Boris Spassky's Chess Legacy is Greater Than Just Being Bobby Fischer's Most Famous Opponent

Boris Spassky, who reigned as World Chess Champion from 1969-72, passed away today at the age of 88. He is perhaps best known for losing the 1972 World Chess Championship match to Bobby Fischer, but his chess legacy is much greater than being Fischer's most famous opponent. Spassky won the Soviet Championship--one of the strongest tournaments in the world--twice (1961, 1973), and he twice tied for first only to lose in the playoffs (1956, 1963). He played in three World Chess Championship matches, losing to Tigran Petrosian in 1966, dethroning Petrosian in 1969, and then losing to Fischer in 1972. Spassky was an elite level player for the better part of 30 years, participating in the Candidates round of the World Chess Championship cycle in 1956, 1965, 1968, 1974, 1977, 1980, and 1985. He won the Candidates cycle in 1965 and 1968--earning the right to play Petrosian on both occasions--and he lost to Viktor Korchnoi in the 1977 Candidates Finals. Spassky represented the Soviet Union seven times in Chess Olympiads from 1962-78, scoring 45 wins, 48 draws, and just one loss while winning a total of 13 medals (individual and team combined).

Spassky was a prodigy by the standards of his time; in the modern era, it is common for the best players to earn the Grandmaster title before the age of 20, but when Spassky became a Grandmaster at age 18 he was the youngest Grandmaster ever, a mark he held for just three years before Fischer became a Grandmaster at age 15.

Spassky won the 1955 World Junior Chess Championship, the event's third edition. He was the first World Junior Chess Champion who became the World Chess Champion, a feat later matched by Anatoly Karpov (1969 World Junior Chess Champion, 1975 World Chess Champion), Garry Kasparov (1980 World Junior Chess Champion, 1985 World Chess Champion), and Viswanathan Anand (1987 World Junior Chess  Champion, 2000 FIDE World Chess Champion/2007 World Chess Champion).

Spassky is deservedly praised for his universal playing style, but it should be remembered that he was a brilliant and ferocious attacker, particularly in his early years. Here is an example of the young Spassky's swashbuckling style, as he used a devastating sacrifice on move 16 to dismantle Grandmaster David Bronstein, who battled World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik to a 12-12 tie in the 1951 World Chess Championship match (by rule, Botvinnik retained the title). Spassky was White versus Bronstein in this game from the 1960 Soviet Championship:

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d5 4. exd5 Bd6 5. Nc3 Ne7 6. d4 O-O 7. Bd3 Nd7 8. O-O h6 9. Ne4 Nxd5 10. c4 Ne3 11. Bxe3 fxe3 12. c5 Be7 13. Bc2 Re8 14. Qd3 e2 15. Nd6 Grandmaster Andy Soltis called this move "One of the deepest sacrifices this side of The Evergreen Game." Nf8 16. Nxf7 exf1=Q+ 17. Rxf1 Bf5 18. Qxf5 Qd7 19. Qf4 Bf6 20. N3e5 Qe7 21. Bb3 Bxe5 22. Nxe5+ Kh7 23. Qe4+ 1-0. A position based on this game was featured in the 1963 James Bond movie "From Russia With Love."

In the 1970 Soviet Union versus the Rest of the World match, Spassky won a scintillating miniature versus Grandmaster Bent Larsen, defeating Larsen on the Black side of Larsen's Opening (1. b3):

1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. c4 Nf6 4. Nf3 e4 5. Nd4 Bc5 6. Nxc6 dxc6 7. e3 Bf5 8. Qc2 Qe7 9. Be2 O-O-O 10. f4 Ng4 11. g3 h5 12. h3 h4 13. hxg4 hxg3 14. Rg1 Rh1 15. Rxh1 g2 16. Rf1 Qh4+ 17. Kd1 gxf1=Q+ 0-1.

Despite Spassky's long, impressive career, he is best known--particularly to the general public--as Fischer's most famous opponent. Spassky scored three wins and two draws versus Fischer prior to facing him in the 1972 World Chess Championship, but Fischer won the 1972 match 12.5-8.5 despite spotting Spassky a 2-0 lead by blundering in a drawn position in game one and forfeiting game two while protesting the playing conditions. In 1992, Fischer beat Spassky in a non-title match (even though Fischer insisted that this was a World Chess Championship rematch) 10-5 with 15 draws (draws did not count in the score, per Fischer's rules). Spassky was on good personal terms with most of his opponents, including Fischer. Spassky said, "I prefer to have good relations with my opponent. My chess suffers if I have to play a man I consider unfriendly." Spassky was not only friendly with Fischer, but he shared some of Fischer's antisemitic view. Fischer's antisemitism is well-documented, but Spassky's feelings about Jews are not discussed as often; however, in 2005, Spassky signed a Russian petition seeking to ban Jewish organizations in Russia. Spassky later distanced himself from that petition but did not deny that he signed it. Evgeny Gik, a chess master who knew Spassky well, recalled that several Grandmasters reacted with disgust in the 1990s when Spassky--the guest of honor at a dinner party--made antisemitic remarks. Although Spassky did not speak publicly about Jews as often as Fischer did, Spassky's general attitude toward Jews is not a secret, and is a regrettable blot on his name.

After losing the match to Fischer in 1992, Spassky played occasionally in the 1990s, including a 5.5-4.5 match loss to 16 year old prodigy Judit Polgar in 1993. Spassky suffered a minor stroke in 2006, followed by a more serious stroke in 2010 that paralyzed the left side of his body. He spent the last stage of his life outside of the public eye, but Spassky's chess legacy is that he was a great champion, not just Fischer's foil.

Ding Liren Exploits Ian Nepomniachtchi's Blunder to Win Game 12 and Tie the World Chess Championship at 6-6

Even in today's era with computer-assisted preparation, top level chess does not have to consist primarily of draws if both players are willing to fight. Fighting chess creates winning chances for both players, and fighting chess also creates a state of heightened psychological tension that can result in blunders. As Viswanathan Anand once put it, success at top level chess is "a question of nerves." If we want to see perfect--or at least "ideal"--chess then we can watch two computers play against each other. As a strong amateur chess player, I enjoy playing fighting chess and I enjoy watching top level players who play fighting chess.

The 2023 World Chess Championship pitting Ding Liren versus Ian Nepomniachtchi has featured fighting chess in almost every game, and after 12 games the score is tied 6-6 with each player winning three games. The first player to score 7.5 points wins the match, and there will be tiebreaker games if the match ends in a 7-7 tie.

Nepomniachtchi won game two after a game one draw, and he has never trailed during the match. He enjoyed a one point lead from game seven until his collapse in game 12 today, when he built an advantageous position only to squander his edge by playing too quickly before committing a one move blunder that lost the game. Game 12 featured daring play by both players. 

Chess fans who complain about too many draws should not then make fun of top level players who blunder while playing enterprising chess. Taking risks to win also means that you can lose. I respect  Nepomniachtchi's fighting spirit, and as someone whose fighting spirit has led both to great victories and ignominious defeats I can empathize with how he must be feeling after game 12.

A drawn chess game may or may not feature highly accurate play, but a decisive game inevitably includes at least one mistake. There is a tendency for some people to assume that the level of play in matches featuring many decisive games is lower than the level of play in matches that have fewer decisive games. In 2018, Carlsen retained his World Chess Championship title with three wins in rapid play after he and challenger Fabiano Caruana drew all 12 classical games that they contested. One should not assume that the 12 classical games were error-free just because they were all draws, nor should one assume that Carlsen would win a match against the current match competitors based on his prior results. Each match takes on its own flavor.

Objectively speaking, based on chess ratings it is reasonable to suggest that Magnus Carlsen--who declined to defend his World Championship title--is still the world's strongest chess player. However, the notion that if he had played in this World Chess Championship match he would have made fewer mistakes than the current match participants is not supported by the evidence. It is easy to forget--and many people seem to have forgotten--that Carlsen made many mistakes in his World Chess Championship matches. For example, Carlsen missed a winning continuation in game one of his match versus Caruana and the game ended in a draw. Also, in game six of his 2014 match versus Anand, Carlsen made a ghastly blunder that should have cost him the game on the spot--but Anand returned the favor by overlooking the winning move.

In short, Carlsen is a great player and a resourceful fighter but even in his prime he did not play perfect chess, so it is not fair to the current World Chess Championship players to compare them unfavorably to a player who declined to participate. Chess can be a very tension-filled game because a chess player can play 50 correct moves in a row, build up an overwhelming position, and then throw away the game with just one mistake. Most other sports are not like that; if a basketball team takes a 20 point lead, the opposing team cannot come back on one play, and the same concept holds true for baseball, hockey, and football: a large lead cannot be erased by just one mistake.

