@Well, Andy, of course, but then why care about *anything* at all? ;-)

Its a terrible blunder agree, but human chess has to have blunders! And its always easyer from aside. Still I remember a computer programs final where one of them gives a rook away and some top players start talking about how uncomplete the programs still are . The program explaned the blunder with math in 3 which no one had seen :]

Peter,
I believe any pool has to include the "other" choice. Right?

It would be nice to know what really went through Topalov's head at move 34. Henrik Carlsen writes: "Interestingly Magnus got the impression that Topalov already considered his position lost at this moment." It seems that, as a player who strongly believes in the initiative, Topalov feels very uncomfortable when he comes under attack himself (which rarely happens!). Last year, also against Carlsen, he even resigned, missing a simple defensive resource that would have lead to a draw.

why trust engines' evaluations over Carlsen's games? magnus' last couple of games, my core2/rybka oracle has been acting like a gps that keeps advising me to u-turn over times' square, NY

Interesting point, thorex, and I agree. It's all too easy to dismiss Nc6 as a 'blunder because the machine spots a forced mate in 7. The players at the board have to calculate all other alternatives as well, which is almost impossible if you're not a computer.
Maybe I'm exaggerating, but it wouldn't be bad to praise Topalov for Nc6 and to praise Carlsen for finding the mate.

nominated for best comment 2008, evanhaut! ;-)

Let's forget about chess programs and look at the position after 34 Bd8. Is this really a 'complex problem'? The first thing that comes to mind is a queen check on e7 or f6. After that the king must go to either h6 and white has a standard check on f8 with a probable mate, or the king goes to g8 after which you really want to check on a white square, so you can use your black-squared bishop. You don't have to see the mate, you even don't have to smell it. The warning sound should be as clear as a church bell. Any 2100 player (like me) would probably see this in a matter of seconds. If I should defend e7 missing Qf6, I'd bang my had against the table (okay, I have some bruises...).
With the black queen on a6 I could understand this: Nc6 closes a defending rank; now I really can't. At the 2700 level, this is not a blunder, it's far beyond that.

carlsen was lucky -to win-, so those who say he was lucky and mean that are correct. but you cant say that he was lucky -not to lose-, because though topalov would have had an advantage, it wouldnt be an overwhelming advantage, against the best defense it might still have been drawn. or in any case carlsen had very real practical chances for a draw. but yes toaplov just blundered and lost what should have been min half a point for him.

interviews with the question why so many blunders, because there are quite a few now (and i mean the really-really blunders) would be interesting.

I don't think Carlsen was lucky, he just played better in the decisive moment. Chess is not only about getting winning positions. The ONLY thing that wins a game over the board is an (upcoming) checkmate. Topalov didn't see it, Carlsen did. There is no luck involved.

Just look at critical themove 34....Nc6. Believe it or not: The move is fantastic. The best rybka finds is a draw, but Topalov found something that wins in all(!) variations - except one! (mate in 7)

(16ply, rybka)
+M7 Dh4f6+ Kg7g8 Df6e6+ Kg8g7
-0,89 Ld8f6+ Kg7f7 Lf6h8 Kf7e6
-1,99 Ld8e7 Kg7g8 Dh4f6 Sc6xe7
-2,29 Ld8g5 Db5d5 Lg5h6+ Kg7f7
-2,52 h2h3 Db5d5 Ld8f6+ Kg7f7

'Carlsen Lucky again.'
NOT true - well not lucky to avoid a loss anyway ..
If Qd5 instead of Kxg7 - then as acirce says 34.Bh6 forces 34..Nc6 followed by white's Be2 and maybe h3 and it is black who has to watch out for murderous threats from the white bishop combined with the extreme vulnerability at f8 whereas white has draws by repetition available all along the way with Q-f6-d6 and Q-f2-c5 for example..

As for me, the draw in the ("dead drawn position" of) Ivanchuc-Rajabov game isn't lesser upset, than Topalov's blunder. Don't you think, 47.Re4 with the 48.Bg6 followed would have given much more winning chances for White? White must keep Black's king in the corner, right?

The amount of blunders in this tournament is astonishing. Considering the fact that the participants are SuperGMs who basically devote their entire energy to this game one might expect better quality. Not that blunders aren't interesting. They are to a high extent as your footage on Shirov-Carlsen shows. But somehow these mistakes destroy this tournament. Morelia-Linares 2008 isn't even close to "total chess".

Magnus Carlsen was indeed "lucky" again. However, his "luck" often comes from creating difficult positions for the opponents, making them spend too much time in the mid-game.

Carlsen is doing his second wonderful tournament of 2008, and is now in the top 5. It will be exciting to follow him in tournaments to come!

After Topalov's 34... Nc6 Magnus had a forced mate in six.
35.Qf6+ Kg8 36.Qe6+ Kf8 37.Bg5 Kg7 38.Qf6+ Kg8 39.Bh6... 40.Qg7

If it is not a blunder in a position where one has a draw position then makes a move where you give you opponent a forced mate in 6 then I don't know what a blunder is.

No he didn't hang a piece, no it wasn't a mate in one but still at this level of chess when some one is not in time trouble, seeing a forced mate in 6 is not all that hard.

Who cares is Magnus was "lucky" ?!?

He won the game!

Maybe.... these top-GM's should go buy lip balm at the nearest supermarket?

I just enjoy the games - blunders or not - and don't understand all this fuss.

Dear Peter,
Your pool about a reason for a low percentage of draws at Linares should be completed with the choice "because of enormous number of blunders", isn't it? Have you ever noticed so many blunders in a 2700+ tournament?

Carlsen was lucky. Just Run the game in Fritz...

And yet, on ICC atleast, several strong players, including Nakamura, confessed to not seeing the mate (missing Bg5).

May I call it "2008 blunder's tournament"? Unfortunately, everyone (but Anand - thank you!) made an evident contribution.

Carlsen's win today moved him from 6th to 4th. His loss on to Leko on Monday moved him from #4 to #6.
2766 is pretty amazing for a 17 year old.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessuser?uname=frogbert

Which move exactly do you say Topalov had a clear winning position? I don't see it.

Carlsen Lucky again.
First Topalov should have played Qd5 instead og Kxg7 and after Bd8 he should had hold the draw with Kg8.

@manyoso

After 33. Bxf1 Top?ɬ†lov is up two pawns, without any proper compensation for Carlsen after 33. ... Qe8.

Not true, as far as I can see. 34.Bh6 forces 34..Nc6. Then 35.Bxc4+ Bxc4 36.Qxc4+ Qf7 followed by 37.Qc1 or 37.Qd3 and I do not think White is worse. He is also just down one pawn by then. OK, this position is far from clear, and MAYBE Black can prove an advantage by literally perfect play, but who in his/her right mind would allow White to keep such a pawn (as the one on g7)?

Yah... here is nothing to do with a hot Mexican food and absence of Russians. Right?

Interesante final el de Shirov y Aronian, que buenos recursos defensivos por parte de Aronian, hay que felicitarles a ambos por esa partida.

Entirely agree with Philipp Somrowsky.

Of course, these so-called 'blunders' are in fact highly complex choices in extremely tense positions. Only patzers who only see the games with Fritz would call those mistakes blunders. They seem to forget that weaker players tend to blunder on almost *every move* in complex positions if you run the games through a critical computer.
Anyway, it *is* striking how 'lucky' Carlsen is in the tournament. I wonder if we can compare him in this respect to young Fischer and Kasparov: were they called 'lucky' as well, or did they somehow 'deserve' their points more? I don't know, but it could well be the same situation - only back then chess amateurs didn't recognize 'blunders' as easily as now, with the help of computers.

ok, you can use ?Ǭ¥"blunder" as two different things:, something like this:
one, a player who in a position makes a serious mistake
two, a move that loses instantly

I tend to think of a blunder as the second, an objectively losing move. but, if carlsen had not spotted the mate, according to the first defenition it wouldnt have been a blunder, but in fact winning. it is basicly the differense between saying that "topalov played badly" and "topalov made a bad move". to say that topalov (and magnus too) played badly, you have to have standards that are just too high to be of interest in a game between two persons. but Iguess that is what computers does to you.

