When Carlsen killed the queen: His sounder match strategy helped him win a third chess world title

The world championship ended in absolutely spectacular fashion. On his 26th birthday (November 30), the world champion, Magnus Carlsen, played a stunning queen sacrifice to checkmate and defeat the challenger, Sergey Karjakin, by 9-7. Carlsen had just 1 minute 40 seconds left; Karjakin was down to 32 seconds. Any other move would have cost Carlsen the game.  

The match went down to the wire. After 12 games at a long time control, it was tied with one win each.  That meant four rapid games to be played out in a mini-match tie-breaker. Carlsen won the third rapid game to lead 1-0. But Karjakin could hope to equalise by winning game four. That would have forced more tie -breakers at an even faster control. 

 

Magnus Carlsen

This world title match featured the youngest-ever pair (Karjakin was born on January 12, 1990). Both players played rationally but without much flair. Both had chances. Carlsen dominated the classical phase somewhat. But Karjakin is an incredibly stubborn defender and held on in situations where others might have mentally disintegrated. 

The match never really hit great heights in terms of quality. This is sad but inevitable when two really good players are jockeying without being willing to risk much. Neither pulled off any bombshell opening surprises. Half the classical games lacked content, leading to flat draws. 

The first two games were straightforward draws. Carlsen got on top in Game 3 and Game 4. But Karjakin succeeded in saving positions that frankly, looked dead lost. Carlsen admitted that he had never quite seen a clear win in #3, (though the computers say it’s there). In #4 , Karjakin created a defensive fortress, a chakravyuha Carlsen had not considered. It couldn’t be broken. After pulling off those two excellent rearguard actions, Karjakin got an edge for the first time in Game 5. But he couldn’t convert either. The next two games were drawn rather quickly.

Game 8 was the first decisive effort. Carlsen said he had “negative thoughts” while playing, and over-pressed, getting into a losing position. Karjakin failed to find the best shots in time trouble. The position equalised while staying sharp. Then Carlsen decided he “had” to win and overpressed again. This time, Karjakin converted.  

The Norwegian Grandmaster normally keeps firm control of his emotions, and his public behaviour is usually impeccable (though he has a wicked sense of humour in private). However, as he confessed later, “I was in a very bad mental space” after that loss. He arrived for the post-game conference — and promptly left two minutes later before it began. (He’s likely to forfeit 10 per cent of his prize money). 

He said after the match that he found it very difficult to focus on the process rather than results in the next game. This showed in his hesitant play. In Game 9, he gambled on a risky line and Karjakin went for the throat, gaining a big initiative. On move 39, the Russian calculated deeply and sacrificed a piece for what looked like a strong attack. But Carlsen found the best defence and forced a draw. The computers “believed” that a quiet move no 39, might have won it for Karjakin. 

That was the highlight of the match for Karjakin, who could easily have been 2-0 up with three games to play. Relieved, Carlsen returned to even keel psychologically. He played solidly in Game 10 to graft a typical Carlsen win. Even the Russian’s fantastic defensive skills were finally found wanting in a long endgame, where he faced continuous pressure. The score was 1-1. 

Game 11 saw a short sharp draw. Both players looked to win but it ended in perpetual check in a position where both had exhausted all resources. 

Chess

Game 12 saw Carlsen taking a cold-blooded rational decision. He had white, and white wins much more often than black due to the advantage of making the first move. But he decided not to stake the title on that single game. Instead, he forced a quick draw, confident that he held the edge in faster tie-breakers. 

The head-to-head in rapid was only 6-4 in favour of Carlsen (it’s now 8-4 in his favour). But the Norwegian’s overall record suggests he is by far, the better rapid and blitz player. He is rated #1 at rapids to Karjakin’s #4. The rating difference predicts that Carlsen should score about 67 per cent in a rapid match, whereas the rating difference in long controls suggests he should only score 55 per cent. Carlsen will lose rating points in classical and gain points in rapid play once the match results are calculated. 

There are technical reasons why Carlsen is the superior fast-control player. He takes quick, rational decisions and is happy to play a good move, rather than spending a long time seeking the very best try. In contrast, Karjakin is a perfectionist. Moreover, Karjakin is more  defence-oriented, and defence is much harder at fast controls. In many positions, the defender must find the very best move, whereas the attacker has many reasonable options. 

In addition, there’s the matter of being in practice. Carlsen’s been world champion at all controls and he recently won speed matches against Alexander Grischuk and Hikaru Nakamura. So his “eye” was in. 

Carlsen’s confidence was justified. 

Karjakin confessed that he did not make the mental switch required for rapid controls and that he played badly. He could, in fact, have lost Game 2, which he saved by a miracle. Game 3 saw Carlsen in total domination mode and Game 4 also saw really good play from the world champion. 

In sporting terms, as opposed to quality, it was a pretty good match. Carlsen was behind and came back. Both players had their chances. In the end, Carlsen deserved it more because he did play better and he had the better match strategy. 

Karjakin had the enormous resources of Mother Russia behind him. He has the ambition and talent to challenge again. But he might have been “over-prepared”. He said he couldn’t remember everything at the board, which meant too much analysis and maybe, too much internal tension. He said, he would want to be in better sporting form the next time, rather than preparing openings in more depth. 

This was Carlsen’s third title match and he was tested much more by Karjakin than by Viswanathan Anand who was his opponent in the first two. Karjakin doesn’t have stamina issues unlike the Indian Grandmaster who is 20 years older than Carlsen.  

Carlsen is arguably the most error-free player ever and his record is incredible. But he belongs to a monstrously talented generation. Apart from Karjakin, Fabiano Caruana, Hikaru Nakamura, Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, Wesley So, Anish Giri are all top 10 players in the same age-group. Each has title ambitions. They will all have taken note of the chinks in Carlsen’s armour. He’ll have a real fight on his hands again, when he defends his title in 2018.

---

Fact box

• The match was played at the Fulton Market Building, New York, between November 11-30.
• The prize fund was the minimum stipulated for a title match of Euro 1 million, split 60:40. 
• They played 12 long games. Each player played six whites and six blacks. 
• The long-time control is 40 moves in 100 minutes, plus 50 minutes added at move 40, and 15 minutes added at move 60, with 30 seconds increment per move throughout. 
• Karjakin won Game 8. Carlsen won #10. 
• Four rapid games were played, with 25 minutes each, and an increment of 10 seconds per move.
• Carlsen won rapid #3 and rapid #4 to win the match 9-7. 

“Hot news” 

• Over 10 million people viewed the match online on the official site and over 10,000 visited the venue physically. About 90 per cent of the traffic was via smartphone. Many millions more watched it on other chess sites, despite attempts to prevent real time coverage elsewhere. 
• The organiser, World Chess US, (Inc.) sued websites, Chess24.com and Chessgames.com for “(1) misappropriation of hot news, and (2) breach of contract”. This was in spite of having lost a similar case against Chess24.com in Russia a week before the match. 
• The organiser’s contention is that this is “hot news”, which should confer exclusive rights to disseminate it until the game ends. The opposed argument is that it is in the public domain, like cricket, basketball or tennis scores. The “hot news” argument has been made (and rejected) for basketball in US courts.  
• In a hearing before Game 1, US judge Victor Marrero rejected the argument that the organisers had a legal right to exclusively publish moves until each game ended.