Chess tests every fiber of your mind, body, and soul. That is one reason why chess is a great game, and that is why I have so much respect for uncompromising players who fight to win every game. Bobby Fischer used to say that a game was not drawn until he said it was drawn, a mindset that resulted in him winning the 1963-64 U.S. Championship with an 11-0 score before later winning 20 straight games against elite Grandmasters without yielding a single draw en route to capturing the World Championship in 1972. That stubborn attitude served Fischer well in chess, even if it may have been counterproductive for him away from the 64 square board. 

In some ways, Nepomniachtchi is fighting against himself as he tries to become the World Chess Champion. If he succeeds in this attempt despite his agonizing game 12 loss, he can truly say that he did it his way. If he falls short, he is young enough to make another attempt to reach the summit, and he can decide if his uncompromising approach may need some modification, at least in terms of the time he spends on each move before making very committal and potential risky decisions.

Ding is harder to read. He comes across as a low energy person, but rest assured that anyone who has qualified for a World Chess Championship match has a fierce fighting spirit regardless of his demeanor. I do not look at his facial expressions or body language and conclude that he is in psychological peril each time that he loses a game, because he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is strong enough to overcome adversity. 

Whoever wins this match is a worthy successor to Carlsen.

Magnus Carlsen Defends His World Chess Championship Title for the Fourth Time

Magnus Carlsen defeated Ian Nepomniachtchi 7.5-3.5 in the best out of 14 games World Chess Championship match that concluded last Friday. Carlsen first won the title in 2013, and he has now successfully defended his title four times. Carlsen has been the highest rated chess player in the world since July 2011, more than two years before he won the World Chess Championship for the first time.

The Carlsen-Nepomniachtchi match began with five straight draws, and computer analysis of those early games suggests that some of them are among the most accurately played games in the recorded history of the World Chess Championship. Of course, this match will not be remembered for the high degree of accuracy that the players displayed in those closely contested games, but rather for the series of blunders by Nepomniachtchi that resulted in him losing games six, eight, nine, and eleven.

However, even when the players were playing with an unprecedented accuracy level no one should have interpreted that to mean that Carlsen and Nepomniachtchi are superior to all of their predecessors. Carlsen and Nepomniatchtchi have access to computer engines and other resources not available to their predecessors. Carlsen and Nepomniatchtchi deserve credit for working hard to learn, memorize, and understand the computer engine analysis, but it would be foolish to suggest that great champions such as Wilhelm Steinitz, Emanuel Lasker and Bobby Fischer could not have performed at a similar accuracy level if they had been provided access to similar resources.

Given the resources available at the time, Lasker dethroned Wilhelm Steinitz in the 1894 World Chess Championship match and then held onto the title until 1921, when the 53 year old Lasker lost to the 33 year old Jose Raul Capablanca. Lasker's 27 year run as World Chess Champion remains not only an unbroken record 100 years later, but it is a record that has not been seriously challenged, though it should be noted that Steinitz did not lose a match from 1862 until Lasker bested him in 1894, and that Steinitz was likely the best player in the world from 1866-1894 even though his "official" reign as World Champion did not begin until 1886. Lasker and Steinitz demonstrated both great talent and tremendous work ethic to stay on top for so long, and those traits would serve them well in the modern era.

Similarly, given the resources available at the time, Fischer took first place in the last eight tournaments that he finished, he won 20 games in a row against elite competition, and he soundly defeated Boris Spassky to win the World Chess Championship in 1972. Perhaps the best measurement of dominant superiority is the distance between the top ranked player and his closest contemporary. When Fischer was at his peak, his rating (2785) was 125 points higher than the second best player's rating. A rating class is 200 points, so Fischer was more than half a rating class better than the rest of the world!

In contrast, Carlsen--who set the record for highest rating (2882) and currently has a rating of 2856 (not including the games from the 2021 World Chess Championship)--has never been ahead of the rest of the world by more than 75 points, and the margin between him and the second rated player has sometimes been as small as single digits. Yes, 40 or 50 points is a large margin at the very top, and it is significant that Carlsen has had an unbroken grip on the top spot for more than 10 years, but he has never been as far ahead of his contemporaries as peak Fischer was. 

Carlsen is a consummate sportsman who is enjoying a lengthy run at the summit thanks to his intelligence, steady nerves, and superb physical conditioning. Nepomniachtchi may come close to matching Carlsen's intelligence, but during the course of the match Carlsen showcased his significant advantages in the other two areas.

After clinching the championship with a game 11 win, Carlsen said, "I didn't expect it to go quite like this. I think it was just a very good professional performance overall. No regrets at all, just very satisfied." He added, "After five games there were five draws and I'd had very, very few chances to play for anything more. Then everything kind of clicked and after that it all went my way. You don't expect to necessarily run away with it in a world championship."

Nepomniatchtchi tried to explain why he not only blundered so frequently at key moments but also why he made some mistakes that are shocking for a player of his caliber: "The match of course consists of many aspects. It's not only chess preparation but physical and psychological preparation. Of course it's really tense and it's a little more tense than I expected. But I guess anyway the tension is not a reason to overlook some simple things that you would never overlook in a blitz game. What can I say? I should find out why it did happen and improve."

Viswanathan Anand, who Carlsen dethroned in 2013 to become World Chess Champion, once noted that winning a World Chess Championship match is "just a question of nerves." It is worth remembering that Anand had a disastrous breakdown in his first World Chess Championship match, losing four games in a five game stretch versus reigning World Champion Garry Kasparov in 1995 en route to losing the match 10.5 to 7.5, but Anand recovered to win the FIDE World Championship in 2000 before defeating Kasparov's successor Vladimir Kramnik in 2008 to become the 15th World Chess Champion. In other words, while this may have been Nepomniachtchi's one and only chance to become World Chess Champion it may instead turn out to be a painful lesson that helps him take the final step to the chess immortality that each World Chess Champion enjoys.

One might think that the amount of computer-assisted preparation in modern chess makes playing at an elite level easier than it used to be, but in fact the players are under a lot of stress and strain to not only remember many intricate prepared lines but also to be prepared for unexpected moves by the opponent; such unexpected moves can be particularly dangerous because those moves are computer-vetted before being tried out against a human, so when a human is faced with a computer-tested line that he has not seen that is a different challenge than being presented with a novelty that has not been verified by strong computers. Casual fans/observers are often frustrated by modern chess because they do not understand what that they are watching; when the players drew the first five games, casual fans/observers complained about the large number of draws in recent World Chess Championship matches, but then after Carlsen won four games many fans/observers mocked Nepomniachtchi for playing too fast and crumbling under the pressure. 

The reality cannot be accurately described without looking at the match as a whole: Carlsen's strategy was to play solidly but with tempered aggression, and to count on his steadier nerves plus superior physical conditioning to wear down Nepomniachtchi. Nepomniachtchi did not make the most of his chances in the early games, and his game six loss foreshadowed the match's outcome: game six was the longest game in World Chess Championship history, and Carlsen wore Nepomniachtchi down in that battle much like he wore Nepomniachtchi down in the match overall. Nepomniachtchi did not blunder in a vacuum; he blundered because of the mental, psychological, and physical pressure that he felt while combating Carlsen.

Further Reading:

Magnus Carlsen Retains World Chess Champion Title After Sweeping Fabiano Caruana 3-0 in Rapid Tiebreak  (2018)

Carlsen Retains World Chess Championship in Spectacular Style (2016)

Magnus Carlsen Convincingly Retains World Chess Championship (2014) 

Magnus Carlsen Captures the World Chess Championship (2013)

Magnus Carlsen Convincingly Retains World Chess Championship

In November, Magnus Carlsen--the highest rated chess player ever--defeated former World Chess Champion Viswanathan Anand 6.5-4.5 to retain the World Chess Champion title. Last year, Carlsen dethroned Anand in a 6.5-3.5 rout on Anand's home turf in India. After the final game of the most recent match, Carlsen told Leontxo Garcia, "I do not know if nerves were the key factor in general. But in the last game, nerves definitely had something to say. But I think nerves are a part of your strength and weaknesses as a chess player. If you have bad nerves, it is unfortunate but it is no excuse. In that game showed I have stronger nerves, probably because of the age difference."

