Featured image credit: Niki Riga
One King To Rule Them All
After 12 games of the Carlsen and Caruana made history by drawing all games of the classical portion of the match, a rapid tiebreak was held on November 28. Just as most of the commentators predicted, the gap between Carlsen and Caruana in speed chess was gargantuan.
With the 3 convincing victories in 3 rapid games, Magnus Carlsen managed to defend his title. Since Nakamura compared him with Sauron some time ago, it is appropriate to say he once again became One King To Rule Them All.
(Lord Of The Rings Fan will get it)
Tiebreak report follows.
The Tiebreaks System
After Kramnik – Topalov, Anand – Gelfand and Carlsen – Karjakin matches, for the fourth time in the history the World Championship was resolved in the “extra time”.
The format of the tiebreak hasn’t changed since the previous match:
- Four rapid games with 25 minutes and 10 seconds increment per move
- If the result after rapid is drawn, then additional ten games with 5 minutes and 3 seconds increment per move are played
- Finally, if the result is still drawn, a final Armaggedon game. White has 5 minutes and Black has 4 minutes. If the game is drawn, then Black becomes the World Champion.
In the introduction to the Carlsen – Karjakin tiebreaks report, I expressed my opinion about the tiebreak in great detail. Since the format hasn’t changed, I stand by everything I have written there. Allow me to repeat the main points:
– The current tiebreak definitely has its drawbacks, but it is hard to suggest the alternative
– It is much more viable than an unlimited match. Or the clause that allows the Champion to retain the title if the match ends in a tie.
– Several alternatives were proposed during the last couple of days. One was to play 1 Armageddon Classical game. A second was to play several Fischer960 games. A third was to play the tiebreak BEFORE the match. They all sound too artificial.
– Rapid part of the tiebreak allows the players to play a decent game. It also reduces the importance of opening preparation, allowing the objectively stronger player to win. As one user below chess24 report on the tiebreaks stated:
[…] in a 25 min game + 10 only chess skills are required. Usually prevails the deep understanding of positions, above pure calculation.
– Blitz shouldn’t be a part of the tiebreak system – less time increases the „randomness“ of the game. Increasing the number of rapid games, if required, seems more sensible.
– Rapid games should be held over several days. In the current format, if you have a „day off“ when tiebreaks are played, you are basically busted. This is exactly what happened to both Karjakin and Caruana.
(You might also recall Hikaru Nakamura suggested this 2 years ago)
Okay, now that we have gotten that out of the way, let us take a look at the actual games.
Tiebreaks – Game 1
Game Course
The drawing of lots, held after game twelve, awarded Magnus with the White pieces in the first rapid game. Just as in games four and nine, he chose to open with 1 c4, avoiding both the Petroff and the Queen’s Gambit that bothered him during the match.
He then opted to avoid Caruana’s 5…Bc5 variation of the English as well. Instead of the „automatic“ 3 Nf3, he surprised Caruana with 3 g3 and then 4 e4!?, offering to play a reversed Rossolimo. Caruana didn’t react precisely and soon found himself in a very dubious position.
Still, the champion didn’t punish him immediately and let him off the hook. However, Caruana didn’t go for the most resolute continuation, involving the return of the pawn on c3 and again fell under pressure.
At the critical moment, Carlsen failed to spot a beautiful resource (Kh1) and entered a rook endgame where he was a pawn up, but where his king was cut off on the first rank.
It was probably drawn with the best play, but after Caruana missed a beautiful resource – 38 Re7+ !, his game was beyond salvation. Carlsen confidently converted his advantage and reminded us all of the importance of studying rook endgames.
Game Analysis
Video analysis of the game
Coming soon.
Tiebreaks – Game 2
Game Course
The psychological importance of the first game was enormous. Caruana must have felt terrible since he came so close to holding a game where he was suffering from the start.
