But what impressed me most was the way Anand simplified when he was short on time with 37. Qh5, allowing his f5-f6 push that evacuated the menacing f5 square for his N along with controlling g7. He saw already on move 37, that after the simplifications following Bg7+, the R+N endgame (resulting 6 moves later), will be lost in case black's d6 pawn will fall (again due to the Nf5), or when black will give up the exchange instead, he will be lost since his K will be too far (and cut) from defending the critical d6 pawn (again). Its quite clear that Anand already saw those ideas on move 34 (even if not exact variations), when he sac the exchange.

Before I go any further I have to say I do not like this variation. d4 locks it and gives Black the c5 square for a Knight. It's a pro and con situation. Some will like it, some not. I like Black.

The game and the Kingside attack.

Perhaps allowing the whole Nh2-g4-h6 manoeuvre was an error.

Here:

Instead of 19...Bc8 which is far too late and displays some jittery play from Carlsen, how's about 19...h5.

click for larger view

That stops the Ng5 idea and whilst the Knight are getting themselves re-organised step out of the f6 pin and get the Queenside going.

And don't balk. h5 holding up a White attack figures in the KID and the Dragon.

If you are looking for a smoking gun I'm up for 26...f6 here:

click for larger view

He's inviting f5 (which was played the next move). Moving pawns where you are weaker was a known no-no back in the days of Steinitz.

He's banked on Anand taking back on d3 here.

click for larger view

when after 29.Qxd3 Qb6+ Black is back in it.

When you play moves like f6 you just know there will be a White cute move somewhere and Anand is of the class to find it. White's 29.Qd1!

Carlsen missed it but his hackles should have been up and f6 avoided as long as possible. Generate some counter-play and only play f6 type moves if forced. 26...f6 is not forced.

What was it is my Grandad said:

"Stop doing that or you will go blind."

No it was about chess.

"Never have a pop at a move unless you can offer an alternative."

Slip in 26...Qb6 or maybe having the highest 4 digit number since Greco was in nappies means one longer needs to stoop to hacking.

click for larger view

Put some cheapo's on the board, wreck his train of thought, upset him, bluff him, plant a seed of doubt. Fight, trick trap and steal.

White will have to deal with it then play Nb3 kick a Queen the to e-file and consider exf4 and Ne5.

Anand's good but he has a history and Black needs a blunder to get back into the game. He won't do it playing like one of Capablancca's I'll roll over and you mate me opponents.

Here: I wonder what was going through the players minds.

click for larger view

Carlsen played 33....g5. First he invites a free f5 and now he could have made Anand's move for him. 34.h4.is so obvious.

I was thinking of 33...Bc8

click for larger view

And here I'm wondering - Did both players see the Queen Sac starting with fxg6.

Surely Carlsen must have seen 33...Bc8 as nicking the exchange on f1 is not putting up a fight. The defensive plan with this Bxf1 move was to sac-back the exchange for that h6 Bishop.

I cannot decide other than it looks good for White. Not one I'd like to defend against Annand.

There again would Anand have sacced his Queen, his position after Bc8 is still good and in this line he does not lose the exchange.

Anand has always been a class act, he's played some attacking masterpieces and still has a few good years left, but I bet if he is honest he will say this was a lot easier than he expected. He faced no counter play at all.

Carlsen had two threat in the entire game. 31...Nc5 chasing the Queen to very square it wanted to go and 32...Ba6 which was just ignored.

It seems to me that Carlsen in this game did not play as actively as he usually does, and as <Sally simpson's> analysis shows.

(BTW I prefer analyzing and reading such analysis, which explains the reasons for the moves and what might the players been thinking. Lots of analysis in this site seem to be copy-pasted from chess computers without much explanation. IMO this won't help any beginner or 'patzer' improve his chess, but will tend to turn them into computer-obssessed eval watchers.)

It's possible that Carlsen's loss on time to Topalov has affected him, made him less decisive. I believe that playing the closed Spanish against the likes of Anand may not be smart under certain circumstances, especially in one where your equanimity may have been shattered in previous games.

Playing the closed Spanish against Anand means you must be prepared for an active defense, since playing automatically will get you into a defensive positions with little counter-play, just as in this game.

I gave links to the old games of Capablanca, Fischer, and Karpov, just to demonstrate how dangerous White's advantages are in the closed Spanish if met by passive Black play. Playing Black passively in a closed Spanish against these guys was suicide. Anand is not far off from them. Anand can confidently be expected to torture or impale you if you play the closed Spanish against him without the necessary mental attitude.

<Sally Simpson> Nice comprehensible analysis.

Oh for [fill in blank]'s sake!

The intended pun was on Magnus, which sounds like "agnus": "Agnus Dei" means "lamb of God" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnus...).

But "magnus" too is a latin word, meaning "great." So the words "Ecce Magnus Dei" translate literally as "Behold great of God."

While Karpov was virtually impossible to defeat during that epoch--outside his matches with Korchnoi, one or two losses per year was not at all unusual, therefore two such noughts in October Revolution 60th Anniversary (1977) was extraordinary--his play was not necessarily safety first, a la Petrosian, a point noted by Botvinnik circa 1978.

<....Then Kasparov came along and proved that crazy tactical play can occasionally trump the sound and the safe, but only because Karpov decided to play him in his tactical ball park.>

It will be noted that Karpov's loss in the decisive game of Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match (1985) featured Karpov sticking to his tried and true 1.e4, but in subsequent matches, he shifted largely to 1.d4, staying altogether within the realm of semi-closed or close openings.

From Karpov vs Kasparov, 1985, there is some enlightening kibitzing by <DrMAL>, a user once familiar hereabouts, though regrettably, no longer. In particular, the discussion of style by Kasparov is of interest: