WCh Chennai: it's all about style

Chennai: Requirements and effectiveness of a chess style

By Tryfon Gavriel

Traditionally we have tended to classify players by their natural "style" of play. It is interesting to consider that style itself has a certain level of effectiveness depending on the context of the games in question. A radical example of this is the style of Tigran Petrosian. He rarely won games, but when he did so in matches, he could win matches with minimal risk. In tournaments it was different and even as World Champion, he rarely won tournaments. His style made him near unbeatable, but in tournaments you need to rack up the points.

Petrosian was a Candidate for the World Championship on eight occasions. He won the world championship in 1963 against Mikhail Botvinnik, and successfully defended it in 1966 against Boris Spassky, before losing it in 1969 to Spassky. Part of this however, may also be attributed to failing health, which is also considered part of the reason Tal lost his rematch to Mikhail Botvinnik.

Petrosian was widely recognised as one of the hardest players to beat in the history of chess. Yet his style was not often that sparkling. Occasionally though in certain events Petrosian could combine solidity and also very attacking chess, as this sparkling game shows:

When it comes to other players such as Mikhail Tal, they were often just more hard to lose to. Mikhail Tal took risks. The rewards of his style were to immortalise his "immor-Tal" games. The annual Tal Memorial Tournament pays tribute to the attacking genius, and his influence on the style of play generally was immense.

Even in World Championship match games, Mikhail Tal played in a very dynamic aggressive and creative way, as Games 1, 6, and 7 of his match in 1960 against Mikhail Botvinnik shows. Here in Game 1, we had very creative play indeed from Mikhail Tal:

The 1960 World Chess Championship format was however longer than for the current World Championship being held in Chennai. It was the best of 24 games and the match was held in Moscow. In the event of a 12–12 tie, Botvinnik, the title holder, would retain the championship. Tal won with some fine games, like the initial game above. Some have speculated that one of the symptoms of the current World Championship match is the number of games. If it were for example 16 games instead of 12, or even 20 or 24, then more risks could be taken by the players.

When it comes to Youtube viewers and chess fans worldwide, it is undeniable that certain styles are more fascinating to watch. The attacking games often with queen sacrifices, or other sacrifices are far more compelling to watch than dry positional games, often ending in draws. But this is where style has to be seen in a particular context. The risk of losing a single game in a short twelve-game match, means that taking any unnecessary risks may be punished with extreme regret. The highest prize and title of chess – the title of "World Chess Champion", is at stake – more than just money, and rating points are incidental.

It is no coincidence I believe that one of my most well received videos ever was one of Tal's trainer, a lesser known player by the name of Rashid Gibiatovich Nezhmetdinov. Here is a sparkling queen sacrifice game of his:

There is something about queen sacrifices which get the enthusiasm and excitement of the dynamics of chess into our consciousness. It gets our heats beating with excitement, we become more aware that chess is a truly vast and wonderful game, with the potential for immense excitement, where rule breaking" in the materialistic sense can be rewarded. Kasparov in his book How Life Imitates Chess helps justify rule-breaking to the readers viewing chess as a relationship between material, quality and time. Hence often the “rule breaking” is a logical consequence of the balance of these three dimensions.

Will we see such rule-breaking dynamism in the current World Championship? Usually in such high profile matches, dynamic play is often the by-product of extensive and detailed preparation. With today's engines finding amazing resources in positions, it is quite often the case that modern brilliances were created as a result of good homework.

In Chennai so far, we have two games ending in draws, and draws by a forced three-fold repetition. Both players are just settling in, and show great respect for each other, in not taking any unnecessary risks. Of course this may disappoint chess fans for the moment, but there is still much tension left in the match. There is of course always the fall-back of the tie-breaks, where traditionally both players – if one counts only only rapid/exhibition games – have a fairly even score. Vishy Anand has beaten beat Magnus Carlsen 9 to 8, with 16 draws in such faster formats.

Game 1 showed how Vishy used a set of forcing moves to entrench a dangerous knight on c4, and forcing Magnus into a rather uncomfortable passive looking position, having to retreat his bishop on b2 to c1. However with Magnus's Qb3 move later, Vishy Anand decided against taking any unnecessary risks, such as b5, but instead took the opportunity to repeatedly attack the white queen with Na5-c4.

Game 2 showed how Magnus could play in an ultra-solid way with black, and pay tribute to the likes of Anatoly Karpov in making use of the solid Caro-Kann. A slight finesse seemed to promise some excitement with Black allowing an early Ne5. And this promise was renewed as we witnessed opposite side castling, which generally means carnage and line opening against both sides kings – at least at the amateur club levels of chess. But then to the horror of chess fans, the queens came off, and a three-fold repetition scenario was quickly reached.

Those of us who have experience club matches know that if our team is winning, and we are only required to draw to secure the match, then we should ideally just draw and not take risk where such risks are unnecessary. In certain leagues where adjournments and adjudications still exist, there is also the feeling one must not have a bad position before the sealing of a move occurs, as computers will take over, helping show true truth of one's risky moves. One may even have to immediately resign if, on returning home, Houdini comes up with a verdict of -2 or more. So we learn when to play safe, and when to take risks. In tournaments with prizes, there is a time for playing more dynamically and riskier openings. The Kings Indian Defence is still very popular in most tournament play, yet is seen much more rarely in the elite all-play-all events. When it is played, it often results in a much scrutinised game, and even Vishy Anand has in the past had some difficulties handling the dynamic complications of this system as this game against Nakamura showed:

Risk taking is being kept to a minimum in Chennai, especially in positions which have not been thoroughly prepared. Both players in the press conferences have indicated also the start of the match as a kind of "exchange of information". In this rest day, perhaps there will be great investigations in the openings played, and maybe some sharper, riskier alternatives may be seen in the forthcoming rounds of the match. If you would like to check out some of the more dramatic encounters between Vishy Anand and Magnus Carlsen, you may find this play-list useful.