On the other hand, the win removed the burden from Carlsen’s shoulders. In the post-game conference, he admitted game 1 was crucial for the outcome of the tiebreaks. It allowed him to play the remainder of the tiebreaks calmly and confidently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNb4ZkNEVW0
Game 2 of the tiebreaks was the best evidence that Carlsen was „in the zone“. Caruana once again opted for 7 Nd5!? against the Sveshnikov, a move that caused his opponent some problems in games eight and ten. Carlsen responded with the 8…Ne7 line he employed with great success in game twelve. Once again he surprised his opponent by going 11 … Qb8 (instead of 11… Bd7 as in game twelve).
After 20 moves, a complicated and double-edged position has arisen. White probably had a slight edge, but the cost of every move was very high. Instead of taking things slowly, Caruana went for the immediate 21 c5!?. Carlsen answered with a series of strong moves: 21… 0-0, 23 … Rfc8, 24… Bd8, 25…e4. In the critical position, Caruana blundered with 26 c7?? and was immediately punished.
After just 28 moves, Carlsen destroyed his opponent and took the commanding 2-0 lead.
Game Analysis
Video analysis of the game
Coming soon.
Tiebreaks – Game 3
Game Course
After two games, the fate of the championship was essentially decided. It was very hard to expect Fabiano can make an actual comeback.
Still, he had to try. After Carlsen played 1 e4 (a somewhat surprising choice), he avoided his beloved Petroff and went for the Sicilian. Carlsen chose to go for the Maroczy bind set-up with 3 c4, limiting his opponent’s options. Caruana tried to complicate the situation, but after 15 moves, White was already slightly better.
Then, after further maneouvers, Carlsen gained the opportunity to go for advantage with 26 g5. He chose 26 e5!? instead, going for exchanges and simplifying the position. Objectively, it was enough „only“ for a draw, but this result suited Magnus perfectly. Caruana, naturally, avoided going for the perpetual and tried pushing until the end. Alas, his counterplay led nowhere and he succumbed rather simply when Magnus escorted his passed c-pawn toward the queening square.
Game Analysis
Video analysis of the game
Coming soon.
The Aftermath/Match Summary?
In the end, Carlsen managed to justify his decision to offer a draw in a better position in game 12. He completely outclassed his opponent in the somewhat anti-climatic tiebreaks. The course of the match can be best described using the immortal words of Alexander Grischuk:
“There is a famous saying about No Limit Hold’em that it’s hours of boredom followed by moments of terror – you can say the same about this match: it was 3 weeks of boredom & now 2 hours of terror”
(Source: Chess24 tiebreak report)
Before I finally say goodbye, I would like to share some of my own after-match musings about the course of the match, about the final result and about the reception of the match in the broader chess community:
- The classical part of the match was an even struggle
There is already a lot of debate about who was the better player during the classical part of the match.
Fabiano fans say he was the better player. Magnus fans say otherwise.
Although I am a part of #teamMagnus, I think the struggle in the match was fairly even.
For the larger part of the match, the main theme was: Black is OK.
In the majority of the games, the player with the Black pieces managed to neutralize the White pieces fairly easily. That is valid for almost all games where Magnus was White (except perhaps for game 9) and first three Rossolimo Sicilians.
In the “less balanced” games, both sides got an equal share of chances.
Magnus had a forced win in game 1, Caruana had a forced win in game 6 (even though the latter was way more difficult, if not impossible to find over the board).
Similarly, Caruana had a vastly superior position in game 8, Magnus in game 12.
Game 10 was a grandiose battle where both sides kept throwing punches left and right. It was too wild and complicated and neither player managed to establish a clear edge.
Therefore, in a way, a draw in the classical portion of the match was the fair result.
You can’t say that one side dominated as in Magnus – Karjakin match.
Sure, you can make arguments for one player or another, but objectively, I think we watched an equal battle between two best players in the world.
I think that in the next two years, Magnus’ main goal will be re-establishing his former dominance in classical chess.
- Magnus victory was well-deserved and in a way – more logical
With that being said, I still think Magnus victory was well deserved. And in a way – more logical.
In my opinion, I think he IS the better player. I think there are several reasons he was unable to demonstrate it in the classical portion.
