Vladimir Kramnik Loses His Mind After Losing an Online Blitz Game to Hans Niemann

Grandmaster Hans Niemann can now play at Chess.com again after settling his lawsuit against Chess.com and former World Champion Magnus Carlsen, with both Chess.com and Carlsen publicly acknowledging that there is no evidence that Niemann cheated in over the board games in general and specifically in the Sinquefield Cup game when Niemann defeated Carlsen. Niemann returned to Chess.com in style, beating former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik in a blitz game. Instead of taking the loss like a man, Kramnik accepted a rematch, but replied to Niemann's e4 with ...f6, and then answered d4 with ...g5, allowing Fool's Mate. Kramnik was trolling Niemann, who resigned rather than playing Qh5 mate. Niemann responded to Kramnik's disgraceful display by simply saying that he has much respect for Kramnik and does not understand why Kramnik did this. Niemann apparently felt that he took the high road by resigning, but if I had been in his shoes I would have checkmated Kramnik and trolled back by saying something like, "I beat this guy so thoroughly last game that he forgot how to play chess and fell into the Fool's Mate." If Kramnik wanted to lose like a fool, Niemann should have fulfilled his wish.

Kramnik behaved like a petulant child--just like Carlsen did after losing to Niemann--because Kramnik is too arrogant and insecure to admit that Niemann outplayed him. Rather than losing with dignity and grace, Kramnik--echoing Carlsen's shameful behavior when Carlsen resigned against Niemann after one move rather than play against him in the online $150,000 Generation Cup tournament--chose to make a mockery of the rematch game, likely assuming that people will pay more attention and credence to the implication that Niemann is a cheater than to the fact that Niemann outclassed Kramnik in the prior game. 

If you have followed Kramnik's career, then you know that he has never lost a post-mortem analysis session; his post-game press conference performance after drawing with future World Champion Ding Liren is legendary--and not in a good way, because Kramnik comes across as either incredibly delusional or insufferably arrogant. If you don't watch the whole video, at least check out around the one minute mark when Kramnik is running his big mouth about how he is winning before Ding quietly but confidently refutes Kramnik's moves. Kramnik still insists that he is better, but Ding just chuckles and says, "I don't think so."

In short, Kramnik has always been a sore loser (or "drawer" in the game with Ding Liren), so his behavior after Niemann beat him is par for the course. What first Carlsen and now Kramnik are making abundantly clear is that the tight circle of elite Grandmasters who are invited to big money tournaments to play against each other do not want an interloper joining their club. They don't like Niemann, they don't respect Niemann, and they don't want him to ever be included. It is not clear if Niemann will ever become a top 10 player--his peak to this point has been 31st in the world rankings earlier this year--but it is very clear that Carlsen and Kramnik are afraid of the mere possibility that Niemann will crack the exclusive private club where a handful of chess players make far more money than even other Grandmasters make.

It is worth emphasizing that there is no evidence that Niemann has ever cheated in over the board competition, nor is there any reason to believe that he cheated in his recent win versus Kramnik--but there is plenty of evidence about who Kramnik is and how he will be remembered by knowledgeable, objective observers.

History will not remember Kramnik as a great World Champion or as one of the 10 greatest players of all-time; yes, he beat Garry Kasparov in the 2000 World Championship match, but by that time Kasparov had already reigned as the World Champion for 15 years. Kramnik's reign lasted just over half as long as Kasparov's. Kramnik spent eight years as World Champion before losing the title to Viswanathan Anand, who Kasparov defeated 10.5-7.5 in the 1995 World Championship match. 

When Kasparov retired from top level chess in 2005, he remained the highest rated player in the world, and he had received the Chess Oscar--the chess world's Player of the Year award--a record 11 times, including in both 2001 and 2002 when Kramnik was the World Champion. Anatoly Karpov is second with nine Chess Oscars, while Kramnik received the award just twice. 

Shamefully, Kramnik did everything in his power to avoid a World Chess Championship rematch with Kasparov, knowing full well that Kasparov had an excellent chance of retaking the crown. An exasperated Kasparov criticized Kramnik's refusal to arrange a rematch:

I believe it is the duty of the world champion to defend his title against the most dangerous opponent. When I beat Karpov in 1985 I was forced to defend my title against him within eight months. The organizers and the public believed that Kramnik was the most dangerous opponent, so I had to play him--I had no choice. Kramnik knows this and now he is champion he must prove to the world he is "real" by facing his most dangerous opponent--me.

