I thought I'd share a few thoughts I've had on the 2010 FIDE World Chess Championship match currently in progress.
There are plenty of blogs out there with analysis of the moves of the games themselves, as well as passionate commentary by fans. I would like to offer my own narrative, on the psychology of the match, and maybe some predictions as well. I will not offer any original detailed move analysis, since many others have done a fine job with that: one good source is
Dennis Monokroussos's blog.
Before the match began, I felt that the end result would be fairly close, most likely with Anand Viswanathan of India emerging victorious over Veselin Topalov of Bulgaria. I still stand by this prediction.
The Anand-Topalov match is now tied so far at 1.5-1.5, after a hair-raising first round in which Anand lost as Black, then a fascinating second round in which Topalov lost as Black, then a draw in the third round. So far, the match has been exciting, with real battles at the board. The fourth round will have Anand as White against Topalov.
Both Anand and Topalov are, of course, great players. While Topalov is a fierce fighter and has no fear of sacrificing material and creating immense complications, Anand is more cautious, but also more versatile in style. I think his versatility gives him a slight edge.
The
first game had Anand, as Black, fall victim, in horrific manner, to deep tactical preparation that Topalov rattled off quickly. Topalov played a known Pawn sacrifice against Anand's Grünfeld, then simply launched an attack against Anand's King, and in one move, Anand made a blunder (23...Kf7??) then ended the game, because of the sacrifice (24 Nxf6!) which simply blasts Black's position apart and allow White's Rook to go to h3 and down the h file, and the other Rook to go down the c file, while the Queen and Bishop come in as well. It was a shocking way for the first game to end.
After this disastrous first game, I wondered whether Anand could bounce back. He did, and what impressed me was the way in which he did it, almost as though he hadn't just a day earlier walked into one of the shortest game losses in world championship history. This is, of course, what all competitive professionals can and must do: not dwell on the past, but move forward.
The
second game had Anand playing White. Topalov played 3...d5, probably with the intention of inviting a sharp Vienna or Ragozin, but Anand played the Catalan. This was a revealing choice. Clearly Anand was aiming at a positional squeeze against Topalov. That he succeeded so well, I think, reflects Topalov's weaknesses more than the first game reflected Anand's. The single most interesting moment in the match so far took place when Anand played the strange 15 Qa3, after having sacrificed the d4 Pawn earlier for positional compensation. This move, which looks so bizarre and ugly, even to a beginner's eye, must have been, if nothing else, psychologically motivated. Exchanging Queens and even incurring doubled Pawns, was a courageous attempt (which succeeded) at unbalancing Topalov's mind. We all know that Topalov does not like to be on the defensive or engaged in dry, positional play. By forcing Topalov into this kind of game, Anand reminded me of how different human chess is from computer chess. Yes, everyone can easily see that Qa3 is "objectively" not the best move to play, and everyone these days can fire up Rybka or some other computer engine to (rightfully) declare Black to have an advantage in the ensuing Queenless middlegame, but the computer engines do not know that Topalov does not like this kind of game and has a hard time finding a plan, and is tempted to start lashing out, playing weakening moves, and then suddenly trying for tactical counterplay where it is unwarranted. Unfortunately, Topalov did exactly what he was prone to doing, and lost the game suddenly after Anand simply played reasonable moves, maintaining pressure, and then simplifying to a trivially won Rook and Pawn ending. Anand played like a Kramnik in this game, demonstrating his versatility. We have to recall that in his
match against Kramnik in 2006, he surprised Kramnik with Topalov-like aggressive opening preparation, coming up with novel tactical play against Kramnik, both as White (
avoiding a trade of Queens in the classical Nimzo-Indian and pushing h3 and g4 to drive Kramnik's Queen back) and as Black (with his ultra-sharp
theoretical novelty 14...Bb7 in the old Meran). So Anand can play like Topalov and he can play like Kramnik. I think this gives him an advantage, although he has a weakness of sometimes becoming cautious and not scoring a point in a game.
The
third game, played today, ended as a draw, a high-quality game without any errors by either Anand or Topalov. I consider this game, however, to have been a continuation of Anand's momentum. First of all, he was Black, so holding a draw was a decent accomplishment. Second, the psychological reality is that he drew using a defensive variation of the Ne5 Slav that
Kramnik had rehabilitated, using it against Topalov in 2006! I wonder what Topalov thought of Anand playing yet again like Kramnik. Topalov grabbed a lot of space with Pawn lunges such as h5 and a5, b4, but could make no headway while Anand caught up on rearranging his pieces. Now, I wonder whether Topalov will, the next time he is White, revert to ideas in the
slow e3 Slav that he had unleashed earlier in his match with Kramnik! There, at least, was the imbalance of Bishop versus Knight to work with in the middlegame.
Now, to the fourth game coming up: will Anand play the Catalan again in the fourth game, or something completely different? Will he allow the Nimzo-Indian? Or will Topalov vary before that? I do not believe we will see Topalov take such a risk as play the Modern Benoni or the King's Indian, but who knows? This has been a fun match so far to watch, and I hope it continues to be stimulating. I wonder what psychological tricks Topalov will try to use to disturb Anand's mind.
Posts
