I agree with Kasparov regarding Carlsen's WC play. Do you?

I think Carlsen should play sharper in the opening and create complications, so that his superior, faster calculation (what I hear) will throw Anand into time trouble, pressuring him to make mistakes. Anand was under time pressure in game 4, and even though Carlsen defended with the drawish Berlin, his faster calculation skills showed, placing pressure on Anand. Carlsen looked relaxed and in control. A much different Carlsen than in game 3.

------------------------

Here's what Kasparov had to say after game 3 in a tweet chat:

Chessbase

When Gary worked with Carlsen, he thought his opening preparation was seriously lacking. What about the WC?

Gary Kasparov

My feeling is Magnus is trying to reach "his" positions, where he can play forever with little risk. Anand has blocked this plan very well.

Carlsen got nothing in the opening. He wants calm positions but so far is getting calm & slightly worse against Anand's strong reactions.

That is, Anand is responding in (a) way that offers either a sharp fight not to Carlsen's preferred style or calm with no advantage. Well done.

Will know more tomorrow about match evaluation. Anand gets second white, warm-up time over! But clear as I said, no walkover for Magnus.

Anand in time trouble? Anand?

I don't see any agreement with what you've said and what Kasparov said.

Read more carefully? Kasparov says that Carlsen wants calm positions. I said that Carlsen should play sharper lines, which are not calm. That's saying the same thing, thus we are in agreement.

Yep. If you followed round 4, Anand was very happy to squeak out 40 moves before running out of time.  

Carlsen clearly needs you on his team...

Kasparov was commenting on the current state of play. He made no recommendations as to what Carlsen should do. On the other hand, your comment was all about telling Carlsen what he should do.

When even Kasparov feels that he should refrain dictating to the players how to alter their match strategy, do you really think it's wise for you to do so?

For sure Carlsen will continue to play to his (considerable) strengths. I am not sure how things are going for Anand. On the one hand he seemed a bit overawed by Carlsen and that will be wearing off as he demonstrates to himself that in the matchplay situation he can hold his own. On the other hand he may get somewhat weary.

As so often in football, the one who goes ahead may gain enough strength and confidence to carry the day.

It is very interesting what Carlsen is doing. By playing Nf3 he is still giving nothing away as to what he is planning in the second half of the match. So on one hand, yes, he is playing very cautious (and that is not good), but on the other hand Anand is still being left in the dark.

In this series one win could mean the world. Carlsen knows that if he can get it with black then it doesn't really matter what he does with white, as he can play 'back to the wall' very well. 

I think it's a fair analysis.  Bit surprised Kasparov didn't overwhelmingly support Carlsen, given that he was Carlsen's teacher for a while and that he doesn't like Anand.

Has he ever really said that he doesn't like Anand?

Whatsthefrequency wrote:

I can't really agree with Kasparov regarding Carlsen's WC play since I have no idea what Kasparov feels about Carlsen's WC play.  Where did he make a statement on the issue?

------------

As I stated in my first post, he made the following comments on twitter, hosted by Chessbase. Just go to Chessbase, and you will find the twitter text.

The title of the article is:Chennai G3: A thrilling battle as Anand close to win. Scroll to the bottom of the article to find Kaspaov's tweets. :)

If Kasparov really wants to be FIDE prez he should not show bias towards any of the players anything less is uncivilized.

Agree 2000%. Carlsen is his student. So maybe he commented as a mentor.

Anyway, Carlsen calculation is slow. He has been in time trouble in game 3, just barely pulled it off. And we saw many times he was in time troubles.

Scottrf wrote:

Carlsen clearly needs you on his team...

-------------------

Come on Scott. :) You can do better than that. I am actually interested in what you think about Kasparov's twitter comments. Heck, just because I agree with Kasparov does not make me right about Carlsen's play. My gut tells me that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Didn't Kasparov and Carlsen have a falling out? Maybe Kasparov doesn't like Carlsen, or is style of chess. Maybe he is a fan of Anand.

I just watched Daniel King's video on game 4, and it is very good. He thought that both guys played some very interesting and tricky chess. Even as a low rated player, I was able to understand the plans and tactical challenges for both sides, as King presents it in a way that a guy at my level can understand.

many of us have been critical of the match with possible exception in the third game is it any wonder that Kasparov has joined us in being critical too ?

alexsmohr wrote:

Anand when he was young was a very fast calculator, and also a player with a sharp fighting style somewhat similar to Kasparov's.  He may have mellowed a bit with age, but I think he still enjoys sharp irrational positions more than Carlsen does.

Carlsen has always been very good at positional play, and in general, likes to aim for a technical advantage in quiet positions.  He's not so interested in following all the latest opening theory, so he tends to play fairly solid openings just aiming for a playable position rather than an edge, hoping that his technique will carry him through.

Kasparov always put a huge emphasis on squeezing the maximum out of the opening, and tended to prefer aggressive play over positional chess (although he could play positionally too).  Kasparov is a bit argumentative though, and I think that's one of the reasons Carlsen dropped him as a coach.  Carlsen wants to be relaxed going into a game, and isn't so worried if he isn't up on all the latest theoretical wrinkles.

---------------

Thanks for the post! What do you mean by a technical advantage? Is that synonymous with a positional advantage? When I hear that a chess player has good technique, I thing of someone who is good at endgames, which I don't think is the same thing as someone who is good at assessing a chess position, as in, who stands better, what should be the strategic plans for both sides. To me, technique means, for example, someone who is good at rook and pawn endgames.

r_k_ting wrote:

Kasparov was commenting on the current state of play. He made no recommendations as to what Carlsen should do. On the other hand, your comment was all about telling Carlsen what he should do.

When even Kasparov feels that he should refrain dictating to the players how to alter their match strategy, do you really think it's wise for you to do so?

------------------

Ugh! What I would like to see discussed is not whether I should agree or not with Kasparov, but what YOU think about Kasparov's twitter comments after three games, nothing more.

Whatsthefrequency wrote:

Well you did choose to entitle this discussion "I agree with Kasparov."  It only follows that people will be discussing whether you should agree or not with Kasparov innit.

Sorry. I guess my title caused some confusion regarding the discussion. Honestly, I was just curious as to what others here thought about Kaspaov's twitter comments on Chessbase, that's all. My 2 cents, my opinion, is just that, only worth 2 cents. :)

Whatsthefrequency wrote:

So in a nutshell can you please explain what Kasparov said regarding Carlsen?

----------------

In a nutshell, Kasparov said that Carlsen's choice of openings will not work against Anand, and that Anand will have no trouble defending with the Black pieces. Basically, he is saying that Carlsen's strategy in the opening with the White pieces will not work against Anand.