visiting once again some of the most well-trod ground in chess theory — “the mother opening,” per former world champion Viswanathan Anand on the official broadcast. Indeed, the first seven moves exactly matched those of Game 1.
For nearly the entire game, both players maneuvered their pieces nimbly and quickly, clearly familiar with the theory, and the computer’s all-seeing eye hardly blinked on Sunday, as the position was essentially level from start to finish.
What does it say when a player with the white pieces intentionally plays a totally drawish opening? To me it says that he is afraid of losing even with the white pieces. As I understand it, should the match end with even scores, the champion retains his title. So, if you aren’t making any real effort to win, why play in the first place?
Not really. If the 14 games with standard time controls end without a winner, there’s a tiebreaking format using rapid time controls which will essentially always produce a winner.
The “five years” just means that there was a single match in 2018 where all the games were drawn. The previous match was in 2016, and there were 2 decisive games.
Sometimes a player feels they can generate chances even from a level position.
Carlsen is truly superb at endings, for example and may take the view that reaching an ending will favour him.
There is also the psychological value of not falling behind. In the early matches I could see a challenger wanting to hold draws (with both colors) to get more comfortable with the environment/situation/opponent. They also often go to the same opening multiple times in a match, so using a “safer” line in an early match and then deviating to a “sharper” line in a later round could be a good strategy.
Of course that all became moot after Carlsen won the marathon match and then Nepo fell apart in two of the subsequent matches.
I don’t have nearly that experience but yes it looks clearly like an adjustment to me.
I honestly didn’t know if you are supposed to say “adjust” to the arbiter if your opponent isn’t at the table, so I looked it up. Here is text from the FIDE arbiter’s manual 2020 (PDF):
So the question becomes “Was the arbiter present?”. Although the following sentence seems to say that Carlsen should announce the adjustment even if the arbiter is not present.
I don’t see the difference: From Internet Dictionary definitions:
Arbiter: a person who settles a dispute or has ultimate authority in a matter (synonym umpire)
Umpire: an official who watches a game or match closely to enforce the rules and arbitrate on matters arising from the play (synonym arbiter)
Also I’ve played in chess tournaments all over the world. The tournament programmes have always said who the Chief Arbiter was (and never mentioned ‘Umpire’.)
Huh. I have a problem with the second half of that definition. To me, an arbiter is someone who settles a dispute. But a dispute requires two parties. An umpire is someone who enforces the rules regardless of any dispute between parties (for example, occasionally in American football, a flag will come down when neither team thought/realized a foul occurred.) The umpire doesn’t wait for Team A to request a foul on Team B - if he sees it, he throws it.
An arbiter should wait until Team A request his services and even then, only if Team B objects or refuses to accept the penalty.
Please understand that I do NOT dispute that those people are called that in chess or your tournament experience with them. All of the above is just my opinion and my persnickety nature in thinking that different names should indicate, you know, difference in function. Otherwise pick one damn name and go with it (and get off my lawn! ).
Carlsen (with black) wins Game 11 and thus successfully defends as World Champion. Nepo’s play was at least a bit “imprecise,” and Magnus rarely needs much more than that.
I was evidently wrong in predicting that Nepo had a good chance of winning at least a game. He seems not to have been able to recover from his loss in the long Game 6. His play - quite good through that game - was insufficient afterwards.
An interesting but perhaps not a very satisfactory match, with Magnus mostly taking advantage of weaknesses with consistency rather than brilliance.
It really seems like Nepo just collapsed. Game 6 was an all-timer, and the prior games were very well-played by both players. Then Nepo lost 3 of 5 games, all on one-move blunders. Magnus is a deserving winner, but it’s an unsatisfying way for the match to end.
There are players who stay seated at the board throughout.
But these high-level games last for hours and sometimes just going for a short walk actually helps avoid stiffness and even aids concentration (when away from the board, these players are still analysing.)
I only reached FIDE Master level, but I used to get up several times during a game. I found it helped me:
calm down if I thought I was winning
review the position afresh (and check my previous analysis)
I have even moved behind my opponent (at a discreet distance, naturally) and looked at the game from their point of view.
Well, it depends on what you mean by “quick”. The three major blunders he made (Games 8, 9, and 11) came after thinks of 4 minutes (21… b5), 4 minutes (27. c5), and 10 minutes (today’s 23. g3). I would consider those pretty quick moves in a classical game
In at least one of those I think he came back to the board and immediately made his move. So perhaps he had already considered Carlsen’s potential moves and his responses. But clearly he did not give enough thought to those decisions. In all three positions he had more time on his clock than Magnus did.
It’s interesting, to me, that all three were pawn moves. A lot of really strong players that make instructional videos stress taking a particularly long time (if you have it) for pawn pushes since they fundamentally change the board in a way that is permanent since pawns can’t move backwards. But in this case all three were pretty immediate tactical plunders, not long-term strategic mistakes.
I’d be interested on your take, @glee, on the conventional wisdom that Nepo just played some of these moves too damned fast.
I used to do this sometimes in tournaments (though obviously I’m not at your level), and it was amazingly helpful. I think your brain just naturally seizes on offensive patterns, so you can see quickly what your opponent might be considering.
As for coming and going from the board, I seem to remember that in at least one WC match Karpov and Kasparov had private rooms offstage, and they often retreated there rather than sit across from one another.
(I tried to find a description, but only found it somewhat referenced here)
Actually I would say that 4 minutes at World Championship level allows a lot of analysis (particularly if the position is relatively quiet.)
It would also make a difference (as you say) whether Nepo was at the board the whole time (as opposed to coming back and moving quickly.)
I had the pleasure of playing and analysing a few times with the English GM Jonathan Speelman. Even though I was rated around 2350 at the time, it was incredible to me how fast he saw things!
(Also he was very accurate in his assessments.)
It is interesting to see in what circumstances blunders are made.
I don’t think pawn moves are especially prone to be mistakes (though I agree with the point that you can’t ‘reverse’ a pawn move; i.e. move it backwards!)
In my experience, blunders are more likely when:
you are winning
you are short of time
you are feeling confident (for example, you have successfully predicted several of your opponent’s moves)
you are focused on one part of the board (e.g. you have a very promising mating attack)
).