Then why did you cite is as an example of a WCC rematch?! On one hand you cited Fischer Spassky 1992 as an example of a rematch, but now you admit that it wasn't. Then why did you cite it in the first place?

<It is not my fault if you cannot read between the lines if you cant even understand a simple explanation.>

I'm not supposed to "read between the lines." I'm supposed to read the the text in front of me.

<Of course, it is a champs privilege it is included and can you show me the contract between Kaspy and Kramnik?>

Huh? There was no rematch clause for Kasparov in his match against Kramnik. Ray Keene and Eric Schiller, both of whom had intimate involvement in the match negotiations, have explained why. Kasparov himself felt it was an unfair privilege.

You originally ask for a nonsense question regarding rematch of Fischer and Spassky despite that you know the actual situation of Fischer. Just to satisfy you look at the banner of 1992 match between Fischer and Spassky. Whether if you consider it serious or not its up to you but dont juggle with words then ask why that was the answer from your original question then you said first place??

<I'm not supposed to "read between the lines." I'm supposed to read the the text in front of me.>

You shouldn't read between the lines because you can't. The explanation is simple.

It was a rhetorical question to point out the absurdity of your claim that every champion had some sort of rematch right.

At this point you agree that Fischer Spassky 1992 wasn't a rematch, but at the time you cite it as an example that it was, but then you again claim this right was always there, including the case of Fischer.

<You shouldn't read between the lines ....>

I agree. I read the text in front of me and draw my conclusions from that. You're the one who expected me to read between the lines.

<noendgame> lol.

Anyways, all of this reminds me of a poem I once read:

<The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

—Feb. 12, 2002,

Donald Rumselfd

At this point you agree that Fischer Spassky 1992 wasn't a rematch, but at the time you cite it as an example that it was, but then you again claim this right was always there, including the case of Fischer.>

Tasteless rhetorical question just to support your ignorance.

<<You shouldn't read between the lines ....>

I agree. I read the text in front of me and draw my conclusions from that. You're the one who expected me to read between the lines.>

Yes, you agreed with your own words, LOL.

NO ONE @#$%ING CARES

Get a life... or a girl or something... autistic retards or strangers on computers thousands of miles away can NOT be that important...

unless you are a LOSER

unless you are a LOSER>

I agree completely with you. When people start insulting each other, instead of discussing the game or its moves, we all lose.

I mean, I gain absolutely nothing from watching two people or more insult each other.

I do from analysis of the game and its moves, or possible moves...

I hope we can continue learning together, and becoming better chessplayers, and getting some JOY out of it.

Insults take my joy away...I love chess, but I avoid negative people. So, please, let us keep it positive, and not waste our time on subjective matter about who was better than who, or what match was more important than which other match, etc....

No one can never convince anyone else of any point of view, so arguing is a big waste of time.

Best luck to all,

Yes, it is! Although Deep Shredder 11 still sees White as better after 27.Kd1 Nxd3 28. exd3 Rc8 29.f3 Kf8 30.Rc2 Rd8 31.b4 Kd7 32.Rc4 Rc8 33.h4 a6 34. Bb2 f6 35.h5 g6 36.h6 Rc6 37.Bd2 Kd6 (+1.27)

Anand: It was funny for me. I got in a good idea. Actually the move b6-Bb7 we didn’t take very seriously. We were looking at stuff that was much more direct like Rd8. He sacced his pawn, he went c5. It wasn’t obvious to me that it was necessary but he is worse. He is not going to get an easy draw, he is worse. When he sacced the pawn I thought, I have to make lots of embarrassing moves, come back, respond to his threats for a while but I keep the pawn. I was a bit surprised. It slowly became evident that he had really no compensation. I have to make some accurate moves but essentially he has no compensation. In the technical realization, there were one or two small mistakes I made which crept in which he didn’t exploit. There were ones where the tactical justification was harder. In the end he made lots of obvious moves but my responses were obvious as well. It went very smoothly. Round about the stage I go e4-e5 I just broke through.