Shortly after Carlsen defended his crown, Garry Kasparov (the 1985-2000 World Chess Champion who held the rating record that Carlsen eclipsed) offered his typically blunt (and insighftul) comments:

This year's match between Magnus Carlsen and Viswanathan Anand proved that time doesn't run backwards. It is extremely difficult to overcome a gap of a full generation between the players. I believe Magnus Carlsen is a special talent, and even though he didn't play his best and Anand played better than he did last year, Magnus won. The score was a little closer than last year mostly due to Carlsen's nerves in a psychologically difficult rematch after he beat Anand so easily last year.

Did the run of the match surprise me in any aspect? Before the match began I predicted [to a number of newspapers and to Frederic Friedel of ChessBase] that Carlsen would win by two points. Magnus had one important advantage on his side: he is the better player. But it was atypical for Carlsen to not make the most of his chances in several games. I blame that on tension. For him this match was psychologically not easy, after he had beat Anand so decisively in 2013.

Championship level chess requires intelligence, resourcefulness and energy but it also requires prodigious amounts of confidence/psychological strength. In "It's Just a Question of Nerves": Anand Defeats Topalov 6.5-5.5 to Retain World Chess Championship, I discussed the emotional fortitude that Anand displayed in his first title defense since becoming the 15th classical World Chess Champion:

During an an interview conducted shortly after the match with Topalov ended, Anand provided some insights about the mentality that is required to win such a competition, stating, "It's just a question of nerves." In this high tech, computer dominated era, elite chess players prepare their opening moves to a greater and deeper extent than at any time in chess history but during the games they are under great pressure to remember this preparation while also being ready for any possible surprises (known as theoretical novelties) that their opponents might unleash. Topalov won the first game of the match when Anand got confused about the correct order of his prepared moves, an error which gave Topalov a crushing attack against Anand's exposed king--but Anand showed great psychological resilience by striking back with a game two win to level the score.

While Anand demonstrated strong nerves versus Topalov--and in several other high level encounters--he has now faltered twice against Carlsen. It is obvious that Carlsen is the stronger player but it is fascinating to observe how that superiority manifests itself not only in the moves that Carlsen plays but also in the way that Carlsen's strength affects Anand. Anand demonstrably lacks confidence against Carlsen and at times Anand's play is unrecognizable as he struggles to figure out how to fight on even terms with his much younger rival. If chess games were purely decided at an intellectual level then Anand would play very well and Carlsen would just play better but what we have seen in both matches is that, at key moments, Anand either blunders outright or at the very least he lacks the confidence to pursue the best path, to play the moves that he might reflexively play against a less intimidating opponent.

It is very difficult to play against Carlsen for reasons that extend beyond his chess talent. Carlsen is a chess warrior who has great and commendable fighting spirit: "More people have to change their attitude. Too many have seen chess as a scientific process where you exchange ideas in openings and midgames and if there is no clear advantage you agree a draw. But you have to fight until the end. I’ve stopped agreeing draws--it's not a natural part of the game. I think others will do the same thing." Carlsen insists that "a modern sportsman" must "fight until the last moment every day, in every tournament. Being tired is no excuse for making mistakes."

As a young player, Anand relied on his tactical acumen and his exceptionally fast rate of play to steamroll most opponents; now Anand is not as sharp tactically nor does he calculate so quickly and thus he has evolved into a player who prepares his openings very deeply and thoroughly in order to guide the game onto terrain that Anand expects to be comfortable for him and equally uncomfortable for his opponent--but Carlsen is largely unaffected and unimpressed by Anand's computer-assisted preparation. In Magnus Carlsen, an Unlikely Chess Master, Grandmaster Peter Heine Nielsen (one of Carlsen's seconds) explains, “Magnus believes in his pure chess strengths. You shouldn't be able to do that in today's world and none of us thought it was possible. Luckily, we were wrong.” A recent Financial Times article notes that Carlsen is refuting the notion that chess is played out because the silicon beasts know all and see all:

Whereas computer analysis has raised the relative importance of the opening for most players, Mr. Carlsen has relegated it. He looks instead to win a game later on via the steady and patient accumulation of sometimes almost imperceptible advantages.

"The space that chess occupies is so gigantic that in spite of all the computer work done today, you can get out of it," says Mr. [Frederic] Friedel, who occasionally chaperoned Mr. Carlsen at tournaments when he was a teenager. "Magnus goes off into sidelines . . . then he just outplays people. It is extraordinary and amazing."

After beating Anand for the second consecutive time, Carlsen commented that this is two down and five more to go, a reference to his goal to surpass Garry Kasparov's total of six successful World Chess Championship matches. Carlsen's next title defense will take place in the United States in 2016. The United States has hosted the lineal World Chess Championship six times (winner listed first, defending champion in bold): 1886 (Steinitz v. Zukertort), 1891 (Steinitz v. Gunsberg), 1894 (Lasker v. Steinitz), 1907 (Lasker v. Marshall), 1990 (Kasparov v. Karpov), 1995 (Kasparov v. Anand). In addition to those six matches, the United States also hosted FIDE's 1999 World Chess Championship event in Las Vegas but that tournament did not include the reigning, undefeated champion Kasparov--who captured the lineal title in 1985 and retained it until losing a match to Vladimir Kramnik in 2000--and thus should not be considered part of the authentic, lineal title chain.

Anand Shows That He is not the Retiring Kind

After Viswanathan Anand lost his World Chess Championship title to Magnus Carlsen, some commentators speculated that Anand might retire from top level chess. The 44 year old Anand had slipped to eighth in the world chess rankings and it seemed like he did not have the necessary energy and/or motivation to seriously challenge the 23 year old Carlsen. Anand's tournament record in the past few years has been less than stellar and prior to losing to Carlsen he had only narrowly fought off past his prime World Championship challenger Boris Gelfand. Levon Aronian, the 31 year old second ranked player in the world, seemed poised to emerge from the eight player Candidates Tournament to battle against Carlsen.

However, a funny thing has happened on the road to Anand's retirement/Aronian's coronation: Anand has turned back the clock to produce three sizzling victories, a 6.5 score and a 2883 performance rating after 10 rounds in the Candidates Tournament, while Aronian is in second place with a 5.5 score. Anand scored 1.5/2 in his head to head encounters with Aronian and there are just four rounds left in the double round robin event, so--barring a total collapse--Anand will surprise the chess world and earn the right to reclaim the World Chess Championship.

Anand is not be as consistently dominant in tournaments as he used to be but he is a crafty veteran of World Championship play--winning the title in more different formats than any other player--and it is inspiring to watch an "older" player rise to the occasion against the world's elite. If Anand finishes off the Candidates Tournament in style and gets a second opportunity face Carlsen in the World Chess Championship it will be fascinating to see how Anand adjusts his approach; the first time around, it seemed like Anand failed in at least three regards: (1) his opening preparation did not yield much, (2) he lacked the confidence to go for the kill on the rare occasions when he had a potential opportunity to do so and (3) during long games he clearly suffered from mental and/or physical fatigue, resulting in disastrous blunders. During the Candidates Tournament, Anand has demonstrated that he can still get the best of top notch players like Aronian and former World Champions Vladimir Kramnik and Veselin Topalov--but can Anand defeat a much younger foe who seems to enjoy psychological and physical advantages against him?

Carlsen is not only the World Chess Champion and the highest rated chess player in the world but he is also the highest rated chess player ever. Just qualifying to challenge Carlsen will be quite a feat for Anand but if Anand dethrones the man who at least some people believe to be the greatest chess player of all time that will be the biggest achievement of his already highly decorated career. Anand would be a heavy underdog against Carlsen--and he did not manage to post even one win in their previous match--but he was not considered a serious contender in the Candidates Tournament until he raced out into the lead and never looked back.

Lubomir Kavalak Notes Similarities Between the "Baseline" Styles of Bjorn Borg and Magnus Carlsen

In Baseline Chess, Hedgehog and Magnus Carlsen (1), Lubomir Kavalek writes that in Magnus Carlsen's crucial game nine win versus Viswanathan Anand in their World Chess Championship match Carlsen "became the ultimate baseliner. The term is borrowed from tennis and two great tennis players from Sweden come immediately to mind. Björn Borg and Mats Wilander won 18 Grand Slams between them, doing the damage mostly from the baseline. Net-rushers became victims to their precise, penetrating and counterpunching shots. In chess, it was another Swede, Ulf Andersson, who loved to shuffle his pieces in his own backyard, unwilling to cross the middle of the board, only to lash out when least expected. He sharpened his baseline skills even with the white pieces."