I think anne and thorex have it right. We are conceited in the age of instant computer analysis and real-time GM comments on the state of the games.

@Vosuram
After 47.Re4 Black plays 47...Bc3 (preventing 48.Bg6 because of 48...Rd4) and after 48.Re8 Rd4+ White has nothing.

@ all
The word blunder for Nc6 was used by Carlsen, so I felt I could use it too. ;-)

Fair enough, Peter, as long as we keep in mind that probably guys like Carlsen have a different standard for blunders than we mortals have... ;-)

True. By the way, guys: I put on a new poll on the right sidebar, I figured this subject deserved one.

important points made: first, most of us amateurs 'blunder' almost every move we play in most positions. further, ask yourself if you could at all tell brilliant moves from blunders without computer or GM analysis. really, try it, go find a GM game score and analyze yourself to see which moves you thought were especially good or bad, then check and you'll see it's quite difficult. the GM game is so different from patzers' that it's laughable how quick people are to judge. granted, there have been a few moves (perhaps like shirov's Ke5) some amateurs might have even realized are bad, but only with the benefit of not having fought an immensely tough battle involving moves most of us would not find for 7 hours. objectively there may be more 'blunders' in this tournament than others, just keep in mind how you know that to be true in the first place and be reasonable in your comments. we certainly have the right as fans to say what we want, but let's at least be intelligent about it.

I think the poll was sorely missing the option: The elite players just aren't that good outside of the opening preparation compared to the elite players of a generation ago.

I showed my 12 year old, 900 Elo son the Carlsen-Topalov position after Nc6. He found Qf6+, Qe6+ and Bg5 without hesitation. After Bg5, the mate is obvious. I had to prompt him a bit to find the easier "mate in two" if the king had tried to escape via Kh6. He missed Qf8+ and took 10 seconds or so to find Be2#.

The problem, I think, is that there are several checks coming into consideration. And suddenly there's this quiet move Bg5 winning. But it still requires calculation: what if it's not mate, what if the Black king escapes?
I don't believe any 2100 will find this combination after a tumultuous middle game in which you're probably winning against an extremely tough opponent. It's easy to show the position to a weak player and say 'find the mate' - but then you're already assuming it's there and therefore invalidating the experiment.
It would be better to ask a player to find the best move in this position, or only to evaluate it. Or give limited time and say if you don't find the right move and the correct evaluation, it costs you 100 euros. Let's see how many people are still so confident about spotting the 'easy win'.

It's a noble gesture that some people (especially arne) are taking Topalov's defence but you are exaggerating. In fact, you are almost insulting him by suggesting that it was difficult for him to find such a straightforward line. Come on, this is absolutely elementary stuff for a world class player. Topalov just had a blackout and that's it.

Arne, what you describe is a problem for the white player. 'Will my checks really force a mate?'
As I already said, Black doesn't have to calculate a mate, he should just sense the danger. His king is all alone and his knight is under attack, so he just has two moves to consider: Nc6 and Qd5. After Nc6 35 Qf6+ Kg8 36 Qe6+ the king is still alone. After Qd5 35 Qe7+ Kg8 36 Qe8+ Kg7 39 Be7? you can play Qf7 and it's over. What else can white do (apart from the draw)?
Now what can Topalov have missed? That the knight and e5 aren't under attack anymore after Be7? That Bf1 is attacked after Qf7? Not very likely.
Moreover, even if he was in time trouble, Carlsen used 25 minutes on 34 Bd8. What has Topalov been doing in that time? I guess he expected 34 Bh6+ and his hand made the move he was just calculating - in a different variation. Something like that.
In Morelia Leko played nearly a complete game against Aronian in 25 minutes, more or less faultless, and that was really complex.

Well, Frits, I agree the mate was not so difficult to find, but then why didn't Topalov find it?! Anyway, my point is mainly that the blunder wasn't THAT obvious and that MANY people who condemn the players and say they are making silly blunders, are in fact just copying what their computer says. Apart from that, I agree there are surely more complex lines that Topalov IS capable of calculating. But it wasn't all that easy. Apparently.