In the last six months I have proved I am still the world number one and I beat Kramnik recently. But now Kramnik, who was not made to win a qualifier to play me, implies that I must qualify to play him. I don't want to diminish the importance of his victory. He deserved to win. But it is Kramnik's turn to prove Kasparov didn't go mad in London. The public need another match to prove Kramnik is the real thing.

Kasparov and Kramnik played 10 tournament games against each other after their 2000 World Championship match, with Kasparov scoring one win and nine draws. Kasparov's victory came on the White side of the Ruy Lopez Berlin Defense, demonstrating that he had figured out how to defeat the main weapon Kramnik used to wrest the title away from Kasparov. 

As noted above, after losing or drawing games Kramnik tends to insist that he was winning all the way until the end, despite the fact that his assertions are often demonstrably false--but if we take Kramnik at his word that he has squandered numerous winning positions then perhaps he is the biggest choker in the history of elite level chess; after all, Kramnik committed one of the most ghastly blunders ever made by an elite player when he fell into a mate in one in the second game of his six game match versus the supercomputer Deep Fritz.

How can chess be promoted as a big-time sport and be taken seriously by the public if top players behave like whining crybabies when they lose, and if top players (and media members) throw around unsubstantiated cheating allegations? Grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura recently whined about being dragged into Niemann's lawsuit, but Nakamura was not dragged into anything: he opened his mouth to spew unsubstantiated cheating allegations against Niemann and as a direct result of that Niemann sued him. "Start no stuff and there will be no stuff" would be a good mantra for Nakamura to live by in the future. Further, if Nakamura is truly interested in promoting chess as opposed to just generating more clicks and obtaining more viewers, then he should think twice about making unsubstantiated accusations that cast aspersions on the sport. There is a reason that the NBA fines owners, coaches, and players who make negative statements about officiating: such statements are bad for the league.

Nakamura is more of a chess streamer than a full-time player at this point, so he may figure that anything that creates content is good for his business model in the long run. Kramnik has retired from top level play for the most part, but he often speaks about promoting the game, as does Carlsen--but Carlsen and Kramnik seem much more interested in promoting themselves and their brands than in promoting the game. For instance, Carlsen's refusal to defend his World Championship title is bad for chess: why should anyone outside of the chess community take the World Championship seriously if the World Champion does not take it seriously? Note that Carlsen has not retired from chess; he is very busy playing in a host of big money tournaments--usually invitation-only--which is not only lucrative for him but also keeps his name in public view, which helps him promote his businesses and corporate sponsorships that are providing the bulk of his income now.

There is good reason to believe that the ratings of the top chess players are inflated now because they have essentially created a separate rating pool amongst themselves (and the ratings of other chess players are likely deflated, but that is a topic for another day). Instead of whining about losing games to Niemann, it would be great to see Carlsen--and other elite players--participate more often in open tournaments so that they put their money--and their rating points--where their big mouths are.

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

After the first World Chess Championship match that did not have a single decisive game, Magnus Carlsen won three straight games against Fabiano Caruana in the Rapid Tiebreak to retain his title. Carlsen squeezed Caruana in the first game and then almost let Caruana escape with a draw before relentlessly punishing Caruana's endgame mistake in time pressure. Carlsen won game two convincingly and then took game three as well after Caruana went for broke, as a draw would have produced the same match outcome as a loss.

Carlsen was heavily criticized for offering a draw in a winning position in game 12 of the classical portion of the match and there was much speculation about why Carlsen failed to push for a win but it seems that the simple answer is that--based on the skill sets of the players and the match format--he decided that his best strategy was to steer the match toward the Rapid Tiebreak. While these two players are evenly matched at slow time controls, Carlsen enjoys a clear and significant advantage over Caruana in faster time controls. Carlsen's game 12 draw offer is therefore understandable--his job is to win the match/retain his title, not satisfy the expectations of others--but perhaps reveals that the match format is flawed. One thing that can be said in favor of the current format is that the faster time controls to some extent deemphasize the importance of computer preparation and thus reintroduce human elements of natural talent, calm nerves and fighting spirit that are not as evident during slower time controls in this computer-dominated era.

Former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik did not like Carlsen's game 12 draw offer. Kramnik declared after game 12 and before the Rapid Tiebreak that in order to prevail Carlsen must get over his fear of losing the title. This is reminiscent of the Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear from Frank Herbert's Dune, which states "I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain." The ability to control one's fear/nerves plays a huge role in championship level play, as I noted in "It's Just a Question of Nerves": Anand Defeats Topalov 6.5-5.5 to Retain World Chess Championship (my recap of the 2010 World Chess Championship match in which Viswanathan Anand defeated Veselin Topalov, 6.5-5.5), but the Litany Against Fear can be meaningfully applied in many areas of life.