A power-based style--in tennis, chess or any other sport--excites the fans. Who does not like watching sizzling passing shots or stunning piece sacrifices? However, a power-based style requires more energy exertion and has a much smaller margin of error. Roscoe Tanner was a more powerful player than Bjorn Borg but Borg was a much more consistent winner in no small part because Borg's style wore down his opponents; similarly, Carlsen rarely plays one particularly stunning move--in tennis parlance, he does not wow the crowd with devastating passing shots that just clip the line but he keeps getting the ball over the net until his opponents collapse from mental, psychological and/or physical fatigue.

Kavalek's sequel article, Baseline Chess, Hedgehog and Magnus Carlsen (2), explores some of the history of the Hedgehog structure. He notes that the Hedgehog most likely first appeared in a 1922 game played by Fritz Samisch. Salo Flohr, who Kavalek calls "the all-time finest Czech player," employed the Hedgehog in the 1930s, when he earned the right to challenge Alexander Alekhine for the World Chess Championship. Unfortunately for Flohr, World War II prevented the scheduling of that match and he never again had a direct opportunity to fight for the title.

The first 10 moves of game three of the Carlsen-Anand match mirrored the first 10 moves of a 1973 U.S. Championship game between Kavalek and Arthur Bisguier; both games reached the same position--though via a different sequence of moves--and both games ended in draws. As Kavalek puts it, "Time stood still": a variation that worked for Black 40 years ago in a high level game was still good enough for Black to obtain a draw in the 2013 World Chess Championship. Kavalek frequently finds a way to interject anecdotes from his own playing career into his articles, which at times provides a whiff of self-promotion/self-congratulation, but he is justifiably proud of his accomplishments: he won two Czech and three U.S. championships, he was once ranked among the top 10 players in the world and he has been inducted in the World Chess Hall of Fame.

Kavalek concludes the second article by looking at Carlsen's game nine win against Anand. Kavalek suggests that in general Carlsen prefers to use a space advantage to fight against Hedgehog structures but in this game Carlsen took out the World Champion with the Black pieces despite never moving his Q and QB from their original squares. Kavalek raves, "A unique game, indeed! Can somebody do it with the white pieces?"

Grandmaster Jonathan Rowson's Insights About Magnus Carlsen

Scottish Grandmaster Jonathan Rowson, a three-time British Chess Champion (2004-06), has some fascinating insights about the specific traits that make World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen such a great player.

Rowson explains, "Carlsen is not an idealist or a performer like Kasparov, who loved the narrative, the drama, the quest. Magnus just wants to win. So while there is plenty of creative amplitude in his play, the underlying motivational vector appears to be relatively sombre and flat." Carlsen possesses what Rowson calls "depressive realism"--Carlsen has a very objective approach to chess and his play does not seem to be dictated by his emotions but rather by a detached, clinical evaluation of the position at hand.

Rowson vigorously disagrees with the contention that Carlsen defeated World Champion Viswanathan Anand not on chess merit but simply by virtue of being younger and more energetic. Rowson asserts, "Carlsen’s nettlesomeness lies in the difference between playing consistently accurate moves, and playing consistently accurate moves that also maximise the chances of inaccuracies from the opponent. The former style beats all but the very best Grandmasters, while the latter tends to beat them too."

How does Carlsen regularly dispatch the world's foremost Grandmasters in positions that are not only seemingly equal but also seemingly devoid of any semblance of meaningful winning chances? Rowson, who has faced Carlsen in tournament play, provides an interesting list of what he considers Carlsen's unique chess warrior attributes:

• First, avoid errors yourself.
• Second, play relatively quickly.
• Third, see complexity where others assume simplicity.
• Fourth, develop exquisite timing for when to change the nature of the position.
• Fifth, navigate towards positions where there are no obvious moves.
• Sixth, believe in your opponent's greater and ultimate fallibility.
• Seven, keep going relentlessly.
• Eight, be ever ready to pounce.
• Nine, kill them without mercy.
• Ten, smile for the cameras.

That 10 step program may seem simple but there is a real art and skill to playing chess in that fashion. Most strong chess players possess at least some of those traits--I call it "the art of doing nothing while accomplishing something," meaning that strong players can shuffle their pieces around without any obvious goal and yet somehow improve their position while not taking any serious risks--but Carlsen brings that entire tool kit to every move, every game and every tournament.

The first step, avoiding errors, is the most difficult one for chess players at any level. There are countless examples of elite Grandmasters blundering into checkmates, hanging their Queens and committing various other forms of chess suicide. Chess requires constant concentration for hours on end and for days at a time and even the smartest, most dedicated competitors have lapses.

The advantage of playing quickly is that it puts psychological pressure on one's opponent, who literally does not have a moment to rest; in tennis terms, the ball is always coming back over the net at him--and, assuming that one keeps the ball in play (i.e., avoids errors), this forces the opponent to send the ball back over the net as well.

Chess is a complex game that can sometimes seem simple, but even the quietest positions often contain a drop of poison. It takes imagination and concentration to sense danger in what appear to be calm waters.

A chess player is perhaps most likely to make a mistake when he is taken out of his comfort level; he thinks that he is going to be playing a pawn up middlegame but all of a sudden his opponent sacrifices the Exchange. What is the nature of this new, unexpected position? Such surprises often induce mistakes.

Carlsen has the ability to "do nothing" but most chess players lack the patience, board vision and understanding for such maneuvers. When there is nothing obvious to do, it is easy to go astray.

Confidence is so very important in all areas of life. I don't play chess at anywhere near Carlsen's level but even as a local/regional champion I can recall many games that I won mainly because I simply believed (sometimes erroneously) that I was winning and that brazen confidence boosted my spirits while perhaps rattling the confidence of my opponents.

No one ever won by resigning and no one ever held a lost position without displaying great tenacity. Carlsen just plows forward regardless of the situation; as Capablanca once said, the good player is always lucky.

Opportunity may only appear once in a five or six hour playing session but when that opportunity arises Carlsen recognizes it--and he does indeed "kill" his opponents "without mercy."

Rowson's last step is tongue in cheek--at least in terms of being a necessary trait for over the board dominance--but it no doubt has helped Carlsen to land many of his endorsement deals, providing him with more financial stability than most chess players enjoy.

Anand Agonistes

It has been said that athletes die twice, with their first death coming at the end of their sporting careers. Perhaps the greatest athletes in a given sport die three times: first when their primacy is challenged/overthrown, second when they are no longer capable of playing competitively at all and third when they pass away in the same fashion as all other mortal beings. If this is true, then Viswanathan Anand--barring a highly unlikely rise back to the top of the chess world--has experienced the first of his three deaths.

Anand was the undisputed World Chess Champion from 2007-2013, winning or defending the linear World Chess Championship four consecutive times (2007, 2008, 2010, 2012). The 22 year old Magnus Carlsen dethroned the 43 year old Anand in a 6.5-3.5 rout that will likely be remembered as a changing of the guard moment in chess history. Carlsen seems poised to enjoy a long reign at the top, while if Anand continues to play competitively his rating will inevitably follow the inexorably downward path previously traversed by all other former World Champions who remained on the scene.

It is worth remembering that before becoming an elder statesman Anand was once a wunderkind--and that despite his tactical acumen and dazzlingly fast rate of play there were some doubts if he possessed all of the necessary qualities to become the World Chess Champion. Anand convincingly refuted his skeptics by winning the 2007 World Championship Tournament and then by defending his crown in matches against Vladimir Kramnik, Veselin Topalov and Boris Gelfand.

Cathy Forbes' 1993 Inside Chess Interview with Anand provides a fascinating, time capsule view of Anand before he reached the chess summit. Here are some choice excerpts (Forbes' comments and questions are set in regular type, while Anand's answers are set in bold); the first three paragraphs are taken from Forbes' introduction, while the remaining passages are taken from the interview itself:

Vishy talks the way he used to play chess--like a machine gun. His play may have slowed down, but not his speech. Never has my tape-recorder been so strenuously rewound for fear of missing some pearl of this great player's wisdom.

He radiates warmth, self-confidence and self-containment. His facetious, but gentle, sense of humour surfaces frequently, his giggle is infectious; incredibly enough, he seems happy.

Where is the eccentricity, the pain, the paranoia, the surliness, the arrogance, the obsessiveness of the top chess man? Surely he must be too good to be true?
 
**********

People have said that Anand's play is all tricks.

I don't deny that tactics play a part in my game, but I'm a changing player, I've been changing a lot over the last few years. I think my style now, compared with 1990 or 1991, has changed quite a lot. I'm playing a lot more solid openings...on the other hand, I've lost some of the, let's say, sangfroid (laughter).
 
Nothing is happening in my chess career that I'm worried about, let's put it that way. There's still lots of scope for improvement, this is clear. I'm not the best player in the world at the moment, nor am I clear number two or three, but I'm one of the top players, my chess is improving and life's going well.
 
