The Carlsen years (3): A stubborn defender

by Carlos Alberto Colodro
11/25/2021 – With the World Championship match in Dubai scheduled to kick off on Friday, we get ready for the showdown between Magnus Carlsen and Ian Nepomniachtchi by recapping the four previous matches, which were all won by Carlsen (two of them in rapid playoffs). In the third instalment, we recapitulate what went on at the Fulton Market building in Lower Manhattan, where Carlsen came back from behind in the classical games before beating Sergey Karjakin in the rapid tiebreakers. | Photo: Anastasiya Karlovich

Winning starts with what you know
The new version 18 offers completely new possibilities for chess training and analysis: playing style analysis, search for strategic themes, access to 6 billion Lichess games, player preparation by matching Lichess games, download Chess.com games with built-in API, built-in cloud engine and much more.

Down on the scoreboard, for once

Magnus CarlsenMagnus Carlsen’s third World Championship match was perhaps the most difficult. For the first time, the Norwegian needed to come back from behind, as it was his opponent who scored a win first — and he did it in game 8 (out of 12). The world champion had been struggling to make the most of his small edges against a tough defender, but in the end managed to level the score and win the deciding rapid tiebreakers.

The new challenger was Russian grandmaster Sergey Karjakin, who was born the same year as Carlsen. Karjakin openly talked about the massive investment he made during his preparation, as he received plenty of support from the Russian Federation. Given how the match went, the hard work paid off. Karjakin was more than ready to enter complex lines in the Ruy Lopez and the Italian — to name two of the systems seen during the match — against a player who by then had demonstrated that he is one of the best in the history of the game.

Qualifying to challenge Carlsen was no easy task. Karjakin reached the final round of the 2016 Candidates Tournament tied atop the standings with Fabiano Caruana. Coincidentally, the two co-leaders were paired up against each other in round 14. A draw was likely to favour Karjakin (it all depended on the Svidler vs Anand game, in that case) and the Russian had the white pieces. Caruana pushed too hard for a win and ended up losing the deciding encounter.

In the match, which took place at the Fulton Market building in the South Street Seaport in Lower Manhattan, two rather quiet draws were followed by a series of three games in which first Carlsen (games 3 and 4) and then Karjakin (game 5) failed to take advantage of small chances to score the first win of the match. As the tension rose, Karjakin’s win in a topsy-turvy eighth game prompted Carlsen to leave the press conference before it began.

Would the young champion lose his crown against an obstinate opponent? It turned out the Norwegian had the mental toughness to bounce back and eventually retain his title in the rapid playoffs. Much was said regarding the Classical World Championship being decided in accelerated time controls, with plenty of alternative solutions being suggested by pundits and aficionados. Many, however — including Karjakin — were satisfied with the format.


Below we present excerpts from an excellent recap of the games, first published on our news site in 2018. Danish grandmaster Lars Bo Hansen did a marvellous job in presenting the highlights of the hard-fought match!


2016: The classical games

Using powerful chess engines, I did a move-by-move analysis of all moves in the match. I classified a move as an “inaccuracy” if it deviated up to 0.40 from the engine’s best move at large depth; as a “mistake” for 0.40-1.00 deviation; and as a “blunder” for higher than 1.00 deviation.

In total, 625 moves were played, of which 74 moves were either Inaccuracies (I), Mistakes (M) or Blunders (B). This equates to an aggregated IMB percentage of 11.84%, distributed with 5.12% I; 4.96% M; 1.76%. No wonder it is hard to win games in a World Championship! These guys make few significant mistakes, and it is hard to get beyond the drawing margin!

Breaking down the IMBs for each player, here are the distributions in the regular games:

  • Carlsen made 17 Inaccuracies (2.72%); 15 Mistakes (2.72%); and 4 Blunders (0.64%)
  • Karjakin made 15 Inaccuracies (2.40%); 16 Mistakes (2.56%); 7 Blunders (1.12%).

The bottom line is that both players made few IMBs in the games with classical time control, but with Karjakin being slightly more prone to commit more significant blunders. However, as we shall see, it was not enough to separate the two players in the 12 regular games. Most games were played on a high level. In fact, of the 12 games of the regular match, played with classical time control, five games (1, 2, 6, 11, 12) were "perfect" in the sense that neither player made even a minor inaccuracy.