<Q. You also got in a novelty on move 9?>

"quasi revolutionary?"

http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/cha...

Please go to his forum for details.

PART 1

<INTRODUCTION>

Anand vs Kramnik, 2008 is the <sixth game of the 2008 title match>, and quite possibly the decisive turning point of the match.

Quantitative mapping of this game between these players is below. Figures in brackets immediately after each move are final engine evaluations of each move. Each and every move has been subject to a minimum 16 ply (usually more, frequently many more) evaluation on the forward slide starting from the starting position, followed by a full reverse slide back to the starting position. Critical variations, especially those associated with designated blunders, were checked and rechecked on repeated forward and reverse slides until the valuations stabilized and this analyst was convinced of their accuracy.

Opening moves are included in this to generate the necessary hash tables that more comprehensively allow engine analysis. The reverse slide smoothed out most, but not all fluctuation in the engine’s evaluations. The complexity of some variations was too great to enable a fuller reconciliation from the reverse slide, hence the separate sliding evaluations of critical variations and sub variations. Moreover, the variations and levels in the engine’s evaluations of the opening moves are to some extent an artifact of the engine piggybacking earlier analysis of the game onto opening moves.

<General methods used are described in the bio.>

<SUMMARY>

Kramnik chose a difficult line to defend with his dubious innovation in the Nimzo-Indian, namely <9…b6>. Anand responded vigorously with <10. g4>, highlighting the weakness in Kramnik’s strategy. In an effort to free his game, Kramnik opted to sacrifice a pawn with <18…c5>. A few moves later with <26…f5>, Kramnik made his first <blunder>, before Anand let him off the hook with <29. Ke1>. In any event, Kramnik returned the favor by conceding his position with his second and final blunder, namely: <33…a4>. Anand made no further mistakes to wrap up the game, taking a close to unbeatable lead by game 6.

Even though three of the grandmasters’ moves in this game were defined as <blunders>, these errors are not at all obvious in this difficult and subtle game, and are as instructive as any other move in this game. In fact, none of the masters whose commentary I have copied and acknowledged in this exercise noticed that either <26…f5> or <29. Ke1> were blunders (a losing move, and a move conceding a winning position, respectively).

NOTE: The fact of the blunders at <26…f5> and <29. Ke1> were far from obvious to this analyst, and I spend a considerable amount of human and engine time verifying that this was in fact the case. The analysis I’ve included in this game should hopefully convince any skeptics.

Commentary from other observers are cited, all of whom made their commentary either during the game or shortly thereafter. If there is inconsistency between them, or between any of them and this analysis, it could be for all the obvious reasons, including different perceptions and also that immediate post facto analysis may not be as rigorous as more leisurely analysis conducted at a later date.

In no way is this analyst critical of any of the commentary provided by these masters. I am grateful to be able to access their thinking and comments, and stand in awe of their capacity to instantly spot features of the game that take this analyst many hours of study poring over a chessboard, with engine assistance, to appreciate. Furthermore, I respect their courage in committing their analyses and commentaries to the public domain either during the game (GM Polgar) or shortly afterwards (the others), and leaving them for later commentators and analysts to pick through and critique.

Nevertheless, where the analysis of the commentators differs from the analysis I have produced here, I will stand by my own work on the grounds that I have used a hideous amount of time, effort and resources to verify my findings. Any errors are of course my own, and if I’m informed of any and am convinced of their correctness, I will cheerfully incorporate them into my analyses, giving due accreditation. Commentators (in order of commentary appearance) are:

GM Miguel Illescas-Cordoba at http://www.uep-chess.com/cms_englis...

GM Zsuzsa Polgar at http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/200... commenting during the course of the game as it was being played live.

IM Malcolm Pein commenting for Chessbase at http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...