Tell me how you study.

Generally, I read a lot, but always in a very disorganized way. I never think, "What are my repertoire problems, and how am I going to work them out?" I just kept on reading, and a lot of it came in handy. Where I come from, India, this approach is normal. Indian players don't think about this guy's weaknesses, how to avoid all these transpositions--you don't think like this in India. Only in the Candidates Matches did I start to get some picture about how these things work. Then I did some really serious work on the opening.

I got ChessBase at the end of '89. I've been carrying it around since the Interzonal. It's almost indispensable, because without it at a tournament, the reality is that you won't know what your opponents have been doing recently and everyone else will have it.

If Kasparov came to one tournament without his computer, he could probably get away with it. But if he started to do it regularly, then the gaps in his information would start to pile up.

You need the computer to make some preparation, basically. If you want to study something, you still have to do all the studying yourself--the computer won't help you. It will just give you information on hand. The only thing the computer saves you is reinventing the wheel. I mean, if some great idea has already been played before, you're wasting your time.

Is chess a sport in your view?

Absolutely! Clearly! The sporting aspect always comes to the fore...If you asked me, would I like to be the most beautiful world champion in history or the most successful one, I'd choose the latter...most chess players would. There's always going to be a trade-off between success and beauty. Beauty is nice when it comes along, but...

**********
 
Forbes also presented some longer Anand statements that he made in response to more general questions. For instance, here is part of Anand's take on the chess politics of the late 1980s and early 1990s:

I wasn't really involved in the early struggles of the GMA, but already in 1988 I realized one thing: you need some non-chess players knocking some sanity into all these Grandmasters. Chess players generally live in a world of their own. Even though they dislike each other, hate each other, like Karpov and Kasparov, Karpov and Korchnoi, they have very enjoyable analysis sessions and postmortems. It's very nice that they can talk about chess, but on other matters they can be a bit wacky. Just completely out.

For instance, among many players there is an almost ingrained hatred for rapid chess, which I find very annoying. Look what one-day cricket has done for cricket. You need to change with the times.
 
**********
 
Finally, Anand's take on how the underdog Nigel Short should approach his upcoming World Chess Championship match against Garry Kasparov is fascinating in light of the uphill challenge that Anand just faced against the heavily favored Carlsen. The strategy Anand described is the one that he attempted to use against Carlsen--avoid disastrous mistakes, keep the score close, hope that the favorite gets nervous the longer that the outcome of the match remains in doubt--but both Kasparov and Carlsen demonstrated that their brute playing strength and cool nerves were too much for their respective opponents to overcome. It is reasonable to assume that Anand applied the same logic to his own situation prior to the Carlsen match and came to the conclusion that he had very little practical chance to beat Carlsen; before the match, Vladimir Kramnik declared that Anand "is somewhat intimidated" by Carlsen and the result backed up that analysis: Anand's timid, error-filled performance even in equal or superior positions versus Carlsen supports the theory that Anand lacked confidence that he could prevail against a younger, stronger and more consistent opponent.

Here is how Anand regarded Short's chances (Kasparov ultimately won, 12.5-7.5, the most lopsided linear World Chess Championship match by winning percentage [.625] since 1950 until Carlsen posted a .650 winning percentage against Anand) :

Well, Gazza is clear, clear favorite, no doubt about this. First of all, compare his performance in Linares, winning here this year, with Nigel's performance [last place] last year--not interesting. There is absolutely no doubt that if things go normally, Garry will probably win. But put yourself in Nigel's place. For him to give up now, to accept this view, is suicide. He has to, at least, keep the idea that he has a chance. And I believe he does have some chance. Kasparov is almost 200 rating points ahead, Nigel has a score of minus ten against him.

But Nigel doesn't have to go into the lead. What Karpov did against Kasparov in New York was brilliant. He was not leading, and Kasparov was really going for him, but Karpov always recovered, and Kasparov got very wobbly in Lyon before he eventually pulled himself together. If Nigel can learn something from this, I think he can, without too much difficulty, make it a close fight.

I believe, with some effort, Nigel can avoid getting wiped out. If he is well prepared, if he is in the match at the half-way stage, say only one point down; if he has produced some chances, Kasparov can get very edgy. If you play someone who is much weaker than you, and you're fighting for your chances, it can feel very uncomfortable.

For Nigel to win the match would be enormously difficult. Everything before, the Candidates, even the Candidates Final--will seem like a picnic. He has to look at his chances realistically, and be prepared to fight, but he has done this everywhere. In tournaments Nigel gives the impression that he couldn't care less, but in matches, he always manages to pull himself together.

For instance, there's a big difference even between drawing the match at 12-12 and letting Kasparov keep the title, and winning it 12.5-11.5. That's much, much, much more than half a point. The day Kasparov thinks he's about to lose the match, he's going to have everything put into it. He's going to fight with every bone in his body. If you cut his arms and legs off, he'll fight with his teeth.

I think I can speak for Kasparov when I say that he likes being World Champion. He'd be pretty upset about not being World Champion anymore. I don't think he can imagine life without being World Champion.

If Nigel comes to the point of beating Kasparov, he will really be working for all the millions he's making. He won't have gotten anything free. Okay, it's not a likely scenario, but let's imagine Nigel a point up with four games to go. Those games would be nightmares for Nigel--but pleasant nightmares, of course. 

Magnus Carlsen Captures the World Chess Championship

"One man alone cannot fight the future."--Conrad Strughold, "The X-Files: Fight the Future"

"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's how the smart money bets."--Damon Runyon

Magnus Carlsen displayed brilliance, patience, energy, stamina and steady nerves as he defeated Viswanathan Anand 6.5-3.5 to become the World Chess Champion. Carlsen, who previously established himself as the highest rated player in chess history, is the 16th linear World Chess Champion, joining an elite group started by Wilhelm Steinitz and including the two chess players who even most non-chess players know about: Garry Kasparov and Bobby Fischer.

Prior to the match, some Anand supporters suggested/hoped that Anand's vast match experience and his success in winning world championships in various formats/time controls would give him an edge over his much younger challenger but in chess--as in most sports--it is inevitable that youth will eventually be served: Babe Ruth, Muhammad Ali and Michael Jordan all fell victim to Father Time, in the guise of the next generation of competitors eager to enjoy their time in the sun.

After the players opened the match with four straight draws, Carlsen delivered a knockout blow by scoring consecutive wins. Anand fought hard to draw games seven and eight but then he blundered in game nine to give Carlsen an insurmountable lead. Carlsen comfortably drew the 10th game to clinch the match victory. Carlsen seized the title with two games to spare in what will be remembered as one of the most lopsided championship battles in chess history; this is the first time in Anand's distinguished career that he did not score at least one win in a World Championship match.

Carlsen stayed true to his relentless, uncompromising approach throughout the match; in the final game he eschewed a potential early draw that would have dethroned Anand, instead seeking victory while also risking defeat and forcing the champion to tenaciously defend for several hours before the position simplified to a clear draw. Carlsen is both a quintessentially modern player and a throwback to previous eras; in the opening he obtains deceptively simple--and at times unorthodox--positions in order to render useless any pre-game computer preparation undertaken by his opponents but in the middlegame and endgame he is a relentless competitor/cool calculator in the mold of Garry Kasparov and Bobby Fischer. When you sit down to play Magnus Carlsen you must expect a fight to the bitter end, even if the position seems devoid of winning chances and even if a draw is as good as a win for Carlsen due to the tournament/match situation.

Anand was a great champion and a gentlemanly competitor during his reign; chess lovers hope and expect that Carlsen will take the sport to even greater heights thanks to his youth, his appeal to non-chessplayers and the lyrical virtuosity of his games--a quality that has inspired GM Lubomir Kavalek to dub him "The Mozart of Chess."

Luck and the World Chess Championship

"I don't believe in luck. I make it, and I take it, but I don't stand around waiting for it to happen."--Vinnie Terranova, "Wiseguy"

Like fictional Organized Crime Bureau undercover agent Vinnie Terranova, I do not believe in luck--particularly in arenas where skill can and should prevail. Matthew Wilson's three part series for Chessbase.com titled Are the chess World Champions just lucky? examines the margins of victory of various World Championship matches and attempts to ascertain whether the championship winners displayed statistically significant dominance or if the winners were "lucky" (meaning that there is at least a reasonable probability that the objectively weaker player won the match).

Max Euwe's 15.5-14.5 victory over Alexander Alekhine in the 1935 World Chess Championship does not look decisive either to a casual chess fan or to a statistically-minded observer, particularly considering that Alekhine prevailed 15.5-9.5 in the 1937 rematch. Wilson reaffirms the widely held view that "it is unlikely that Euwe is his equal."

