World Chess Championship: Anand - Carlsen: Rest day - 4 "Peace time over"

Rest day: 4  - "Peace time over"

The Norwegian "White throated Dipper" is flapping its wings for a take-off; whilst the Indian Peacock is still self-denying itself of the traditional clouds, on the eastern skies, for spreading its wings and showing colours.

Generally, during the world championship matches, the competitors would have prepared - apart from their lines of liking and strength - a "secret weapon" that would be detonated at the time of crisis. If Vishy has one in store, game-9 is still not too late for the explosion!

From hereon, nothing short of a massive explosion would ensure a revival.

Chess, more than any other game, is first of all a psychological battle. While the mind seeks for a solution for a problem, it should also be prepared to pay a price for the solution! And the price in the context of this match, at this juncture is, infusing wildness in the position - at all cost!!

One cannot hope to take a plunge or dive into the swimming pool by trying to cling on to the spring board; you need to let go the hold and dive.

It all boils down to how you approach a situation, and currently Anand has nothing further to lose and has everything to gain. His play should instil fear in the mind of Carlsen, who would be inclined not to lose the lead that he 'has' in his "possession".

Here lies the psychological anchor: a possessed man would fear losing his possession and may at times tend to be over cautious. It is up to the man who has lost, to try and regain what he has lost!

For this to happen, Anand should shed all conventions and 'gentlemanly' approach and become a gladiator!

Today, I shall show you one such fiery gladiator - Mikhail Tal; the magician from Riga, who took on the mighty - Mikhail Botvinnik: the father of modern chess!

Diagram (after Tal's 12.f4!!?)

Commentators, world over, admonished this move. But, let me tell you that it is easy to comment from outside and that the great players do not lose their wisdom whilst making such outrageous moves.

I shall reproduce the equally unique and brilliant comment for his choice "12.f4", by the creator himself, and I bet, you can keep returning to this position and keep rereading his comments and you would never be tired of it!

"Horrible, 'anti-positional' etc., etc - this is how all the commentators, without exception, described this last move by white. One might think that the player, with White was completely unfamiliar with any elementary book on chess, where it is written in black and white that one really can't make a move such as 12.f4, since it weakens the dark squares, leaves the bishop on g5 out of play, and puts in jeopardy the already compromised position of the white king. 

I don't think that the reader will consider me immodest, if I say that all these considerations concerned me during the game. Nevertheless, the fact remains: the horrible move 12.f4 was made. 

Why? I will now try to briefly explain the course of my thoughts during the eight minutes that I spent over my 12.f4. I first of all established that White has no trace of an opening advantage. Nevertheless, by 12.Qd2, White could have steered the ship towards the drawing haven, which would probably not have been far off. Although it may sound silly, during such an important game I suddenly began to be bothered by the question: "Will my wife and I manage to get to the cinema or theatre?"

In fact White has little choice in this position: his bishop is attacked and any retreat by it is inconsistent; the exchange on f6 is devoid of any positional sense, defending the bishop by Qc1 is very passive, and the move 12.f4 is simply bad.

Thus it is the drawbacks to all the possible moves which are most apparent. Finally my wandering gaze settled on the move 12.f4. At first I became somehow embarrassed, for the drawbacks to this move are more obvious than to any other one, although in the given position there is no move without its drawbacks. Less apparent are the advantages of this move, but they do exist, although not in a purely chess sense. In the first place, the move 'demands a refutation' which should be accompanied by the possibility of a double-edged, tactical struggle, and this, to judge Botvinnik's style in the match, would be undesirable for him. Secondly, the weakening of White's position can only be exploited by an undermining of the centre, and after moves such as …c5 or …e5, the power of the white bishops will be significantly increased. Finally, Black can attack White's kingside only by castling queenside, but then White can set in motion his queenside pawn mass. Perhaps Black should simply have replied 12….O-O, but this is after all not a refutation."

Tal considered this move as the most significant move that he has played!

The magician from Riga has conjured many such moves in his playing days, defying all odds, throughout his career and against the most formidable opposition of that era - and with great success!

I shall conclude with a proposition by Galileo Galilei, while dealing with "infinity", which is appropriate to the situation that Anand finds him now, if not The Most appropriate: 

"The difficulties are real; and they are not the only ones. But let us remember that we are dealing with infinities and indivisibles, both of which transcend our finite understanding: the former on account of their magnitude, the latter because of their smallness. In spite of this, men cannot refrain from discussing them, even though it must be done in a roundabout way. The problem arises only when we attempt, with our finite minds, to discuss the infinite, assigning to it those properties which we give to the finite and limited."

This is precisely what Tal did in his game with 12.f4; he managed to defy his "finite and limited" thinking! And Vishy should also find a way to defy the finiteness!

Come on Vishy, now or never, the peace time is over!