There's an interesting interview on chess24 where Caruana talks about the WCh match and other stuff: https://chess24.com/en/read/news/caruana-on-carlsen-anand-and-much-more

I imagine it very much depends  

Must be quite possible they wanted Adams around simply to have a 'precomputer' opinion about things! Good chance of it being relatively close to Anand's instincts if nothing else.

I'd be amazed if the computer generation aren't playing at least a bit differently. Not at all sure if its better in and of itself, as so many of the previous generation are still massively strong.

tipau wrote on 11/24/14 at 18:02:10:


I too wonder about this …... In view of the revelation of Mickey Adams as second, what really happened in Game 3? Did Mickey Adams really think Black can hold the draw? Or did Magnus have a memory lapse? What other possible explanations?
We may have to wait until Magnus publishes his auto-biography to know the full story …...

All revealed (http://www.arcticsec.no/index.php?blog_id=282&button=blog&main_image=35). Official seconds as already dislcosed: PH Nielsen, JL Hammer, Michael Adams (logical choice in view of the similarity in style of play but query whether that is actually optimal choice? i.e. from Botvinnik's perspective preparing for opponents (and also trite advice of working on weaknesses not on strengths??))

Others who assisted include Garry Kasparov, Ian Nepomniatchi and Vladimir Potkin and lastly Pavel Eljanov who assisted during Chennai 2013.

Two further comments: 1) I find it interesting (and puzzling) that there are GMs (Ben Finegold is one) and ChessPubbers (scrolling through this thread reveals who) who considered Anand to be favourite to win and better player (or close to winning) even after the Match or during the Match.
2) The most interesting comments and evaluation (also in sense it provides further food for thought and discussion) are GM Levon Aronian's:(https://chess24.com/en/read/news/grandmaster-reaction-to-magnus-carlsen-s-victor...):
Comment A:
Quote:


Comment B:
Quote:


Perhaps we can have a constructive discussion on these two statements!?!

Starting off:
Comment A: This is obviously an observation that ties in with the known observation of the computer generation, players who grew up and improved their chess playing against (and analysing with) chess engines. Also the corollary that these younger (usually!) players do not know the classics as well as the Anand-Gelfand-Kramink generation. (Gelfand is a well-known example of promoting the study of Rubenstein's games. Will be interesting to see what he says in the forthcoming book to be published by Quality Chess with Jacob Aagaard (see the delicate intricacies of authorship (http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/blog/?p=3366) which reminds me of his fellow Dane who had a very complicated authorship arrangements and views, Soren Kierkegaard …… Hmmmmmnnn A Danish preoccupation???)

Query: Does this really lead to a different style of play? A more "concrete" style (shades of Willy Hendriks?  )
It will be interesting if anyone of us have the time to go back and review the games (the moves as well as the players' body language and facial expression). At the critical points in the games, are the moves something expected, unexpected, not foreseen, not even within radar range?
(note: Jacob Aagaard has given his 5 cents  on the critical moments in the Match (http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/blog/?p=3372).

BTW, if you have not read it as yet, you should head over to Chess24 and read GM Tkachiev's preview of Game 11 (I read it with Google translate before the game) in excellent translation by Colin McGourty (thanks Colin!). Unfortunately someone tried to land a cheap shot at Tkachiev in the comments.

LostTactic wrote on 11/24/14 at 18:37:33:


who let gary lane in the room, or has he sneaked a pic from the balcony? 

Has Carlsen named Adam's as one of his seconds in an interview?

It makes sense as he plays 1.e4 in a strong positional style and also the QGD/QID and Berlin as Black (which one would assume Carlsen had prepared vs 1.e4).

On the other hand it makes Carlsen's loss in game 3 seem even weirder, as Anand simply followed an Aronian-Adams game before allowing an improvement Adams must have been aware of...

Seems sensible enough - vastly experienced (also vs Anand of course!) and tending to try and play the same sort of chess as Carlsen was during the match with white at least.

Pretty impressive that 41/91 picked the right score in the poll.