|
|||||||||||
|
The 2008 World Chess Championship - by GM Raymond Keene, OBE
The Battle of Bonn
In the course of his defeat of the Russian former champion, Anand at first displayed a remarkable strategic creativity, allied with machine-like calculation of tactics, the combination of which utterly routed his hapless opponent over the early games. Comparing the champion's moves with those of the best computer programs, such as RYBKA and FRITZ , it became clear that Anand's rate of confluence with the unerring silicon brains was unprecedentedly high. As I followed every game, observing the computer predictions as we went along, which were, of course, forbidden fruit for the protagonists while at the board, almost every move in the first half of the match made by Anand duplicated best practice, as adumbrated by the thinking machines themselves. Kramnik, though the younger man, and well versed in computer practice himself, was quite unable to keep pace with Anand's persistent strike rate of unwavering and relentless accuracy. No wonder, as Anand conjured up tactical complexities of diabolical intricacy, that Kramnik faltered and repeatedly fell.
Kramnik defeated Kasparov, to become champion, in what must have been one of the highest match rating performances of all time, and defended the title successfully in two further contests over a seven year period. His championship record stands in the same, or similar, league to that of Capablanca, with whom he is often compared, Labourdonnais, Staunton, and Petrosian. It was somewhat better than that of Anderssen, Spassky, Euwe, Tal and Smyslov, and much better than Fischer's, who failed to play a single serious game as champion. Evidently Kramnik's reign was inferior to those of Alekhine, Botvinnik, Lasker, Karpov, Kasparov and Steinitz. So, will he make a comeback? My initial intuition was no! He had been champion for seven years, and it is notoriously difficult to re-stoke the fires of ambition, having been at the top for so long.
However, Kramnik's impressive resurgence when his back was utterly to the wall, shows what deep reserves of skill and determination he still has. Once motivated, he may well return to the world championship fray. He still has plenty of years of top class chess if he so desires. His win in game 10, which baffled even his opponent, who was left forlornly wondering what he had done wrong, was a sublime masterpiece of filigree aggression, which will surely encourage him for return to future combat, but if so under which format? How Many Games Does It Take?
First of all - why did we decide on 16 in 2000? Adjourned games had been outlawed due to computers and there was a general consensus that games must be played to a finish (though a Man vs Machine match would possibly be an exception!). This means that the players will tire if they play out all the games - or even most of them. Given the above, four games a week should be the maximum. We also felt that any event which went beyond a month (compare the length of the Olympics) would be liable to forfeit public interest and be considered old-fashioned. Therefore, a month's play at four games per week yields 16 games. Is this fair? Before deciding on the length in 2000, I checked through all official contests for the World Championship since Steinitz defeated Zukertort in 1886. In just one of those events did the eventual winner trail after 16 games. That was the Alekhine-Euwe match of 1935, where Alekhine was leading after game 16 but then fell apart and went down by one game. Hence, it seemed to me, and still does, that 16 games in total are an absolutely fair indicator of who is the better player, and history supports this. Twelve games are insufficient for a true test of endurance, stamina and the ability to display superiority over a long haul. Given Kramnik's late comeback in Bonn, one is left pondering what the outcome would have been if 16 games had been chosen as the limit this time. That said, Anand won, and he won according to the rules established and agreed in advance by both sides. So, will Anand become a great champion, hailing as he does from the land where chess was probably even invented? False Starts
Anand's other false starts were the championships endorsed solely by FIDE the World Chess Federation. Although Anand was, perhaps all too ready to accept such restricted accolades, he must surely recognise that only a title won in single combat against the true incumbent, in a line which stretches back to Howard Staunton, offers genuine championship glory. As we know, Staunton succumbed to Anderssen, who in turn lost to Morphy and Steinitz, who lost to Lasker and so on, with only the post Alekhine interregnum and Fischer's default to interrupt the flow. Sadly, I can find no connecting link between Labourdonais and Staunton, who had to defeat the French School by proxy when he crushed St Amant.
