Give Carlsen credit.

He plays defense very well.

And the astonishing thing is that for him there is still room for improvement in that area.

The player who will outdo Carlsen one day, (whosoever that may be) will be someone who can do everything Carlsen does, but even better.

Anand's play was weak in either case, perhaps under the influence of missed opportunity.

I have to say that I learned from this game and that Carlsen opening approach here (completely positional) is quite a revelation to me. I would have eliminated 7. Qd3 and yet here on my surprise WC is playing it and achieving superior opening position. I don't play Kan as black but I see 7. ... Nc6 also as a strange opening move as one would expect Qc7 in Kan keeping queens on the board. I am assuming Anand was going for simplification in center as next few moves were to Carlsen's taste and to be expected.

This looks right. Anand was doing OK. Carlsen still had work to do.

I think Anand would have played a lot better and put up more of a fight had he not realised he had missed a great shot.

It's best not to know. After he realised what had happened he seemed to drift.

This is the drawback of being a good player. You can spot what you have missed and keep mulling over it. Though Anand has all the experience to know that one must get over it, especially during a game. Carlsen did.

A weaker player would have been blissfully unaware and just got on enjoying the game.

I usually recovered after a blunder, though that is often because my opponent posted a win in their mind.

G Chandler vs R Ratcliff, 1983

I'm using this game because it's here, but I have score books full of these...er...brilliant wins...er...cheapo's.

That will give you a good laugh.
My 8th move dropped a clear piece. (I had already sacced a piece for fun.) Move 8 was a total no excuse blunder.

I had to sac another bit and then my pseudo my Queen to get the win.

Hi Overgod,

Some good points there.

In a nutshell you may be correct.

In general Carlsen is not trying to beat you he just wants you to keep up with him in making good moves.

If you don't then....BANG!

If you do, then OK, there is always the next game.

Let me explain: Carlsen is currently the strongest Chess player on the planet, and this is justifiably reflected by his World Number 1 and World Champion status. He is simply the best. However, to beat Carlsen one has to play aggressively as dynamic play is perhaps the only way to beat Carlsen. This is because Carlsen's greatest Chess strength lies in positional mastery. To beat Carlsen through solid, quiet play is well nigh impossible as he cannot be 'bested' in this kind of play (perhaps only Kramnik might come close IMO). And that is not to imply that Carlsen is no good at tactics; he is. Carlsen and all GMs are well rounded in all aspects of the game.

However, please note the following: in all Carlsen 6 losses to other Grandmasters this year (2014), the games were all (100%) tactical-dynamic oriented.

1) Fabiano Caruana demolished Carlsen twice whilst playing Black where Caruana gains initiative early on and bullies Carlsen all the way to the finish. Carlsen is no tactical novice thus "struts his stuff" but is bested in the end.

2) Teimour Radjabov employed the King's Indian Defence in a highly tactical game where both players were fighting for initiative. Pieces and were flying right, left and centre until Teimour triumphed!

3) Naiditsh played Black against Carlsen's Bishop Opening and seized the initiative from Carlsen in a highly tactical game that Carlsen lost.

4) Finally, Saric played an old line of the Ruy Lopez that is full of traps; Carlsen seemed to match him up to a point but Saric triumphed in this highly tactical slug-fest!

That statement I believe is objectively not true as Anand not too many ago went undefeated in a tournament playing 7 of the world's top players twice. If there was such a terrible weakness in his game, one of these other top players should have found a way to exploit it.

I stand by my comments; to beat Carlsen, though he is perfectly well rounded, your best chance is to be aggressive!!#>

Going into the 2013 match, Carlsen's last four losses had all been long endgames in which he had the white pieces.

I didn't think the Radjabov game was all that tactical, actually.

"If there was such a terrible weakness in his [Carlsen's] game, one of these other top players should have found a way to exploit it."

I agree, and if one of these other top players want to expose this weakness and snatch the crown they will have to do it in a full bloodied match, not a one off tournament game.

"Anand is playing some openings outside of his usual repertoire."

"....but the current opinion is that 26...a4 wasn't losing and that 26...xe5+ might not even be winning."

26...a4 may still hold but 25...Nxe5+ winning two pawns, spinning the game heavily in Anand's favour and shattering Carlsen's confidence was the way to go.

There is still work to do after 26...Nxe5+ but it's Carlsen fighting for the draw. I'm sure Anand would not have lost it.

In such a hypothetical scenario, it does not necessarily follow that Carlsen would be "in a real bad situation."