After two “perfect” games, Game 3 was the first one with any IMBs, and these allowed Carlsen to obtain his first decisive advantage of the match. However, just as in the present match, the World Champion let his first chance of a win slip.

You'll find analysis of all examples in the game viewer at the end of this article

 
Carlsen vs Karjakin, Game 3
Position after 64.Kh5

Game 4 was another narrow escape for Karjakin when Carlsen misjudged a fortress, famously stating in the ensuing press conference that “I don’t believe in fortresses”. World Champions have biases too!

 
Karjakin vs Carlsen, Game 4
Position after 18...Qc6

After these misses, neither player obtained a winning advantage until the time scramble of Game 8, where Carlsen over-reached in his attempts to finally break through. However, this backfired and handed the Challenger his first decisive advantage of the match. But just as Carlsen in Game 3, Karjakin’s first chance beyond the drawing line was missed, and when the time control was reached, the World Champion was safely back within the drawing margin. This was not one of his better days, though, as a second blunder followed, and this time Karjakin did not falter and took the lead.

 
Carlsen vs Karjakin, Game 8
Position after 32...Nxa4

Game 8 was annotated for ChessBase by none other than Fabiano Caruana!

Carlsen after Game 8 in 2016

Carlsen appeared mortified in 2016 after Game 8 | Photo: Albert Silver

For the first time in his World Championship career, the World Champion was thus trailing in a match!

The question was how Carlsen would react. First, it was essential to survive Game 9 as Black, and then the World Champion would have two whites remaining to try to strike back. According to Kramnik, Game 9 was a very good game, especially considering the new psychological situation. Karjakin employed some pressure, but in fact the game never left the drawing margin, although it was close. The critical position arrived at move 38, just before the time control. At this juncture Carlsen, even though short on time, made a bold but risky decision with 38…Ne7. It may not have been the strongest move according to the engines, but it got him the result he was looking for!

 
Karjakin vs Carlsen, Game 9
Position after 38.Kg2

Game 9 was also annotated for ChessBase by Caruana!

With three to go, Karjakin leads by one. Clearly, Game 10 would be critical. How should the World Champion approach this game?

Karjakin moves in game 10

Karjakin moves in the opening phase of game 10 in 2016 | Photo: Albert Silver

He opted for a long manoeuvring game, emphasising getting a position to his liking and where he could apply pressure for a long time — without taking excessive risk. A sensible plan, but it almost fell through when Carlsen made a simple miscalculation already on move 19, giving Karjakin a chance to force a draw.

 
Carlsen vs Karjakin
Position after 18...Be6

It must have been anxious moments for the World Champion, but the Challenger missed the chance and instead accepted a passive defence in a solid but slightly worse endgame. This type of position is where Carlsen is at his best, and from here he went to work to make something of his slight advantage. Recall, though, that it would take more mistakes by Karjakin to transform the game into a win, but even the best defenders have difficulty sustaining Carlsen’s relentless pressure and the continuous problems he creates. After 55 moves of tenacious defence, Karjakin finally cracked with 56…Rhh7? and committed the losing blunder that Carlsen needed. 

 
Position after 56...Rhh7?
57.b5 was the game winning move Magnus found

So with two draws in the final games. The match went into a rapid playoff. Carlsen appeared to be fine with that, as he went for a quick draw in the 12th game, even as White. As Carlsen’s coach, Peter Heine Nielsen, pointed out, is was a strategic and logical decision. If you consider yourself the better player — and who would argue against that in this case — it made sense to go for four games rather than the uncertainties of just one.

Karjakin and Carlsen during the 2016 playoff | Photo: Albert Silver

The rapid playoff

It turned out to be the right decision. Carlsen dominated the playoff and deservedly won by 3-1, even after missing several wins in Game 2. Not surprisingly, the error rate was much higher in the Playoff. The pressure and the clock take its toll. Here are the IMB stats from the Playoff: 209 total moves played and an IMB% of 29.67% (as opposed to the 11.84%) in the Classical games.  