He is not THAT MUCH better as he used to be. And he has been struggling with nerves and confidence lately.
But also, I think it had a lot to do with the quality of Caruana’s preparation.
I would say that in general, Caruana played better openings, and Carlsen played better chess.
Allow me to back up this statement with some sample games:
Game 1 – Caruana gets surprised by the Sicilian and quickly gets outplayed
Game 3 – Caruana gets a good position but one of the first moves he made on his own – taking on a5 instead of Bd2 – is already inferior
Game 8 – Caruana gets a fantastic position out of the opening, plays the most critical continuation and then goes for the completely meek h3 move, allowing Carlsen to equalize instantly
Game 10 – Caruana once again out prepares Magnus, but still gets outplayed to an extent (Magnus was the one pressing until his silly Kd4 move)
Game 12 – Caruana gets surprised in the opening. He displays character by avoiding the repetition, but he landed into a clearly inferior, if not lost position, rather quickly. He avoided defeat only because Magnus wasn’t searching for a victory.
Rapid tiebreaks are another piece of evidence that supports my statement.
I may be biased, but I agree to an extent with Hikaru Nakamura, who said that it is more logical to have a World Champion who is good at all time controls.
- Current World Championship Match format is not ideal, but it is not 100% clear how to improve it
It is clear that players weren’t willing to take risks in this match.
But can you blame them? In a short, 12 game match format, the cost of a single game increases. Every move might be a crucial mistake. The very format itself prevents the players from “lowering their guard”. The first goal becomes to defend yourself and to “win on points”, not to “go for the knockout”.
Of course, this could be easily solved by prolonging the match. But the question is – how long should it be? I don’t think something like 24 game match is viable any longer (to say nothing of an unlimited match).
As it is, the players spend almost a month in November. At the current rate, a 24 game match would take almost two months. You could argue about the number of free days, though, but there is no denying time would be a crucial factor here.
The world has changed. It is much harder to keep everyone engaged – the audience, the sponsors, the fans, the media in a longer match.
Also, top players have a much tighter calendar. If you prolong the World Championship Match, you take away from the tournament organizers (and spectators).
I agree that something like 16 or 18 games format could be possible. But the change of the match format is not as straightforward as many people present it.
As for rapid tiebreaks, I have already stated I think they are the best solution we have for the moment.
Besides, even if they were abolished, I am sure many people would complain about whatever the alternative would be.
Which leads me to my final point of this post.
- Broader chess community is spoiled and impossible to please
The course of this match convinced me that chess players excel at one thing.
Complaining.
They complained that the match is not interesting (Games 1, 5, 6, 8 and 10 anyone?)
They complained that all games end in a draw? (Yeah, it is much better to have a decisive game decided by a horrible oversight)
They complained that rapids shouldn’t be a part of World Championship match.
They complained in the past about unlimited match.
They complained Champion’s privileges are too big in case he retains the title if the score is tied.
They complain players are too well prepared.
They complain chess is dead.
They complain when players don’t play the first line of the engine.
They complain when players play “too computerish”.
I think the main reason for this attitude is the era of instant gratification we live in. And the main culprits in the chess world are the chess engines.
Chess players want to be entertained without putting too much effort themselves.
Which is okay. You have the right to expect things.
But what is not okay is not realizing how realistic these expectations are projecting them on the players. Avoiding responsibility for them.
Oh, this endgame is too complex for me I don’t understand it. But my tablebase says Black mates in 36. BOOORING.
Oh, there is 20 move of theory I see in my computer database. Even though I don’t understand a point of a single move I will not try to understand, because the players just memorized it. BORING
No, I will not follow the games on my board. I will watch them on chessbomb and let the engine think for me while I troll and write nasty comments about other chat participants and top players.
And so on. And so on.
I think we should all start appreciating how good these guys are.
The incredible level of chess they displayed in this match.
We should embrace that our game has changed and that modern chess is incredibly concrete, detailed – and yes – sometimes boring.
And we should stop fucking complaining.