Amongst possible future achievements not least, of course, is the goal of establishing himself in the same category as those holders of the title, with the greatest exploits as champion, namely: Steinitz, Lasker, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Karpov and above all, Kasparov. Anand’s Inspiration General admiration has been expressed for Anand’s bold strategy in game 3 of leaving his king in the centre and directly attacking the white king. However, I have unearthed the following game which adopted a similar strategy over 60 years ago – it also concluded in a dramatic and spectacular king hunt. White: Laszlo Szabo
Game Three The World Championship match in Bonn burst into life with game 3, following the two anodyne encounters which had started the contest. After a turbulent opening which left commentators swinging wildly in their assessments, Kramnik succumbed to the pressure and blundered into a lost ending. With his position a smoking ruin, White still had a pawn poised to promote to a queen, but the Black onslaught with queen and bishop had by now become the deciding factor. The first 14 moves were played a tempo. After this Kramnik started thinking seriously, especially after 16.Rd1 Rg8. When White played the obligatory 17.g3 the retort 17... Rg4 was hammered out at once. Confronted by this surprise, White thought so long he fell behind by over an hour on the clock. Once he had opted for the swashbuckling 18.Bf4 Kramnik had 44 minutes left to to his opponent's 1hr 50 minutes. Meanwhile a fascinating position had arisen. Kramnik's 21.Rxd7 was instant, yet the inspired 22...Rg7 announced a turn of the tide. Kramnik said afterwards that the game was complicated, and that he considered 19...h5 to be the best. Thereafter, he still regarded himself as safe, even though Anand's forces were swirling around his king, but over the board the defence was not easy. He pinpointed 32.f3 as the losing move. Anand also thought the game was complicated. Until Kramnik blundered on move 32 he couldn't see a forced win, but 32.f3 was fatal. Nevertheless, in spite of the pronouncements of the two mental matadors, it seems from a more cold-blooded investigation that the damage may have been done before then, Kramnik's 29th move now being fingered as the likely culprit, with 29.Rd1 regarded as being a likely draw.
Summing up the game on ChessBase Kasparov said:
* Download
the games
|
Chessville
The
Advertise to Single insert:
|
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Vishy
Anand from India has emerged on top from the Battle of Bonn to decide
the undisputed chess champion of the world. Although numerous
chess fans were reluctant to recognise Anand as champion after his
victory in the
Kramnik,
throughout the first part of the match, gave the impression of one
lacking in the mental agility required to keep pace with his
mercurially witted opponent. To adopt a metaphor from primitive
hunting, Kramnik to me seemed like some vast, powerful, yet ultimately
unwieldy and evolutionarily doomed mammoth, driven time and again to
the edge of a precipice, and over it, by a nimble and lethally armed
Nimrod.
It
was my guess that Anand's most serious future challenges would come
from the irrepressible Bulgarian Grandmaster Topalov and the teenage
Norwegian prodigy Carlsen, who still has it within him - and three
years left to break Kasparov's record of becoming the youngest ever
world champion at the age of 22.
This
brings me to the question of whether 12 games are sufficient to decide
the world title? My answer would be a resounding "no!" The
old FIDE (World Chess Federation) World Championship used to consist
of 24 games. There were two marathons in 1978 and 1984/85, but
24 was the norm. The London 2000 Championship shrank it to 16,
so was this reasonable and was it reliable in terms of determining the
strongest chessplayer on the planet?
Anand
has had a number of false starts. In 1995 he was slaughtered by
Kasparov in his first championship challenge. Kasparov obviously
exerted a severe psychological dominance over the younger Indian, but
Kasparov has now retired and there can be no thought of his return to
chess, in spite of what may be an overwhelming public desire to see
him in action again. We must, however, be realists, and agree
with Howard Staunton who said curtly of Morphy that if he no longer
regards himself as a chessplayer, why should anyone else do so?
Now,
though, Anand is the undisputed champion, with an unimpeachable
pedigree stretching out behind him, and possible laurels in the future
to be garnered from victories against challengers such as Topalov and
Carlsen, or even a resurgent Kramnik.
Kramnik
now extended his hand in resignation – losing at this early stage with White
is a staggering blow to his chances. After 42 Kb3 Qxf3+ 43 Kb4 Qxf4+
and ... Be4 wins by neutralising the promotion square for White's last
forlorn hope, the a-pawn.