Broken down on Inaccuracies, Mistakes and Blunders respectively, we find: 8.13% I; 17.22% M; 4.31% B. Particularly Karjakin’s accuracy deteriorated markedly. Here are the stats by player in the rapid games:

  • Carlsen committed 5 Inaccuracies, 15 mistakes and 3 Blunders
  • Karjakin made 12 Inaccuracies, 21 Mistakes and 6 Blunders

No doubt Carlsen’s decision to go directly for the Rapid Playoff in Game 12 was validated. Although the time control was shorter, Karjakin had not changed his safety-first strategy. When Carlsen made a minor inaccuracy in the first rapid game, Karjakin did not really try to punish it, and the game quickly ended in a timid draw. The difference in willingness to make some bold decisions was evident also in the rapid games and may eventually have led to Karjakin’s downfall in the match.

Conversely, Game 2 was a thriller, when after committing a major misjudgment early on, Karjakin displayed the same tenacity as in the regular match and managed to hang on to a draw with little time left, when Carlsen missed three clear wins in the endgame.

 
Carlsen vs Karjakin, Rapid game 2
Position after 19.Rxa4

Despite the disappointment of not winning this game, the World Champion was ready for the third rapid game and scored a dominant win. It is interesting to compare the perspective of human Grandmasters to the cold cynical evaluations of the analysis engines. Where the human Grandmasters see a dominant performance by the World Champion, culminating in a brilliant positional pawn sacrifice, the analysis engines simply state that Karjakin could have held the position in equilibrium until just a few moves before the end. I agree with my Grandmaster colleagues here, and with Anish Giri’s apt comment in New In Chess:

And this gorgeous position is not even objectively better for Black [according to the engines], but this is one of those moments when as an annotator you have to pull yourself together, overrule AI and just claim that Black is dominating.

In a real game, no human would be able to hold on.

 
Karjakin vs Carlsen, Rapid game 3
Position after 22.Qe2

A brilliant win by Carlsen. Karjakin had one last chance, but as Black against Carlsen in a must-win situation is an unenviable task. The Challenger tried the Sicilian to create some play, but Carlsen kept the position under control and concluded the game and match with a worthy queen sacrifice to force mate.

