My final analysis
It seemed to me that Gelfand had the upper hand in opening preparation in the classical portion, especially earlier in the match. However, Anand did well to contain the surprises. The tide was kind of turned near the end of the match in opening choices. Anand got good positions but Gelfand did well to hold.
Things became very different in the playoff. Anand’s preparation and opening choices improved. He also has more experience as he played a number of these matches before. With the exception of the 3rd game where Gelfand had a winning position but failed to convert, Anand had good positions and he was way up on time most of the time. It looked to me that it was a completely different Anand in the playoff. He was faster and more energized.
I think Gelfand’s biggest mistake was not having an additional second in his team, someone who has won a World Championship match. The playoff has a lot to do with nerve and mental toughness. Gelfand needed someone who had been through the trenches and know how to manage the uneven emotions.
Let’s not forget that Anand did not succeed when he was younger and less experienced. Now he is a seasoned and respected World Champion. Anand knew how to do his job. He was there to defend his title and he succeeded. It may not have been pretty or colorful but the bottom line is he did it.
Congratulations to Anand for defending his title again!
Not the greatest way to win title but atleast he managed to hold on.I think Anand should see some of Nakamura’s game and play like him from audience prespective.
I think I Anand should flush out slave defense which keeps on giving him problems.
Good job to hold on in the end.ALL’s WELL THAT ENDS WELL.
Good analysis! I think it is too bad that the WC could be (and was) determined by blitz/rapid. This encouraged Anand (maybe both) to draw to the tie-breaking round.
A better format would be to disregard draws and only count wins. First player to be 2 up after +6 wins. (Could make for a long match, though!)
Next, Anand should play Magnus Carlsen.
Its great if these matches been broadcasting! to see the players of that mind set would be great lessons for the youngsters! i’m not sure these matches are watchable on internet/Tv…
A match of good moments but unlikely to be looked back upon with relish by future generations.
Anand was not in good form. The fact that Anand won in the end shows that a half fit, out of form, ageing Anand is better than his well prepared, very motivated openent at his best(though not young anymore). If the out of form Anand is a temporary phase then openents beware. But if it due to his general deterioration of standard due to lack of motivation and age then we will see a different champion next time. This time Anand was supposed to win by everybody and it brought a lot of pressure on him not to lose. But next time if it is Carlson or Aronian who are younger who is the challenger, Anand may be more motivated. As everybody expects Anand to lose the title next time he may play a different game with less pressure and may actually win it. Let us wait and see. For now let us Congratulate Anand for his achiement and wait and see the drama unfolding in two years time..
The only thing match proves is this: that Magnus Carlsen is the best chess player in the world and that Anand doesn’t stand a chance in a match against him.
If Anand had blown out Gelfand (as a fair number of folks anticipated) then he could still claim to be the best player in the world, the rating list notwithstanding. But the way he struggled to put away Gelfand basically confirms that the torch has passed to Carlsen.
“First player to be 2 up after +6 wins.” Read about Karpov-Kasparov 1984 and you’ll know why that format doesn’t work.
with this format of WC, Kasparov would have never beaten Karpov…
Congratulations to Anand on holding his title but he barely held it against the world’s number 20 Gelfand. Would the Anand that we saw the past few weeks have been able to hold against someone in the top 10?
Anand has too much difficulty handling pressure and looks far too much for safe ways. I think his white Kingsindian game against Naka painly showed Anands current weakness. This his last title!
People forgets this is the “Classical Chess Title”.
The basic rule is “The Man who conquers the Man is the Champion”.
Save the gap after Alyekhin´s death, ever the same : Anand conquers Kramnik who conquers Kasparov who conquers Karpov, and so on, till Steinitz.
Carlsen is a marvellous player. But, in a head to head struggle, things are very hard.
Remember the toughness of the ageing Botvinnik in past. There are a entire band of excelent players, with excelent tournament results. But, beats “The Man” was a very hard job.
Carlos Cleto
Rio de Janeiro
Nice to see your post, Susan. Many more to come, I hope!
I wonder if Anand could even beat Kasparov who’s rating he has not even yet exceeded. It is difficult for me to even think of Anand as world champion, other than an interim filler between Kasparov and Carlsen.
Terrible way to win such a match but whatever..Congrats Mr Anand. What this match showed is…Mr Anand is VERY vulnerable and anyone in the top 10 can probably beat him with a little luck. Congrats Mr Anand..for winning such a match. Congrats Mr Gelfand for ..well..staying there…and Congrats Fide for putting on the very best Ches Spectacle you could. See youz all in2 years…UGH..
it seemed to me that you were slightly biased towards gelfand throughout the match
I liked Jack’s post at 10.34. I can’t say how much Dragnet’s post straight after dismayed me! Yes of course this match proved that Carlsen is the best in the world! What else could it prove? Actually it was the World Championship match.
dragnet: Carlsen didn’t compete. No one is above the law, as they say.
While I normally have a soft corner for Anand, feel really sad for Gelfand today. Winning a world title is no small matter, and he came so close. He prepared hard, played well, but then blundered at two critical moments — …Qf6 in Game 8, and missing Nxe4 in Tiebreak-Game-3.
Anand more or less played coffee house tactics in the tie break, and also to save as black in the regular match. Gone are the sparks that led to his win in the round-robin world championship. If you don’t believe it, check out his game against Morozevich, move 40. Qa6 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1473834
This time, it was Gelfand vs Gelfand.