<THE GAME>

GAME MOVES 1-3:

Illescas-Cordoba: <”We saw today a game which probably may be decisive for the outcome of the match. Anand won for the third time, setting an almost unsurmountable advantage after only six games. White played again d4, but today allowed the Nimzoindian. Instead of the weird 4.f3, Anand went today for the Capablanca variantion 4.Qc2. In one of the main lines the world champion showed his superior preparation by introducing a novelty as early as move 9, so getting the initiative once again. Kramnik reacted well at the begginign to blunder later. "Deja vu" one frenchman would say. After snatching a pawn Anand went to win the game finding some precise moves at the critical moments.”>

<1. d4> (=0.14) <1…Nf6> (=0.14)

<2. c4> (=0.14) <2…e6> (=0.15)

<3. Nc3> (=0.15) <3…Bb4> (=0.15)

Polgar: <”Kramnik employs the Nimzo Indian.”>

GAME MOVE 4:

<4. Qc2> (=0.11)

Pein: <”Anand played the sharp 4.f3 in game two. This is a much more positional move. White avoids damage to his pawn structure if Black plays Bxc3+. and plays for the small advantage of the two bishops.”>

Rogers: <”Varying from 4.f3 played in game 2. Anand refuses to allow himself to become a target by using the same system twice with White.”>

GAME MOVE 4:

<4…d5> (=0.13)

Nimzo-Indian, Classical, Noa Variation (E34) apparently played for the first time in Euwe vs Alekhine, 1926

GAME MOVE 5:

<5. cxd5> (=-0.04) <5…Qxd5> (=0.25)

Pein: <”The most solid response developed by Oleg Romanishin. Black seeks a queen exchange via Qf5 or Qe4. 5...exd5 6.Bg5 c5 is the sharpest way to play and had led to many quick Black wins. I Sokolov vs Aronian, 2006 [37th Chess Olympiad (2006) and recently A Ushenina vs Kosteniuk, 2008 WWCC 2008 come to mind.”> [hot links added]

GAME MOVES 6-7:

<6. Nf3> (=0.19) <6…Qf5> ( 0.35)

<7. Qb3> (=0.05)

The exchange of Queens on f5 is the engine’s first preference ( 0.35), and is also numerically theory’s favorite as manifest in Opening Explorer), however, Anand’s response seems to be sharper, reducing the proportion of draws by almost a half.

Or as Pein puts it: <”But Anand wants to keep it complex.”>

Illescas-Cordoba: <”The only way to fight for the advantage in my opinion. [ The same players had this position some years ago, but with opposite colors. It was a quiet draw: 7. Qf5 ef5 8.a3 Bd6 9. Nb5 Be6 10.e3 Nc6 11. Bd2 Ne4 12. Bd3 a6 13. Nd6 cd6 14. Ke2 Kd7 15. Rhc1 Rhc8 16. Be1 Ne7 17. Ng1 b5 18.f3 Nf6 19. Bh4 Nfd5 20. Be7 ½-½ Kramnik,V (2790)-Anand,V (2770)/Frankfurt 1998]” (Kramnik vs Anand, 1998) – link added>

<7. Qb1> (=0.15) is the engine’s second preference (<7…Ne4 8.Bd2 Bxc3 9.Bxc3 b6 10.e3 Bb7 11.Qc2 0-0 12.Bd3 Qg4 13.Rg1 Nxc3 14.Ne5 Qh5 15.Qxc3 Na6>, however, there are no records on the CG.com database of this move having been played.

Theory’s third favorite move, <7. Qd1> has the best percentage of wins for White in a limited set of games, but does not figure in the engine’s top three.

GAME MOVE 7:

<7…Nc6> (=0.05)

Illesascas-Cordoba: <”Anand himself defended the black side with another setup early this year: 7...c5 8.a3 Ba5 9.Qc4 Bc3 10.Qc3 Nbd7 11.g4 Qg4 12.dc5 Nd5 13. Qc2 Qf5 14.Qc4 Ne5 15. Ne5 Qe5 16. Bg2 Bd7 17. Bd5 ½-½ Eljanov,P (2692) - Anand,V (2799)/Wijk aan Zee 2008” > [Eljanov vs Anand, 2008

GAME MOVE 8:

<8. Bd2> (=0.05)

Polgar: <”So far, these are all book moves. The common move here is 8...0-0 “>

GAME MOVES 8-9:

<8…0-0> (=0.05)

<9. h3> (=0.05):

click for larger view

Anand’s innovation and the engine’s first preference, ahead of <9. e3>.