Wilson concludes that Bobby Fischer's 12.5-8.5 victory over Boris Spassky in the 1972 World Chess Championship is statistically significant; based on the players' pre-match ratings, Wilson calculates that there was only an 8.3% chance for Fischer to win so decisively (Wilson actually used 12.5-7.5 in his analysis, disregarding the unplayed game that Fischer forfeited). In marked contrast, the official FIDE World Championship titles won in knockout-style tournaments by Alexander Khalifman, Ruslan Ponomariov and Rustam Kasimdzhanov in the late 1990s and early 2000s "were denounced as being little more than lotteries and FIDE overhauled the championship cycle." The big difference is that the short knockout-style matches introduced tremendous randomness into the results; the best player will almost certainly win a lengthy match but a weaker player has a puncher's chance in a short match with fast time controls, much like a recreational basketball player is highly unlikely to beat LeBron James in a one on one game played to 21 points but the amateur could prevail in a game played under the condition that the first made basket wins.

What about the epic Garry Kasparov-Anatoly Karpov duels from the 1980s and 1990s? Kasparov only enjoys a slight overall edge in terms of the aggregate score but Wilson looks at the matchup from a different statistical perspective: "Starting from 1985, what is the probability of winning 3.5 matches out of four against Karpov?" Wilson says that this probability is less than 20%, a number that "is still not statistically significant. But if we combine this information with Kasparov's numerous tournament victories and his long reign as the #1 rated player (there are only two rating lists from 1985-2004 that do not have him at the top), then it is easy to persuade yourself that Kasparov truly was the best player in the world at his time."

The next World Chess Championship match begins on Saturday, with World Champion Viswanathan Anand defending his title against Magnus Carlsen, who sports the highest rating in chess history.
Carlsen outrates Anand by more than 80 points. Wilson ran thousands of simulations under various conditions but no matter how the numbers are tweaked Carlsen emerges as a huge favorite; even if generous statistical assumptions are made on Anand's behalf, Carlsen wins more than 77% of the simulations. The probability that Carlsen triumphs by a statistically significant margin--defined by Wilson as 7-3 or greater--is much larger than the probability that Anand prevails at all. Of course, rating differences and statistical simulations do not take into account match experience and other psychological factors that can be very important in any high level competition.

The Anand-Carlsen match is scheduled for 12 standard length games and if the match ends in a 6-6 tie then the championship will be decided by the outcome of successively faster tiebreak matches, starting with four rapid games. Is this the ideal format to prove who is the world's best chess player? Wilson suggests that the length of World Chess Championship matches should be determined by what he calls "The 50 Point Principle," namely "If one player's strength is 50 rating points above his opponent's, then the match has to be designed so that the better player wins 90% of the time...The shortest way to satisfy the 50 point principle is a 26 game match with a two game tiebreaker if the match is drawn 13-13. Fortunately, the traditional 24 game matches were very close to respecting the 50 point principle...So to answer the question asked in the beginning, most of the world champions are not just lucky, since the better player will prevail in a large majority of the standard 24 game matches."

Garry Kasparov on "Achieving Your Potential"

Garry Kasparov's presentation "Achieving Your Potential" is filled with insightful advice about how to maximize one's chances to be successful:



Kasparov achieved the highest rating in chess history--a record since broken by Magnus Carlsen--and he held the Classical World Champion title from 1985 until 2000, withstanding challenges from Anatoly Karpov, Nigel Short and Viswanathan Anand (who became the World Champion in 2007 and has held the title since that time). Kasparov seemed to be at the peak of his powers on the eve of his 2000 World Championship match against Vladimir Kramnik, who he had taught at the famous Botvinnik Chess School. However, Kasparov had become overconfident and Kramnik had detected some weaknesses in Kasparov's game. Kramnik surprised the chess world by defeating Kasparov and ending Kasparov's reign.

Starting around the 21:25 mark of the video, Kasparov explains what went wrong: even though he was still working hard on his game, at some level he had internalized the idea that he was unbeatable--but Kramnik came up with new ideas and repeatedly steered the games onto uncomfortable terrain for Kasparov. Kasparov viewed this failure as a learning experience, he went back to the drawing board and he maintained his status as the highest rated player in the world until he retired from professional chess five years later. Along the way, Kasparov played 11 serious games against Kramnik, scoring one win and 10 draws. Kasparov says, "That's good enough. That's a big change" compared to the result of the 2000 match.

Kasparov declares, "We should not be too proud to learn from the young generation. Otherwise, we'll not able to come back."

Chess Year in Review: Anand is the Champion but Carlsen is the Story

It has been a very eventful year in the chess world. Viswanathan Anand successfully defended his World Chess Championship title for the third consecutive time and he is the only player to win the World Chess Championship in four different formats. Anand has consistently been a top player for many years--he ranked no lower than third on the rating list from 1996 to 2008--and the 43 year old is trying to prove that he can still keep pace with the new generation of rising stars.

Although Anand is the official champion, he is not the strongest player in the world (and he has not been for quite some time); that title belongs to Magnus Carlsen, the "Mozart of Chess," who recently broke Garry Kasparov's record for highest chess rating of all-time. Carlsen's 2861 rating is 10 points higher than Kasparov's standard, which had stood for 13 years; prior to that, Bobby Fischer held the record (2785) from 1972 until 1990, when Kasparov eclipsed Fischer and became the first player to achieve a 2800 rating. While Carlsen's accomplishment is impressive, it is important to remember that the significance of a chess rating is not determined by the raw number but rather by the rating difference between players. When Fischer ranked first on the July 1972 FIDE Rating List, the number two player in the world (former World Champion Boris Spassky, who Fischer defeated 12.5-8.5 in the 1972 World Chess Championship despite losing one game by forfeit) had a 2660 rating; rating classes in chess are separated by 200 point intervals, so Fischer was more than half a rating class ahead of the rest of the world at that time! Only 18 players in the world were within 200 points of Fischer's rating in 1972; that kind of dominance is unparalleled in modern chess history and perhaps only equaled by Paul Morphy's brief run at the top in the 1850s, long before chess ratings existed.

When Kasparov broke the 2800 barrier, he led Anatoly Karpov by 70 points and there were 32 players rated at least 2600; Carlsen is currently joined by two other players in the 2800 rating club plus there are an additional three players rated at least 2780 and there are more than 70 players who are within 200 points of Carlsen. Kasparov was a dominant champion but--at least based on ELO rating differential--he was not as dominant as Fischer, while Carlsen is clearly the best player in the world right now but he has yet to dominate his contemporaries in anything approaching the manner that Fischer and Kasparov stood above their contemporaries. Rating inflation has lifted all boats, so to speak, and Carlsen would have to separate himself from the rest of the fleet by another 70 points or so to match Fischer's Usain Bolt-like lead.

Carlsen won three major events in 2012: the Tal Memorial, the Grand Slam Chess Final and the London Chess Classic (the December tournament during which Carlsen broke Kasparov's rating record). He scored 11 wins, 15 draws and just one loss (18.5/27, an outstanding .685 winning percentage) in those tournaments. Carlsen has won three straight chess Oscars (a prestigious award given to the chess player of the year) and has a good chance to pick up his fourth such honor; only Kasparov (11), Karpov (nine) and Anand (six) have won more chess Oscars than the 22 year old Carlsen, who will likely set the all-time record in this category as well.

In many ways this is a golden age for chess: there are many great players who are playing excellent and exciting games, developments in computer technology have improved preparation/study techniques and elevated the level of play and Carlsen may have the right balance of genius and charisma to attract more sponsorship for chess in countries where the sport is not as popular as it is throughout Europe and Asia. It is unfortunate, though, that chess resembles boxing in the sense that someone who is widely recognized as the best is not officially the champion due to flaws in the bureaucratic structure of the sport; this is a problem that dates back to Fischer's era and continued during Kasparov's reign when several "official" champions were crowned even though Kasparov was clearly the best player in the world. Hopefully, Carlsen will participate in the next World Championship cycle and have the opportunity to join Fischer and Kasparov as official World Champions.

