Game - 7: "On the shoulders of bytes"

Today, Chess first and Physics at the end: certainly no fables as Carlsen enabled the tweeters and commentators to come out with more than one!!

Even the incorrigibly optimistic engine fell dead after White king captured the c6 pawn on move no.104; letting go even that 1 mm rise; but Magnus prefered to continue: "...he signed up for suffering" he said for a question on the long haul ending starting with 31...Bg4.....he could have spared the commentators and the audience world over, from suffering boredom atleast now if not on move 77.  

For once semantics of "buffalo" sounded more "interesting"...!

The "Berlin wall" tormented the chess players more than the Germans...

Having said that, we witnessed a magnificent display of defensive skills by Vishy!  

This game will be better remembered for the beautiful possibilities sidestepped by both the players, where they could have gone wrong.....Yes, you heard me right, there were some fools mate in store for White too!

"...no I didn't knew it that far" (with a smile) replied Anand to a question suspecting him to have known the game till the rook ending before and sidestepped the pressing question on how far, with...."well it is a topical line which has been floating (flirting!?) around recently"

To a question on 'how difficult was it for him to defend in this endgame', Vishy replied;  "Well, once I went forward for this piece sac, then it is straightforward and is tough. Because at every moment you have to chose some specific set up can't just keep blundering back and forth.  But you have to choose some very specific set up and stick to it. But the good thing once would I settle on a set up, I would get around 10 moves of peace and quiet till the next decision came along so...it was a tough ending."

This for me, is the takeaway from this game: the game revealed its beauty in stages - a particular sequence of well articulated moves - and not dependent on moves in isolation.

Stage - 1:    After 25.....Nf7

Chess understanding has advanced from mere materialistic considerations....in a sense that a straightforward material advantage of say, a pawn or even two, an exchange, why even a piece in some specific positions are considered compensation enough.  

Yes material is still significant but space and time have attained...assumed greater significance - a dimension on their own.  Chess mastery rests in if and how the players perceive this dimension and use them successfully in their "formula"!

In this position, Black's "f6" pawn is the key and Carlsen orchestrates his pieces in quest of this pawn.  Black on the other hand, not only has to ensure the safety of this pawn, but should also keep the White rook under control and watch out for that knight. 

Stage - 2:    After 28.....Ne5!?

A significant decision by Vishy; as black was intending to play 29) Nh5 and take on c7 and play Nf4 etc say, if he had played 28)......Kd7 or 28)......Bd5 and of-course regroup the bishop to bear on f6 if allowed, and so felt taking a decisive route was more in the spirit of defence.  The knight also heads for the "d7" square to cover both "c5" and "f6".

In such positions, the choice of moves gets limited and you need to think in terms of set-ups: here for example, the king cannot remain eternally on the back rank and it needs to move to say, "c6" so as to stay near his queenside pawns, where he protects and also gets cover behind them!  Also, the rook on g6 needs more fresh air and such confinements derail him of his senses!

Stage - 3:    After 32.....Rg4

The engines will constantly keep assessing this position as +/- as the pawn e5 falls on the next move and the excruciating manoeuvres commence: White is in pursuit of weakening black pawns and gobbling them using his extra knight and Black keeps denying this and more importantly, the exchange of rooks.

Stage - 4:    After 38.....a6

A very important move to enable Black to play b5 and counter the "c4" push which Carlsen said is imperative in his quest for an advantage.  The idea is to keep the queenside pawn harmonious as breaking them up into islands without sufficient preparation would mean a certain loss.

Stage - 5:    After 44.....Rh2

White was intending 45.c4 securing the outpost "d5" for his knight when the c7 pawn and the game would crumble.  Rh2 prevents precisely this.

Stage - 6:    After 49.....Rf2

It is important to keep attacking the knight so as not to allow the Rook reach e7 and Knight e8!

Stage - 7:    After 67) Re4

Now that pawn on c5 has no relevance and Anand starts giving checks, carefully sidestepping 67).....Kb4??; 68) cb5!


Stage - FINAL:    After 76.....Rc3

1/2 - 1/2

And this for me is the final position and after testing Vishy and known that he escaped all pitfalls, Carlsen could have exchanged the rook in truce instead of pushing the woods for a further 46 moves...well Chess is not about gaining a point hook or crook....objectively speaking, there is a limit to ride on optimism!

Anish Giri tweeted; "In a twisted way, this game might actually inspire Anand and give him some wings!?

YES and I hope Vishy comes out with "flying colors" in today's white!

How can this 'dissertation' end without a discussion on physics!?  I have taken up "Opening theory" - Berlin in particular, for a topic - since it is becoming a problem for the chess lovers in particular!!

Please don't quit midway and persist reading it fully, which incidentally is more interesting than what happened in the later half of yesterday's game!

The question was, "What took more talent, choosing the right problem, the issue one struggles with, or finding the solution?"

A very intriguing question by Mlodinov - unlike the one's that are asked in the press conference - which drew a significant reply from the great Richard Feynman. It will do a world of good to whoever meditates on what he said.

"When you first came here and asked to discuss how I approached a problem, I panicked. Because I really don't know. I think it's like asking a centipede which leg comes after which. I have to think a while, try to look back and quote some problems. 

In some cases finding the problem you work on could be a result of a very good creative imagination. And solving it may not take nearly the same skill. But there are problems in math and physics where there is the reverse situation. The problems become sort of obvious and the solution is hard. It's hard not to notice the problem and yet the techniques and methods known at the time and the amount of information known to people is a small amount. In that case the solution is the ingenious thing.

A very good example is Einstein's theory of relativity and gravity - the general theory of relativity. With relativity it was clear that they had to combine somehow this theory of special relativity, that light travels at a certain speed, "c", with the phenomenon of gravitation. You can't have that - you can't have the old, Newtonian gravity with infinite speeds, and the relativity theory that limits speeds. So you have to modify the theory of gravity somehow.

Gravity had to be modified to fit the theory of relativity, the light undergoes motion at a certain speed. Well, that's not much to start with. How to do it?! That was the challenge!

That this had to be done was obvious to Einstein. It wasn't obvious to everyone, because to them the special theory of relativity wasn't yet obvious. But Einstein had gotten past that. So he saw this other problem. It was obvious, but the way of solving it, that took the utmost imagination. The principles that he had to develop! He used the fact that things were weightless when they fell. It took a very, very lot of imagination.

Or let's take the problem I'm working on now. It's perfectly obvious to everybody. We have this mathematical theory called quantum chromodynamics that is supposed to explain the properties of protons and neutrons and so on.

In the past if you had a theory and wanted to find out if it was right, you just took it out, looked at what happened in the theory, and compared it to experiment. Here, the experiments are already really done. We know lots of properties of the protons. And we have the theory. The difficulty is that it's new, and we don't know how to calculate the consequences of this theory, because we haven't got the mathematical power. To invent a way of doing it. 

Now how do you do that? You have to create or invent a way to do it. I don't know how to do it. Here the problem is obvious, and the solution is hard. I do --- I try as much as I can different kinds of things that don't work, and if it doesn't work I move on to some other way of trying it.

When there is a hard problem, one has to work a long time and has to be persistent. In order to be persistent, you have got to be convinced that it's worthwhile working so hard, that you're going to get somewhere. And that takes a certain kind of fooling yourself..."

The existential problem on hand for chess players; especially at the highest level is: "what to play today" - not because there are not enough problems to pursue; but because they are not new and are lab tested deeply and one side may not know what will explode when!?

And therefore, there is a tendency to keep beating around the known bush..fooling yourself as well as...

God save chess from the engines....