Will Carlsen accept early draw offers from Anand?

You really think Anand would have taken a draw, Black or White, if he had seen a substantial advantage ?

I think that Anand's moves in game 1 are arguably the best. There were alternatives that may have been equally good, but none that seem clearly better. 

In game 2, Qg4 is unclear. Those who perceive a clear advantage put too much stock in engine evaluations.

They have gatorade in sports.

I want some what your drinking right now Chessade or Ziryabade. Whatever you call it i want some. Your sounding like a pro.

Dark fresh ground coffee. French press. 

If i do not sound like you within the next hour you will have some explaing to do ......Bucko!

Ziryab wrote:

royalbishop wrote:

Ziryab wrote:

SmyslovFan wrote:

Ziryab wrote:

I expected a Caro-Kann. It's a great WCC opening and it suits Carlsen's style.

If I make my predictions after the game has happened, I should be right just about 100% of the time. 

What do you expect in game three?

1.Nf3 d5

I going to agree with you just to see where this goes....

And i like the plan.

I predicted and posted in these forums my predicted 1.Nf3 for the first game. Everyone predicted 1.e4 in the second, and I was one of many who posted. I had a feeling that Carlsen would play the Caro-Kann, but did not publicize it. Hence, I lack supporting evidence.

I would like to see Carlsen play an actual Reti in game 3: 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4. I want to see this, but expect disappointment. He may repeat the moves of game 1 up to move nine, but then play 9.Nbd2 (which I think is better than 9.Nc3). I expect that he will deviate from game one at move four or five.

I predict 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.O-O in game three.

Mark it and quote it so that I cannot change it.

I missed it. Better than Nostradamus, but still incorrect.

So did I. It looks like Anand is using the Grunfeld and Schlechter-Slav as the basis of his opening preparation this time. 

And, it looks like it is working!

Cool thing is tho, that Anand declined Carlsen's offer to repeat the position. Go Anand!

 Ever heard of Kasparov, and Karpov 1984 WC match(first to 6 wins). They had 17 straight draws at one point. The match went on so long they had to abort it. That is why they changed the rules to a set amount of games.

And Carlsen declined Anand's draw offer :p

Lol. David, I'm surprised you're not a member of the Carlsen cheer squad :)

Unlike Anand's earlier decision, we all know it was pointless to decline that draw at move 40.

The match took 48 games and karpov was leading 5-3 when the match was stopped.

Literally.

You do know that the match lasted 5 months!

It's safe to say that it was an interesting experiment, but in the end it didn't work.

I give respect where I consider it's due, and I also shoot down criticisms I see as undue.

People complain about early draws. People complain about playing out long draws. People complain about draws being offered, and people complain about draws being declined.

Then there are people in the opposite camp, who praise all those exact same things. It seems to come down to which player the person favours, more than the actual circumstances.

It's very easy for everyone to be an armchair superGM when sat at home with three engines, two sets of professional commentary, and a couple of forums' worth of live kibitzing.

I guess I just believe in giving the guys who are actually in the championship a bit of a break, as they must just do whatever they think best while under pressure to try to win the competition.

You say "we all know" it was pointless to decline the draw at move 40; apparently Carlsen didn't, and it probably wasn't because his understanding of chess was so much less than yours.

#144 - Aplause! Thanks, now I hope everyone will read it.

I was pointing out that there was a qualitative difference between the two declinations. The first was during a tense middle game with chances for both sides, while the second was during a theoretically drawn endgame.

The difference in competitive merit between these two declinations is my opinion, which you seem to disagree with, and that is fine. But to say that my opinion is not valid because Carlsen is a GM and I am not, I do not accept.

I think some people over here would love Carlsen to play a lone K vs K position for 50 moves  and call it "fighting for a win" spirit, rather than watching the actual content the game has to offer in a short but tense game.

Agreed, frankenstein. 

The best players in the world know when a position is dead, and Carlsen knew it too. He has been known in the past to play until bare kings, and this was just about the same. If he had really wanted to "fight on", he would not have allowed the pawn exchanges. 

Carlsen agreed to the draw by exchanging off all the pawns as quickly as possible. He should have done it by... agreeing to the draw.

Perhaps he reads the threads and realises people need insufficient material to understand it as a draw.