There are two players who are each capable of nearly flawless chess. (I did say nearly). It stands to reason that there would be draws in alot of games. Players like Tal made wonderful attacking games, but even Tal has been criticized for some of his attacks being somewhat unjustified (He was just brilliant enough to force the attack anyway). I have no problem with the draws.
Of course, this isn't a personal matter. I'm just stating my views. Somehow, along the line, people have begun to think that chess analysis has reached such great heights that to offer a fight will put a player at a disadvantage. I have to disagree. We have all run across players who lose a pawn and resign and players who lose a pawn and play as if nothing had happened. the second players are the most dangerous, forcing you to think on every move, choose the best possible line every time. A slight inaccuracy on the 61st move and these "fighters" pounce on it. This is true at any level. Second point: early agreed draws are not good for chess. They disappoint spectators and make it so much harder to find a sponsor for the next match. Sponsors are already hard to find. Sponsors spend thousands and thousands hoping for good publicity for their product. Bad publicity equals no sponsor. Many people think this is the way professional chess has to be then a Morphy, Tal, or Fischer comes along and sweeps all these professional draw masters under the carpet.
i agree with buddy2. this is bad for chess (including those sponsoring professional chess). and have you ever seen a world championship match with this much draws (including quick draws)? i'd rather watch NYM instead of this. and it's not just us amateur players saying this. other top-level players (GMs, IMs) are not very happy with the games so far. some letters to Chess Today are proof of this.
like this letter from GM Andras Adorjan (sent to Chess Today after Game 9):
This is really a scandal what Kramnik
and Leko do. Is this the 'classical'
chess? I remember quite differently
what it was like. If I was the sponsor,
I'd reduce the fee to half for both as a
sabotage penalty. I had no high
expectations (they had a score of +2-
4=23!! (Leko led) before the match, but
what is going on now is just a shame!"
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by eomerThe World Championship Match of 1984-5 between Karpov and Kasparov had no less than 22 quick draws (25 moves or less). In quite a few of those games, they just bashed out 15 moves of opening theory and decided to call it a day. I doubt that either player felt any shame over this. Professional players tend to draw far more games than they win.
i agree with buddy2. this is bad for chess (including those sponsoring professional chess). and have you ever seen a world championship match with this much draws (including quick draws)?
Well, 12 games now, the last a draw. In the most recent, there was actually a fight. Kramnik with white tried to win, but then in the late middle game things turned in Leko's favor. He had a decided advantage as black. At that point Kramnik offered a draw and Leko, of course, took it. I'm semi pleased with this game. At least it was worth showing up for. By being so amenable to early draws and Leko showing a little more spunk, the match is going to be incredibly difficult to win for Kramnik. With two games left, he has to change his mindset to win at all costs with black or white. When you've been a wishy-washy drawmeister for so long, it's going to be hard to switch gears. Let's hope he does, and the last games are hard fought to the end.
Originally posted by buddy2I think it was Leko who offered the draw.
Well, 12 games now, the last a draw. In the most recent, there was actually a fight. Kramnik with white tried to win, but then in the late middle game things turned in Leko's favor. He had a decided advantage as black. At that point Kramnik offered a draw and Leko, of course, took it. I'm semi pleased with this game. At least it was worth showing up f ...[text shortened]... to be hard to switch gears. Let's hope he does, and the last games are hard fought to the end.
Originally posted by Natural ScienceEmanuel Lasker. . .now, theres a Champion!
Just look at a former World Champion like Petrosian. He had a lackluster tournament career, but in match play he was nearly unbeatable because of his style of play. I don't think anyone would dare say he wasn't deserving of being called World Champion. Of course, he's not exciting or flashy, so many people have just passed up examining his games altogether, which is a shame, because they are real gems.
the thirteenth was fought to the end. I have no problems with this kind of draw. Nobody would. Since it's so near the end of the match Kramnik has nothing to lose anyway. Normally, he would have offered a draw and all the pundits would have said these technical masters had reached such a high level it would have been useless to continue. Well, it isn't useless. There is a psychological element to matches that has nothing to do with the technical nature of chess. The guy that push, pushes in a technically drawn position causes lots of problems--witness the Fischer-Taimanov match, where Taimanov and his team of Soviets collapsed in Vancouver and a very experienced grandmaster made errors he never would have made facing anyone else. Unfortunately for Kramnik, he started to push too late.