click for larger view

White's problem is that he has to avoid the doubled pawn pair on d4 & d5: 15 ed4? gh4 16 Qd3 Qg5 and those two bishops look really bad (White is worse here). 15 Bd4 is better but after 15...Bd4 16 ed4 gh4 17 Qd3 Qf6 the game is about equal. Finally 15 Nf3?! runs into 15...Nc2!. So White's only move here is <15 Qd3> and Black keeps the pressure on d4 by <15...Qf6!>

click for larger view

Still using the positional threat of creating the d4-d5 doubled pawn pair. <16 Rfd1 > Natural. <16...gh4 17 Bd4 Qg5>

click for larger view

10...g5 traps White's knight. The reason it is not good is that Black is not able to accept the knight as White gains a winning attack. The exposure of Black's game is of greater value to White than the knight.

In his book <Chess fundamentals> Capablanca says of the move 10 Nd5 in the game W Winter vs Capablanca, 1919 <White falls into the trap. Only lack of experience can account for this move. White should have considered that a player of my experience and stregth could never allow such a move if it were good.>

With reference to the game W Winter vs Lasker, 1936 William Winter said < His attitude to chess is well exemplified by a game which I played against him in the Nottingham International Tournament of 1936. After over half an hour's thought I placed a Knight on a square on which it could be taken by a pawn. Lasker replied instantaneously with a quiet defensive move and I soon found that all I had gained by my "brilliancy" was the loss of valuable thinking time.

After the game was over a spectator asked him what would have happened had he taken the Knight. "I do not know," he replied. "I was playing a strong master and if a strong master thinks for half an hour and then plays a piece where I can take it, I think that it will not be healthy for me to take, and I let it alone."> (William Winter, Kings of Chess)

Yes, it seems like just as Anand was beginning to overcome his previous "difficult opponent" Aronian, a new one emerged on to the scene.

Kasparov would understand, adapt and change whole opening setup after first or second loss; Kasparov always showing great pragmatism like Fisher who dropped sicilian as black straight after first defeat to Spassky

I agree. Fantastic transformation out of nowhere, which obviously stunned Anand, who had pinned his hopes on the otherwise ingenious 13...Nd4.

Nakamura was proud of finding 14 d3. He said he tried to make 14 f3 work, and couldn't, then discovered 14 d3.

You are hereby consigned to outer darkness, along with all your sockpuppets, ruminants, and stomachs.

This is a case, I think, where it is better to offer concrete analysis than precepts and principles. *Why* exactly is the exposure of Black's game of greater value to White than the Knight?

<"I was playing a strong master and if a strong master thinks for half an hour and then plays a piece where I can take it, I think that it will not be healthy for me to take, and I let it alone."> I made precisely this mistake against IM Alex Lopez in a tournament game a couple of years ago. In a sharp position - I was Black in a French Tarrasch - I could see a line that apparently won a piece for two pawns. But I refused to believe it -- I thought there had to be something bad for me in the complications. But there wasn't. Sadly, I played a 2nd-best move which should have been equal, and wound up losing the ending by a single tempo.

Also, here are a couple of examples of Lasker accepting piece sacrifices obviously prepared in advance.

Steinitz vs Lasker, 1896

I am not sure about equality Black is better at the end of the line given by Nakamura. Here is the position after 16...Bf3:

click for larger view

17 h3 hg3 18 fg3 (forced) 18...Qg5 19 Kh2 (forced) 19...Qd5

click for larger view

Nakamura indicated that Anand walked into his computer preparation and got a position where human moves were insufficient and computer moves were necessary.

Some questions for you, Ulhumbrus: Do you think Anand is @#$%* retarded? Do you really think it didn't occur to him that he was walking into prep? Just like Capablanca did against Marshall -- and won? Just like Lasker did against Steinitz and Schlechter -- and won?

<The moral? Don't trust your opponent, no matter how strong they are.>

That's it. Moreover: "trusting" in general, rather than thinking, is one of the hallmarks of a weak chess player. Not beginners, but many of those who never break out of the 1200 - 1800 range. They often make moves based on something they "learned" one way or another: "doubled pawns are bad," "each piece should move once in the opening before any other," "don't move the pawns in front of your king's castled position." Etc. etc.