GM Anand (2791) – GM Aronian (2750) [D47]
Linares (2), 20.02.2009
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3 Bd6 9.0–0 0–0 10.Qc2 Bb7 11.a3 a6 12.Ng5 Bxh2+ 13.Kxh2 Ng4+ 14.Kg1 Qxg5 15.f3 Ngf6 16.e4 Qh4 17.Be3 e5 18.Ne2 Nh5 19.Qd2 h6 20.Rfd1 Rae8 21.Bc2 Re6 22.Bf2 Qe7 23.g4 Rg6 24.Kf1 Nhf6 25.Ng3 Nxg4 26.fxg4 Qh4 27.Nf5 Qxg4 28.Qc3 Re8 29.Qg3 Qh5 30.Qh4 Qf3 31.Rd3 Qg2+ 32.Ke2 exd4 33.Rg3? This move turned the tide. Even though the position was complicated, White was better until this move.
33…Rxg3 34.Qxg3 Rxe4+ 35.Kd2 Rg4 36.Qxg2 Rxg2 37.Ke2 c5 38.Rg1 Ne5 39.Rxg2 Bxg2 40.Kd2 h5 41.b4 Nc4+ 42.Kc1 Nxa3 43.Bd1 cxb4 44.Bxh5 g6 45.Ne7+ Kf8 46.Nxg6+ fxg6 47.Bxg6 Ke7 48.Bxd4 Kd6 49.Bd3 Nc4 50.Bg7 a5 51.Be2 Be4 52.Bf6 a4 53.Bg7 Kd5 Black wins 0–1
Click here to replay the game.
He looks like a little boy enjoying his christmas gifts…
okay
as an Aronian fan I am happy with the win, but indeed Anand outplayed Levon until Rg3. (instead Rxd4! wins for white)
What is most shocking to me is the fact that Anand always played the Rybka move and twice a even better one (!).
That is Rybka had a move as best with eval 0.51 for white, Anand played a different move (Qb3) and eval jumped to 0.88 – really scary.
Its dissapointing to see Anand lose this . Rg3 was a move that simply didnt make sense .The tactics was always there for Anand to see and it was not difficult . The problem is , it is hard to get motivated when you lose games like that..but lets hope Anand does better.
This is a really bad loss for Anand. To lose with White via a blunder when you’re already winning is pretty tough to take. He overlooked the simple recapture and instead opted for complications. Bummer.
You have to remember Anand is a “coffee house player” who can’t handle himself too well in the middle or end game. He needs some trick or trap to win. Expect Topalov to crush him like a tin can. Topalov by the way is the real world chess champion, but because of Kramnik’s access to Deep Fritz at Elista he was jipped out of the title.
Anand sacrifized (blundered??) this pawn after Ng5 followed by Bxh2+.
I followed the game at the chessok broadcast so I had the rybka opinion that white was slightly better after that.
Can anyone tell me why? Did the bishops pair and the strong center really give more than compensation for the pawn?
In my eyes white was worse after that…
Best wishes
Jochen
@Jochen: First I am pretty convinced that Anand deliberately sacrificed the pawn and did not blunder – while Ng5 was apparently a novelty in this very position, it has been played before in similar lines (see reports on Chessbase and Chessvibes). And Anand had certainly done some homework before the game … .
About white’s compensation: One shouldn’t forget that the h2 pawn is not the most important one on the entire board …. (maybe too obvious to mention, maybe not). I see only two situations where black could actually use his extra h-pawn:
1) if he takes over the attack on the kingside
2) in a very distant endgame.
About 1), that’s what Aronian actually did, but first he had to sacrifice material in return.
About 2): “Gods put the middlegame before the endgame”. As you are German (so am I), this is actually a quote from an old German master (Tarrasch or one of his contemporaries?).
Maybe it is surprising that Rybka (“and colleagues”) took this into account – I wonder what the computer evaluation would have been say ten years ago when the machines were still more materialistically inclined.
Thomas, thank you for your good explanation.
You’re right that the endgame may be far distant but I’ve played many of such games myself (and have seen many others) – one side being down a pawn for initiative (that appears often in my games as I really like “blunder” pawns away in the opening for an open f file or something like that). And I often saw this compensation slip away slowly as with the proceeding game material is exchanged.
Of course in my patzer class the sac/blunder for the initiative is often enough to win a nice attacking game but against stronger players I mostly lost to there good defense (carefully defending and winning this pawn up endgame later).
So I ask myself how such a game ends between masters as Aronian and Anand!?
Probably if Aronian wouldn’t have countersacrifized we would have seen such a game…
I have to fully agree in your point about that it is great seeing computers being able to recognize this dynamic advantage Anand had for the pawn.
Once more thanks for your answer!
Best wishes
Jochen
PS: Google sagt auch, dass das Zitat von Tarrasch kommt. Kennt man natürlich wirklich.
(end of the german part :))
Hi Jochen,
This is interesting, and similar discussions are (still) going on all over the Internet … . I agree with you that it is always risky to sacrifice a pawn, because you may never get it back whereas your compensation may slip away. But I think it is a tiny bit irrelevant to compare a super-GM game with games by you or me (I am rated 1930) against stronger players.
I think if Aronian hadn’t “mixed things up” by sacrificing a piece in return Anand may have slowly squeezed him to death (as in his 1st round game against Radjabov). The extra pawn would have been little consolation, and he wouldn’t have reached the endgame.
It is always fun to compare game analyses by different people, in the present case GM Rogozenko on Chessbase and Dennis Monokroussos (American FM rated 2300) on Chessmind. They have slightly different opinions on two critical moments of the game (maybe reflecting their own styles more than anything else), but agree that Aronian’s piece sacrifice was the best, if not the only option.
Here we go:
GM Rogozenko:
23.g4! The World Champion shouldn’t be asked twice. Anand simply follows the strongest plan for White: g4 followed by Ng3-f5, increasing the space advantage on the kingside without being afraid of possible weaknesses, since Black’s attacking potential is insufficient.
25…Nxg4. A wise practical decision from Aronian. Objectively it doesn’t change the evaluation: White will have a clear advantage after it, but suddenly Anand will have to solve defensive problems as well. [25…Qe6 26.Nf5 White gets what he wants: an easy play with great compensation for the pawn.
FM Monokroussos:
23.g4!? VERY risky. The idea is to drive the knight back and then play Ng3-f5. If that happens without Black’s putting up a fuss, White will grind his opponent into paste. Still, the old cliche about pawns not moving backwards is a cliche for a reason. Case in point: this game.
25. – Nxg4! Of course. Black gets three pawns and enduring attacking chances for the piece. Objectively, White may be better, but his position is not easy to consolidate and a single error can cost him the game.
Monokroussos turned out to be right in the end … but it is difficult to say to what extent the result of the game influenced his comments.