Anand Retains World Chess Championship Title with Playoff Victory Over Gelfand

Viswanathan Anand successfully defended his World Chess Championship title for the third consecutive time, defeating challenger Boris Gelfand 2.5-1.5 in a Rapid playoff (G/25 with a 10 second increment) after the two players drew a 12 game match at the Classical time control. Anand has held at least part of the World Chess Championship title since 2007 when he won the eight player FIDE World Chess Championship event in Mexico and he unified the title beyond any doubt in 2008 when he defeated Vladimir Kramnik 6.5-4.5 to become the 15th World Chess Champion (Kramnik won the linear championship by defeating Garry Kasparov in a match in 2000 and it could reasonably be argued that Anand did not fully succeed Kramnik--even though Kramnik participated in the 2007 Mexico event--until he took the title from Kramnik in a Classical match format).

Although serious chess observers place the most emphasis on the Classical format, it is worth noting that Anand is the only player in chess history to win at least part of the World Chess Championship title in four different formats:

1. Anand defeated Alexei Shirov in 2001 to win the FIDE World Chess Championship in a knockout format.
2. Anand won the eight player FIDE World Chess Championship tournament in Mexico in 2007.
3. Anand defeated Vladimir Kramnik in a Classical match in 2008 and then defended his title in a Classical match versus Veselin Topalov in 2010.
4. Anand defeated Boris Gelfand in a Rapid tiebreak match in 2012 after the players drew a 12 game Classical match (two wins each plus 10 draws).

The Anand-Gelfand match received a lot of criticism because the players seemed to be very risk-averse, agreeing to draws in positions that other Grandmasters thought still had some play left. Gelfand surprised the chess world with a win in game seven after six consecutive draws--Gelfand's first Classical win over Anand in nearly two decades--but Anand bounced back with an even more shocking win in game eight, taking out Gelfand in just 17 moves after Gelfand miscalculated and allowed Anand to trap his Queen. The players then drew the rest of their Classical games, setting up the Rapid playoff.

Previous World Chess Championship matches have either lasted longer--24 games was a standard format for many previous matches--and/or permitted the Champion to retain his title in the event of a tie score; the new format of a much shorter Classical match to be followed in the event of a tie by matches with progressively faster time controls until a winner emerges naturally makes the players hesitant to take risks early in the Classical match: a loss could be potentially disastrous, while a draw just brings the players one step closer to the playoff matches. Only the players know if either (or both) of them believed that his chances were better in the faster games and/or if either (or both) of them simply did not want to go all out in the Classical games when the Champion did not have the luxury of automatically retaining his title in the event of a drawn match.

The two players had an action packed, exciting draw in the first game of the Rapid playoff. In the second game, Anand successfully exploited the advantage of the White pieces to gain an edge and put pressure on Gelfand to defend accurately. Gelfand used up a lot of time to eventually reach a theoretically drawn position but with just seconds remaining on his clock Gelfand made a decisive mistake. The third game went back and forth before Gelfand built a winning position but with less than a minute remaining on his clock Gelfand blundered and Anand held the draw. Gelfand needed to win with Black in the fourth game in order to force a Blitz playoff (G/5 plus a 10 second increment) but he was unable to generate any meaningful winning chances and Anand eventually forced a draw. Gelfand proved to be a worthy challenger--despite the predictions by many commentators that Anand should be considered an overwhelming favorite--but in the end Anand's superior clock management in the Rapid playoff proved to be the difference.

Both competitors showed their class not just as elite chess players but also as great sportsmen; they talked amicably with each other after the games (far from a regular occurrence in World Championship competition) and they consistently displayed enormous mutual respect in their words and deeds. Anand graciously said that this was his toughest match ever and that if he had to lose the title to anyone he would have been happy for Gelfand to succeed him.

It seems strange to determine the result of a Classical World Championship match with Rapid games; this is like breaking a tie in the Boston Marathon by having the two competitors square off in a 100 yard dash. Other possible World Championship formats also have flaws but at least they don't significantly change the nature of the competition in the middle of the event. Nevertheless, that is a subject for another time. Anand is a battle tested World Champion in many different formats and with each successful defense of his title he moves up in the pantheon of all-time great chess players.

Garry Kasparov Comments about the Anand-Gelfand World Chess Championship Match

Former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov is known for speaking very directly and bluntly, so it was very interesting to hear his comments during the online broadcast of game six of the Viswanathan Anand-Boris Gelfand World Chess Championship match:

1. Kasparov asserted that Anand has lost some motivation and that this loss of motivation has caused a lack of precision in Anand's play. Kasparov said that former World Chess Champion Boris Spassky once noted that the hallmark of a great player is the ability to sense the moment of crisis in a game and to focus at that moment on finding perhaps the only way to force a win (or save a draw as the case may be). Kasparov said that such a moment happened in game three but that Anand played too quickly--"played by hand" instead of making precise calculations--and the moment slipped away.
2. Kasparov noted that an Indian journalist became upset with Kasparov for criticizing Anand's motivation level and Kasparov wryly commented that the journalist should be more concerned with Anand's motivation than with the fact that Kasparov mentioned this.
3. Kasparov said that Anand played brilliantly and with great energy to defeat Vladimir Kramnik in the 2008 World Championship match but that Anand struggled in his 2010 World Championship win over Topalov and that Anand's play over the past four years shows that he is "sliding downhill." Anand's play during this period is "not very inspiring" in Kasparov's opinion.
4. Kasparov said that this is not only Gelfand's first chance to become World Chess Champion but likely his only chance and that, considering the enormous pressure this entails, Gelfand has played well so far, though Kasparov would like to see Gelfand take some more risks in an effort to win a game (the first six games of the 12 game match have been draws). 
5. Kasparov speculated that Gelfand's match strategy may be to reduce the struggle to the last two games (by drawing the first 10) because, in Kasparov's opinion, Anand is slightly more likely to "stumble" if that happens. Kasparov said that "psychology will become dominant" late in the match if the score is even and "Anand (is) not the most stable player psychologically." Kasparov is impressed by the psychological fortitude that Gelfand showed by winning the Candidates Matches despite being the oldest player in the field.
6. Borrowing from the title of Alexei Shirov's collected games, Kasparov said that he hopes to see "more fire on board" in the second half of the match.

Armageddon on the Chess Board

If you think that chess is boring, slow paced or not a real head to head sport, then check out this 1995 video of Grandmaster Viswanathan Anand (who is currently the World Chess Champion) versus Grandmaster Alexey Dreev in an "Armageddon" showdown. "Armageddon" is a tiebreaking procedure in chess; the two players face off in a one game showdown in which White has six minutes to Black's five minutes but Black only has to hold a draw to be considered the victor; a coin toss usually determines who gets to choose the white or black pieces. The commentators for this game are Grandmasters Daniel King and Maurice Ashley.

"It's Just a Question of Nerves": Anand Defeats Topalov 6.5-5.5 to Retain World Chess Championship

Viswanathan Anand overcame Veselin Topalov's "homecourt advantage," retaining the World Chess Champion title by defeating the Bulgarian challenger 6.5-5.5 in a match held in Sofia, Bulgaria. In 2008, Anand completed the reunification of the World Chess Championship title that had been split up since 1993's boxing-style rupture in chess' organizational structure. I stand by my contention from two years ago that Anand has not joined Fischer or Kasparov at the very top level in chess' all-time pantheon but Anand has certainly traversed a unique and daunting path en route to becoming World Champion and holding on to that prestigious title; borrowing tennis terminology, he has "won on more surfaces" than any of the preceding champions:

1) Anand won a knockout style World Championship event sponsored by FIDE in 2000, holding that crown for two years.

2) Anand won a double round robin World Championship event sponsored by FIDE in 2007.

3) Anand defeated "Classical World Chess Champion" Vladimir Kramnik--who won his title by defeating Garry Kasparov in a match in 2000--6.5-4.5 in a 2008 match.

4) Anand successfully defended the unified title with his victory over Topalov, who won the double round robin 2005 FIDE World Championship tournament (ahead of Anand, among others) and was the highest ranked player in the world as recently as November, 2009. Topalov is currently second on the FIDE rating list--one point behind Norwegian prodigy Magnus Carlsen--while Kramnik is third on the list and Anand is fourth on the list (those ratings do not include the results of the Anand-Topalov match).

Each of those formats and all of his opponents presented unique challenges.

During an an interview conducted shortly after the match with Topalov ended, Anand provided some insights about the mentality that is required to win such a competition, stating, "It's just a question of nerves." In this high tech, computer dominated era, elite chess players prepare their opening moves to a greater and deeper extent than at any time in chess history but during the games they are under great pressure to remember this preparation while also being ready for any possible surprises (known as theoretical novelties) that their opponents might unleash. Topalov won the first game of the match when Anand got confused about the correct order of his prepared moves, an error which gave Topalov a crushing attack against Anand's exposed king--but Anand showed great psychological resilience by striking back with a game two win to level the score. Anand faced another potential crisis after his blunder in game eight transformed a drawn position into a loss but he steadied himself with three straight draws, setting up a climactic game 12 showdown; if the players drew then they would decide the title by contesting a playoff match consisting of rapid games but Topalov declined a possible draw and tried to finish Anand off at once, a decision that Topalov later admitted was influenced by the fact that Anand performs much better at rapid time controls than Topalov does. Topalov's attack backfired and Anand soon had a decisive advantage.