Anand needs to get back to Madrid and train, or hang up his boots (go out at the top of his game). He is an incredible human being, raises monies and awareness for charities, so he will always be doing a lot of good.
It seemed to me that you were slightly biased towards Anand throughout the match.
To those who bash Anand LISTEN
Head to Head encounters with Carlsen Anand leads. That itself shopws who is superior.
Anand matured greatly only after 2000/2002. So when Kasparov was in his prime Anand was inexperience and not matured. BUT now with Kasparov with all his powers in his prime time will get defated by Anand with all his maturity.
Anand beat Kramnik, Topalov and now Gelfand. Let’s not forget that Gelfand earned the right to play by beating the top players like Aronian.
Last anand plays not to entertain but to WIN. He shouldn’t get distracted by people who hate him for no worthy reason.
To those who bash Anand LISTEN
Head to Head encounters with Carlsen Anand leads. That itself shopws who is superior.
Anand matured greatly only after 2000/2002. So when Kasparov was in his prime Anand was inexperience and not matured. BUT now with Kasparov with all his powers in his prime time will get defated by Anand with all his maturity.
Anand beat Kramnik, Topalov and now Gelfand. Let’s not forget that Gelfand earned the right to play by beating the top players like Aronian.
Last anand plays not to entertain but to WIN. He shouldn’t get distracted by people who hate him for no worthy reason.
First, despite Anand’s popularity, in all the years I’ve been following chess (Spassky was champ when I started), only the mess of very temporary FIDE champions from 1999-2006 (Anand being one of them!) have impressed me less as champion than Anand has during his current reign. True, Fischer’s reign was worthless to the game, but there was very little doubt during those three years that he was the world’s best. Anand has never given me that impression, even when he beat Kramnik for his current crown.
Anand is not nearly active enough as world champion (I long for a tournament player like Karpov to be champ again), and barely got past a player everyone (including me) expected him to crush. I have no confidence in any notion that Anand, who was not in good form, would have won a 24-game match against Gelfand. I wish they would just bring back the 24-game format that served chess reasonably well in the past.
I miss the days when I could mention the name of the World Champion and say that he was undoubtedly the best in the word at the time. I could say that about Fischer from 1972-1975, I could say that about Karpov from 1981 to 1985 (it took a while for me to be sold on him), and I could say that about Kasparov during most of his reign (1987 or 1988 to 1999). I haven’t been able to say it about a World Champion since.
Bring back the time-tested 24-game format and I might just start to believe in a World Champion again. The current format is fun to watch but a horrible way to determine a champion. I’m not against the idea of testing all three forms of the game in a championship match (we all know Susan excels in all three and set records proving it), but I’d have liked to have SEEN all three. If you have to go to a tiebreaker after classical, why not show us rapid AND blitz?
(Don’t even get me started on the potential of the Armageddon game determining a champion – it sends chills up my spine to think of anyone backing into the title with a draw on a tiebreaker.)
One comment to this post sums it up nicely for me: “I wonder if Anand could even beat Kasparov who’s rating he has not even yet exceeded. It is difficult for me to even think of Anand as world champion, other than an interim filler between Kasparov and Carlsen.” While I will not join that commenter in dismissing the reign of Kramnik (anyone who can beat Kasparov in a match deserves at least some consideration), I share his overall sentiment – I would not bet a cent on Anand versus Kasparov or Carlsen. I wouldn’t even bet that he could beat Kramnik again.
By all accounts GM Anand seems likable, and it’s difficult to conclusively say that he’s an unworthy champion – he just strikes me as a completely unimpressive one. As I said, I just want a format which can make me believe in the champion again. The current one just isn’t doesn’t fit tbat bill.
The challengers come and disappear (Kramnik. Topalov, Gelfand). The aspirants pine in the shadows (Carlsen, Aronian). The Emperor Anand regally occupies his due peacock throne and waits for his next prey. Such grace and humility even in victory. If a half-streched Anand was better edged out Gelfand who played the match of his life, in his supreme form he would crush the rest.
@remington3200
– yeah you would accept karpov as champion who won title by default and had all the prep to be used in tournaments
– yeah you would accept garry who played with draw odds and had a 12-12 tie and got proclaimed as WC
you cant compare pre and post computer WC. if computers were not there Gelfand would be crushed by Anand. He is the better player. Proof Super GM’s Leko and Nepo missed Qf2 where anand saw it long back..
go back to 24 game format in todays world would kill chess. The days of WC has to made shorter not longer.
To the person who commented on my post anonymously:
1.) If you do the math on the years I listed in my post, you’ll see it took about six years for me to accept Karpov as the world’s best – largely BECAUSE of his winning the title by default. It’s not as if I proclaimed Karpov the world’s best the second he was handed the title.
2.) As for Kasparov’s 12-12 tie: that was in the fourth match and wasn’t nearly the advantage that Karpov had, which gave him (Karpov) an automatic return match a year after he lost the title. Kasparov won the return match without a tie.
3.) I don’t take two GMs missing a move Anand found as “proof” of your thesis at all. When Bobby Fischer played Bxh2 in the first game in 1972, every GM and IM (and most amateurs, too) watching knew Spassky had enough time to close in on the bishop. Does that “prove” those GMs and IMs were better than Fischer?
4.) If you don’t like the idea of a 24-game match, fine – but why not suggest an alternative idea instead of just cutting mine down?