Polgar: <” I have not seen this move before. It does not seem to be too dangerous. I think it is more to gain an edge psychologically. Kramnik is now taking his time after moving quite rapidly until now.”>

Pein: <” New! Previously 9.e3 was standard. This gives Vlad a lot to worry about. The g4 thrust might be a prelude to an attack or it might leave the queen short of squares.”>

Rogers: <” Another new idea from Anand's box of tricks. Having been caught out thinking too long in other games, Kramnik decides to make a practical move quickly but he fails to completely solve his opening problems. 9.e3 was the standard move.”>

GAME MOVE 9:

<9…b6> ( 0.65)

Polgar: <” With this move, Black has a few options to develop his light color Bishop (b7 or a6) based on how his opponent will develop his f1 Bishop. White has a potentially interesting plan with 10.g4, eventually castling on the queen side and launch an attack on the Kingside. However, I am not sure if it is wise to play in risky fashion when up by 2 points. On the hand, if he succeeds, the match is basically over.”>

Rogers: <” "A strange move" intoned Anatoly Karpov. " 9...Rd8 looks logical."

"It's a strange opening," Kramnik countered.”>

Illescas-Cordoba: <”[!?] After ten minutes thinking Kramnik finds a fine positional move. Black is going to follow a "light squares strategy", with a clear cut plan. Anand was took by surprise. [Probably the natural 9...Rd8 was well analysed by Anand and his team; The attempt to get freedom with 9...e5?! is met by 10.g4]”>

This is still the only game in the database in which this move was played. Given the result of this game, and the difficulties into which his position drifts as a result of this move, that may not be surprising. It does nothing to quell White’s expansionary plans on the king side, and leaves him in lasting difficulties. The engine’s first preference, <9…h5>, seems apposite, especially as the game could well revert to <10. e3>, although this doesn’t seem to have been played yet in elite play.

Subsequently in 2009, <9…a5 10. g4 Qg6 11. a3> was played twice: once in S Arun Prasad vs G Kjartansson, 2009 during the Scottish Championships, in which Black won quite handily in 41 moves, and also in E Gasanov vs P Maletin, 2009 during the Russian Team Championships when White won in 54 moves.

In 2010 during the European Individual Championships (2010), Black played <9…Rd8> in the game M Neubauer vs B Juranic, 2010 and lost in 45 moves.

<Engine preferences>:

1. <9...h5> (=0.05): <10.e3 a6 (preventing <11. Nb5>) with equality, eg:

a. <11.Ne4 Nxe4 12.Bxb4 Nxb4 13.Qxb4 Bd7 14.Rc1 (if 14. Qxb7 Qa5+ wins) 14…Bb5 15.Bxb5 axb5 16.a3 c6 17.Qe7 Rab8 >

click for larger view

and the game is equal.

b. White might try something like <11. Nb1> and Black has a number of equalizing moves, including <11…Be7> and <11…Qa5>. Even <11…Qd5> is quite playable, although <12. Bc4 Qd6> seems to give White a small advantage.

2. Black also has <9...Bxc3> (=0.18): and after <10. Bxc3>, Black can <now> play <10…b6>; eg: <11.e3 Bb7 12.Qb5 Nd5 13.Bd3 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Qxb5 15.Bxb5 Ne7 16.Ke2 a5 17.a3 f6 18.Bd3 Rad8 19.c4 f5 20.Rab1 Kf7>

and the endgame is fairly equal.

3. Another option that seems available to Black is to hunker down with <9...Qg6> (=0.22); <10.g4 Rd8 11.e3 Bd7>:

click for larger view

Black is fine.