Viswanathan Anand Becomes 15th World Chess Champion

You would never know it based on the lack of mainstream media coverage but a significant cultural, artistic and sporting event just concluded in Bonn, Germany: Viswanathan Anand defeated Vladimir Kramnik 6.5-4.5 to become the 15th classical World Chess Champion. This is the same title held by legends like Bobby Fischer (1972-1975) and Garry Kasparov (1985-2000). Fischer's 1972 World Championship match versus Boris Spassky and Kasparov's five World Championship matches versus Anatoly Karpov drew coverage and attention ranging far beyond the chess world, largely because Fischer and Kasparov were charismatic individuals who captivated people not only with their exciting styles of play but also with their colorful personalities.

Anand and Kramnik are not as charismatic as Fischer and Kasparov, nor will either of them ever be ranked ahead of Fischer and Kasparov as all-time greats, but the Anand-Kramnik match featured some very spirited chess. You can find all 11 games here. International Master Malcolm Pein also annotated each game at The Week in Chess site. Anand defeated Kramnik because of superior pre-match preparation, an ironic twist of fate considering that excellent pre-match preparation is the primary reason that Kramnik beat Kasparov eight years ago to win the title in the first place; there is no greater proof of the beauty and depth of this game than the fact that even though chess has been played for thousands of years and in recent years many positions have been subjected to deep computer analysis by powerful engines, it is still possible to invent novelties (previously unplayed opening moves), as Anand dramatically demonstrated on several occasions. Kramnik prefers to play a slow, maneuvering game in which he methodically increases the pressure on his opponent's position without taking a lot of risks but Anand created dynamic, unbalanced positions that forced Kramnik to engage in the kind of open combat that he tries so hard to avoid. The lone bright spot for Kramnik happened in game 10 when he turned the tables on Anand, played a novelty of his own and crisply won in 29 moves. However, that proved to be Kramnik's only victory, as Anand clinched the World Championship by drawing the 11th game.

The Anand-Kramnik match is historically significant because it completed the process of reunifying the World Chess Championship title, which had been split up since 1993 a la the alphabet soup of championship belts that proliferated in professional boxing. From 1886 to 1993 there was a fairly orderly succession of universally recognized World Chess Champions who won the title by defeating the previous champion in a match (the lone exception being when Alexander Alekhine died in 1946 while holding the title; a match tournament was held in 1948 to crown his successor). In 1993, Kasparov and his challenger Nigel Short split from chess' governing body--the Federation Intenationale des Echecs (better known as FIDE, the International Chess Federation)--because of FIDE's corruption. Kasparov and Short created the Professional Chess Association (PCA) and held their championship match under its auspices. Kasparov defeated Short to retain what would be called in boxing the linear title but FIDE countered by stripping Kasparov of his FIDE crown and reinstating Karpov (who Kasparov dethroned in 1985) as FIDE World Champion. The two competing groups each held a championship cycle in 1993-96, with Kasparov beating Anand to retain his PCA/linear title while Karpov toppled Gata Kamsky to keep the FIDE crown.

The PCA folded shortly the Kasparov-Anand match and Kasparov struggled to put together an organization to sponsor a match for him to defend his title. Eventually, he played Kramnik in 2000 and Kramnik--who had previously trained with Kasparov and thus was not intimidated by him--used some terrific opening preparation to pull off the upset over Kasparov. In his 2007 book How Life Imitates Chess, Kasparov candidly explains exactly how his former student ended his 15 year reign at the top of the chess world (pp. 33-34):

Years of success had made it difficult for me to imagine I could lose. Going into that match, I had won seven consecutive grand slam tournaments in a row and I wasn't aware of my own weaknesses. I felt I was in great form and unbeatable. After all, hadn't I beaten everyone else? With each success the ability to change is reduced. My longtime friend and coach, Yuri Dokhoian, aptly compared it to being dipped in bronze. Each victory added another coat.

When he played black in our match, Kramnik shrewdly chose a defense--the Berlin variation of the Ruy Lopez--in which the powerful queens quickly came off the board. The game became one of long-range maneuvering rather than dynamic, hand to hand combat. Kramnik had evaluated my style and had rightly assessed that I would find this kind of tranquil play boring and that I would unwittingly let down my guard. I had prepared intensely and was ready to fight on perhaps ninety percent of the chess battleground, but he forced me to play on the ten percent he knew better and that he knew I would least prefer. This brilliant strategy worked to perfection.

Instead of trying to wrest the games back to positions where I would be more comfortable, I took up his challenge and tried to beat him at his own game. This played right into Kramnik's hands. I was unable to adapt, unable to make the necessary strategic changes quickly enough and I lost the match and my title. Sometimes the teacher must learn from the student.

In light of how Kramnik beat Kasparov, it is worth noting that Anand made sure that he did not once face Kramnik's dreaded "Berlin Wall"; in fact, Anand turned the tables on Kramnik and reversed what Kramnik had done to Kasparov: while Kramnik forced Kasparov to play in sterile, queenless positions, Anand compelled Kramnik to play fighting chess with the queens on the board.

In 1998, FIDE changed the structure of its World Championship, shifting from match play to tournaments with fast time controls; many people felt that this devalued the title. Kasparov never played in those new FIDE events and Kramnik declined to participate after he beat Kasparov to grab the linear title (Kramnik had nothing to gain and everything to lose from a prestige standpoint by playing in FIDE's World Championship competitions). Karpov retained his FIDE crown in the first FIDE World Championship under the new rules in 1998 but then he chose not to defend his title in 1999 due to his dissatisfaction with the rules. The next four FIDE World Championships produced three champions who most non-chess players have probably never heard of, though Anand did manage to win the title in 2000.

Meanwhile, Kramnik retained the linear title by drawing a match with Peter Leko in 2004. Kramnik has never been a great match player--as Kasparov hastened to point out as soon as the Anand-Kramnik match concluded--and he understandably avoided a rematch with Kasparov. In 2005, Kasparov--who was still the highest rated player in the world--retired from competitive chess because the only challenge left for him was to beat Kramnik and it was obvious that Kramnik would make sure that he never played Kasparov again in a match; Kramnik fully understood that the psychological ploys and special opening preparation that he used so successfully against Kasparov in 2000 would not work in a rematch and that if they crossed swords on the "ninety percent of the chess battleground" that Kasparov later referred to in his book then Kasparov would almost certainly reclaim the World Championship title.

In 2005, Veselin Topalov won the FIDE World Chess Championship and a match pitting him against Kramnik was arranged to finally reunify the FIDE and linear World Championships (the latter is often called "classical" because it is based on match play at traditional time controls as opposed to FIDE's recent use of tournaments with fast time controls to determine their World Champion). Kramnik drew the regular portion of his match with Topalov and then retained his title by winning tiebreaker games at a faster time control. Although Kramnik's victory over Topalov temporarily reunified the World Chess Championship title, in 2007 FIDE held an eight player World Championship event in Mexico. Kramnik reluctantly participated--he felt that the title should be determined by a match, not a tournament--and he finished second, while Anand emerged as the victor.

Although it obviously is quite an accomplishment to win a FIDE World Championship tournament at a fast time control, I have never considered those tournament winners to truly be world champions: Kasparov was the World Champion, Kramnik beat him in a classical match and therefore Kramnik deserved to be considered the rightful champion until someone dethroned him by beating him in a match. It is truly a shame that Kramnik avoided playing a rematch with Kasparov but it is good for chess that Anand's convincing win in Bonn reunifies the title. Next year, Anand is scheduled to defend his crown in a match against the winner of a match between top contenders Topalov and Kamsky. Wouldn't it be something if after the dust clears Kasparov unretires and tries to reclaim the title? I doubt that he would do that--he is very engaged in his political work in Russia and the farther one gets past the age of 40 (Kasparov is 45) the tougher it becomes to compete at the highest levels in chess. Nevertheless, I believe that a fully committed and focused Kasparov would still be able to win a classical match against Anand, Kramnik, Topalov or any of the other top players; a Kasparov return now or within the next year or two would be more like Michael Jordan's first comeback with the Chicago Bulls as opposed to Jordan's injury riddled second comeback with the Washington Wizards.