 
Carlsen vs Karjakin, Rapid game 4
Position after 49...Kh7

All examples from the 2016 match

 
New ...
Open...
Share...
Layout...
Flip Board
Settings
MoveNResultEloPlayers
Replay and check the LiveBook here
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.Re1 Nd6 6.Nxe5 Be7 7.Bf1 Nxe5 8.Rxe5 0-0 9.d4 Bf6 10.Re2 b6 11.Re1 Re8 12.Bf4 Rxe1 13.Qxe1 Qe7 14.Nc3 Bb7 15.Qxe7 Bxe7 16.a4 a6 17.g3 g5 18.Bxd6 Bxd6 19.Bg2 Bxg2 20.Kxg2 f5 21.Nd5 Kf7 22.Ne3 Kf6 23.Nc4 Bf8 24.Re1 Rd8 25.f4 gxf4 26.gxf4 b5 27.axb5 axb5 28.Ne3 c6 29.Kf3 Ra8 30.Rg1 Ra2 31.b3 c5 32.Rg8 Kf7 33.Rg2 cxd4 34.Nxf5 d3 35.cxd3 Ra1 36.Nd4 b4 37.Rg5 Rb1 38.Rf5+ Ke8 39.Rb5 Rf1+ 40.Ke4 Re1+ 41.Kf5 Rd1 42.Re5+ Kf7 43.Rd5 Rxd3 44.Rxd7+ Ke8 45.Rd5 Rh3 46.Re5+ Kf7 47.Re2 Bg7 48.Nc6 Rh5+ 49.Kg4 Rc5 50.Nd8+ Kg6 51.Ne6 h5+ 52.Kf3 Rc3+ 53.Ke4 Bf6 54.Re3 h4 55.h3 Rc1 56.Nf8+ Kf7 57.Nd7 Ke6 58.Nb6 Rd1 59.f5+ Kf7 60.Nc4 Rd4+ 61.Kf3 Bg5 62.Re4 Rd3+ 63.Kg4 Rg3+ 64.Kh5 Be7? Carlsen has applied some pressure for most of the game, but Karjakin defended well and kept the game within the drawing margin. But this move is a mistake by Karjakin, after which he is at the edge of the abyss. The problem is that the bishop is vulnerable on e7. 64...Bd8! would keep the game within the drawing margin. 64...Bd8! 65.Ne5+ Kf6 65...Kg7 66.Ng4 Kf7 transposes to the game. 66.Ng4+ Kf7 66...Kxf5? 67.Re5+! was the intermediate check Karjakin had missed, which forces his King to an unfortunate square after the check on move 69. Kf4 68.Rxe7 Rxh3 68...Rxb3 69.Kxh4+- 69.Rf7+! Kg3 69...Ke4 70.Nf2+ 70.Nf2 Rh2 71.Ne4++- 67.Re6! Rxh3! Karjakin doesn't panic but finds the best chance - and Carlsen falters! 67...Rxb3 68.Ne5+ Kg7 69.Rxe7+ Kf6 70.Nc6 Rxh3 71.Kg4! Rg3+ 72.Kf4+- 68.Ne5+ Kg7 68...Ke8 69.Ng6+- 69.Rxe7+ Kf6 70.Nc6? 70.Re8!+- was the only winning move! Now the game is back within the drawing margin - but this time it is Karjakin's turn to falter! Kxf5 70...Rxb3 71.Kg4+- 71.Nc6!+- and the b3-pawn is untouchable because of the fork on d4. 70...Kxf5? 70...Rc3! saves the draw for Black! After 71.Re6+ Kxf5 72.Nd4+ Kf4 73.Kxh4 Rd3! White loses the b3-pawn with a theoretical draw. 71.Na5?! doesn't give away the win, but 71 Re1! was simpler, controlling the promotion square for the h-pawn. 71.Re1!+- 71...Rh1 72.Rb7? This misses the win for the final time. 72.Rf7+! still wins after Ke4 73.Kg4!+- when the King catches the h-pawn while the knight keeps the b3-pawn. 72...Ra1! 73.Rb5+ Kf4‼ 74.Rxb4+ Kg3 75.Rg4+ Kf2!= Now White cannot simultaneously stop the h-pawn while keeping both the knight and the b3-pawn. 76.Nc4 h3 77.Rh4 Kg3 78.Rg4+ Kf2 ½–½
  • Start an analysis engine:
  • Try maximizing the board:
  • Use the four cursor keys to replay the game. Make moves to analyse yourself.
  • Press Ctrl-B to rotate the board.
  • Drag the split bars between window panes.
  • Download&Clip PGN/GIF/FEN/QR Codes. Share the game.
  • Games viewed here will automatically be stored in your cloud clipboard (if you are logged in). Use the cloud clipboard also in ChessBase.
  • Create an account to access the games cloud.
WhiteEloWBlackEloBResYearECOEventRnd
Carlsen,M2853Karjakin,S2772½–½2016C67WCh 20163
Karjakin,S2772Carlsen,M2853½–½2016C88WCh 20164
Carlsen,M2853Karjakin,S27720–12016E14WCh 20168
Karjakin,S2772Carlsen,M2853½–½2016C78WCh 20169
Carlsen,M2853Karjakin,S27721–02016C65WCh 201610
Carlsen,M2853Karjakin,S2772½–½2016C54WCh Rapid TB 20162
Karjakin,S2772Carlsen,M28530–12016C77WCh Rapid TB 20163
Carlsen,M2853Karjakin,S27721–02016B55WCh Rapid TB 20164

Click or tap a game in the game list to switch

The match was extensively covered in ChessBase Magazine 176


Links


Carlos Colodro is a Hispanic Philologist from Bolivia. He works as a freelance translator and writer since 2012. A lot of his work is done in chess-related texts, as the game is one of his biggest interests, along with literature and music.

Discuss

Rules for reader comments

 
 

Not registered yet? Register

We use cookies and comparable technologies to provide certain functions, to improve the user experience and to offer interest-oriented content. Depending on their intended use, analysis cookies and marketing cookies may be used in addition to technically required cookies. Here you can make detailed settings or revoke your consent (if necessary partially) with effect for the future. Further information can be found in our data protection declaration.