Kramnik conceded that Carlsen should be considered the favorite in the Rapid Tiebreak but he cautioned that Caruana has legitimate practical chances if he has proper opening preparation.

Kramnik's comments make sense, but it seems a bit hypocritical for him to criticize another player's alleged fear when he dodged a rematch with Garry Kasparov, as mentioned in the interesting article Garry Kasparov: King without a Crown. While there is no question that Kramnik earned his match victory against a stubborn and complacent Kasparov, there is also no question that Kasparov deserved a rematch and should not have been forced to play in a qualifying event to get that rematch. As Kasparov stated of Kramnik, "He made new discoveries and pushed chess towards new horizons. It was not the most attractive style, but that does not matter. He came up with a strategy that took me by surprise and it is important for the development of chess that I was forced to make corrections to my style. I had been winning too many tournaments. You can't learn from your wins, only your defeats. It was a very painful defeat, but I deserved it because it taught me that I needed to change. It took a long time for me to do this--and I am still in the process of doing this--but I am winning while learning."

Kasparov retained his highest rated player in the world status even after losing to Kramnik and Kasparov absolutely dominated the subsequent tournaments. He even finally beat Kramnik's fabled Berlin Defense. "All my claims for a rematch and that I was the best player would have been weakened had I failed to win," Kasparov noted. "Kramnik should play me anyway, but my victory sent out a very important message. I finally broke down the 'Berlin Wall.' I believe it is the duty of the world champion to defend his title against the most dangerous opponent. When I beat Karpov in 1985 I was forced to defend my title against him within eight months. The organizers and the public believed that Kramnik was the most dangerous opponent, so I had to play him--I had no choice. Kramnik knows this and now he is champion he must prove to the world he is 'real,' by facing his most dangerous opponent--me. In the last six months I have proved I am still the world number one and I beat Kramnik recently. But now Kramnik, who was not made to win a qualifier to play me, implies that I must qualify to play him. I don't want to diminish the importance of his victory. He deserved to win. But it is Kramnik's turn to prove Kasparov didn't go mad in London. The public need another match to prove Kramnik is the real thing."

The point of this tour down memory lane is that, while Kramnik has the right to express his opinions, it should not be forgotten that at the peak of his career as World Champion he displayed fear, if not outright cowardice. At least Carlsen embraces the opportunity to play against the second highest rated player in the world; Kramnik ducked a Kasparov rematch and eventually Kasparov retired in frustration, still the highest rated player in the world.

Interestingly, Kasparov shared Kramink's viewpoint regarding Carlsen's game 12 draw offer and Kasparov predicted that Caruana would win the Rapid Tiebreak because, according to Kasparov, the most important trait in Rapid is strong nerves and Carlsen had demonstrated that his nerves were shot. While it does appear that Carlsen's nerves or fighting spirit may not be quite what they were at the start of his reign, his performance today suggests to me that Carlsen really was just being very calculating and practical. He has enough self-awareness and enough knowledge of his opponent to understand that they are basically equal in slow games but that there is a big difference in their skills at faster time controls. It was once said of Jack Nicklaus in his prime that he knew that he was the best golfer in the world, his opponents knew and he knew that they knew. There is more than a trace of that psychological warfare in Carlsen's match strategy: he knows, and he knows that Caruana knows, that Rapid and Blitz immensely favor Carlsen.

This is the second consecutive time that Carlsen defended his title by winning a Rapid Tiebreak--he defeated Sergey Karjakin 3-1 in the 2016 World Chess Championship Rapid Tiebreak--and this is Carlsen's third title defense overall.

The World Chess Champions who dominated their eras for a long time and/or were significantly better than their contemporaries include Paul Morphy (unofficial World Champion but clearly the best player of his time), Wilhelm Steinitz, Emanuel Lasker, Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov. Carlsen, who has achieved the highest chess rating of all-time and won World Championships in Classical, Rapid and Blitz formats, deserves to be included in that group. Is he better/greater than those players? Would he have beaten them in a match? Those questions are impossible to answer, because of the differences in eras, rules, computer preparation and so forth. My opinion is that Fischer is the greatest player of all-time because he was further ahead of his contemporaries (based on the official ratings) than anyone else has ever been. It is worth mentioning that Fischer thought very highly of Morphy, who was far ahead of his contemporaries in an era when chess ratings did not exist. Carlsen's current rating, which is dozens of points below his peak rating, is still higher than Fischer's then-record 2785, but when Fischer was 2785 he was 125 points ahead of everyone else, which is more than half a rating class (a rating class is 200 points). That is a staggering margin. Caruana is currently just three points behind Carlsen and no one would put Caruana in the same sentence with Morphy, Steinitz, et. al.

Vladimir Kramnik Explains Why He Loves Chess

I am not a huge Vladimir Kramnik fan, primarily because I believe that he dodged a World Championship rematch with Garry Kasparov; I think that Kramnik rightfully expected to lose a potential rematch but it is cowardly and unseemly for an elite player to intentionally avoid facing another elite player. All that being said, Kramnik is a superb chess technician and in a recent interview he shared some fascinating insights about chess in general and his career in particular. Here are some excerpts:

Every top player has his own style of play--like painters. You see a painting and say, okay, this is Modigliani, or Raphael, because you cannot confuse them with anyone else. It's the same with chess, which means it is also an art. Chess players are all slightly different and have their own clear way of seeing chess, and you can see it when you play through their games...

I don't consider myself a genius--seriously, and I am sincere with you, I don't think I am a genius. Of course I am gifted at chess and have quite good analytical capabilities, and certain things where I am better than average. But you don't need to be a genius to be a top chess player. It's about many other qualities, about strength of character and, most importantly, the ability to learn. If you are learning very quickly in certain areas it means you have talent. The ability to learn is what I notice in all top players--but also top musicians and other people of art. In their area they learn in seconds, and that is what is called talent.

For me, personally, a beautiful game of chess is a game where everything was very logical, very well built and performed, from the beginning to the end. That is the highest definition of mastery in chess. When millimeter to millimeter everything is perfect. So for me it is perfection. For many other players it's more imagination, sometimes strange and even wrong decisions, something absurd or abstract. But I am more a classicist in chess, and also in art, where I like classical art of the 17th century. I like the beauty and the purity of the game.

Compared to life chess is very strict. In life you can be lucky, you can be born in a very rich family, you can do crazy things and still get away with it. But in chess you will not--you are going to lose. In chess you have to be very disciplined in your thinking. There are a lot of things in chess that are similar to life: you have to understand that sometimes you have to sacrifice a little bit of something to get other advantages, you have to see the whole board and the whole picture, otherwise you will never be a good chess player. In life it is also similar.

...I remember when I played my World Championship match in 2000 against Garry Kasparov, which took around three weeks--we played sixteen games, every second day--I think I lost ten kilos during the match, without being on a diet or anything. It was just very energy consuming. That is why getting older is not a plus for chess players, because physically you have less energy when you are forty than when you are twenty. It is an issue when you are playing young opponents. I am 38 and a kind of veteran in chess, and I know that playing young opponents I am giving them a certain handicap in a physical sense. On the other hand I have experience, which is helpful, and maybe a little stronger character...

I am not a typical chess player, not a typical sportsman--in fact I am quite surprised that I managed to achieve quite a lot in chess, because I am not a sportsman inside. I don't care about competing, about being the best. For me it is never personal, a game of chess. Most of them--Magnus, Garry, Karpov-- they are crazy about winning in anything they do, even if they play cards or whatever. I really never care that much, in tennis or football--I just enjoy playing. Of course in chess I care about winning, but it is not a goal, it's not a complete must. I was never fixated on the result. That is very unusual for chess. Most of the players are very determined to win. My main motivation is to do my best, to do something which is on the edge of my limits.

When I got a chance to play Kasparov in the World Championship match for me it was a challenge, the highest possible challenge. He was not only the best player at the time, he was also on top of his rating, really at the complete top of his career. That was for me a challenge, and that I managed to win was for me unexpected. I knew I could do it but I was not sure, but this is probably why I managed to do it, because it forced me to give everything. It was not about winning, so much, but rather a challenge. What is important for me is the inside challenge. That is my way of life, of playing chess, and it will probably be with me forever, I guess.

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."

The Beauty, Wonder, Mystery and Horror of Chess, Part II

In The Beauty, Wonder, Mystery and Horror of Chess, I cited several examples of top level players making ghastly blunders, underscoring just how challenging and heartbreaking this sport can be. One more game can be added to that list; in round one of the ongoing Dortmund Sparkassen tournament, a world-class player overlooked a simple tactic.

Wang Hao, whose 2752 rating places him 15th in the world, had Black in this position against former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik (2784, fourth in the world):

Kramnik's extra pawn is not that meaningful because Hao's major pieces are so active. However, Hao played ...Ra2??, enabling Kramnik to pick off the wayward Rook with Qb8+ followed by Qb1+. This is a classic example of what Grandmaster John Nunn meant when he coined the phrase "Loose Pieces Drop Off." Strong players typically "overprotect" their pieces to prevent such "accidents" from happening.

This is not the first time that Hao lost a game because he overlooked a two move tactic; in the 2012 London Grand Prix he calmly defended a pawn down position, won back the lost pawn and was about to force a draw when he moved his King straight into a helpmate. After that loss, a stunned Hao said, "I can say nothing. It was a simple blunder. Something should have happened with my brain."

Chess can be brutal sometimes, requiring tremendous concentration during a game and often also requiring great resiliency after a game to overcome the psychological devastation resulting from one brief lapse that ruined several hours' worth of hard fought work.

Kramnik, who blundered into mate in one against Deep Fritz nearly seven years ago, can certainly empathize with Hao--as can anyone who has played serious tournament chess.

The Beauty, Wonder, Mystery and Horror of Chess

It takes many mistakes for a basketball team to squander a 20 point lead but a chess player can throw away an equivalent advantage with just one hasty move--and that is the beauty, wonder, mystery and horror of chess: anyone can blunder at any time.

On November 27, 2006, World Chess Champion Vladimir Kramnik played the second game of his six game match versus the computer Deep Fritz. Kramnik received a $500,000 appearance fee for the match and could have earned an additional $500,000 by defeating the silicon beast. In an equal position, Kramnik uncorked this howler:



Even a rank beginner can see the computer's next move: Qh7 mate. Grandmasters, psychologists and journalists searched for explanations for Kramnik's oversight. Perhaps the best theory in this particular case is that the Nf8-Qh7 pattern is much less common than the Nf6-Qh7 and Ng5-Qh7 patterns, which presumably Kramnik would have seen instantly. However, this blunder may just be one more example of the complex nature of chess--and the peculiar way that the human mind processes chess moves/chess positions: a person who is capable of conjuring up splendid tactical combinations and deep strategic concepts is also capable of missing a one move mate threat. Even "simple" chess moves can sometimes be hard to find because a player has to simultaneously focus on multiple short term and long term considerations. Kramnik concentrated his analysis on trying to trade Qs and force the promotion of one of his Q-side pawns and it escaped his attention that in such a relatively quiet position a checkmate threat could emerge.

Often, when a chess player blunders he realizes it as soon as he completes his move but in this case Kramnik was oblivious; the Chessbase news report about the game provides this account: "Kramnik played the move 34...Qe3 calmly, stood up, picked up his cup and was about to leave the stage to go to his rest room. At least one audio commentator also noticed nothing, while Fritz operator Mathias Feist kept glancing from the board to the screen and back, hardly able to believe that he had input the correct move. Fritz was displaying mate in one, and when Mathias executed it on the board Kramnik briefly grasped his forehead, took a seat to sign the score sheet and left for the press conference, which he dutifully attended."

Here is another example of the world's strongest player missing mate in one. Wilhelm Steinitz, the first official World Chess Champion, castled in the following position against H.G. Voight in an 1885 game in Philadelphia, overlooking ...Qxh2 mate and losing in just 12 moves. 




One of the most famous blunders in chess history happened in Ignatz von Popiel-Georg Marco, Monte Carlo 1902. Marco, thinking that he was about to lose the pinned Bd4, resigned--not noticing that ...Bg1! would have broken the pin with devastating effect, threatening ...Qxh2 mate while also discovering an attack on White's Q.



In the 1964 Amsterdam Interzonal, Klaus Darga resigned after Levente Lengyel played ...R6xe2+ in the following position; Darga thought that if he took back he would lose material after ...Bxh4+ but he had overlooked that with his R on e2 he could answer the B check with Ke3. Shortly after resigning, a crestfallen and astonished Darga exclaimed, "My God, I have a winning position!"



"Chess is My Life" is the title both Anatoly Karpov and Viktor Korchnoi--rivals for the World Championship in three contentious matches (1974 Candidates Final, 1978 and 1981 World Championship)--selected for their respective autobiographies. In many ways, chess is life: a chess game and a chess career contain moments of brilliance and moments of stupidity, moments of great joy and moments of aching misery, moments of great sportsmanship and moments of deplorable duplicity. In chess, as in life, the important thing is to savor the good moments but not become dependent upon them and to understand that even after the worst of the bad moments there will be an opportunity for redemption if you are patient and determined.