Chess Polls:
Which would you rather choose (Watching live in person or on the Internet):
1. Players in the 2700’s who are prone to drawitis
2. Players who are slightly lower in ratings but will fight until King versus King 
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
My understanding of Chess is so low compared to a Master’s (let alone a GM), that the difference between players rated 2500 and 2700 isn’t readily apparent to me. So, I would much rather watch the aggressive players, even if lower rated.
In other words, while I appreciate Petrosian’s games, I’d much rather watch Tal.
The ‘big names’ are always fascnating.
You know what I love playing? Chess.
You know what I hate watching? Chess.
I don’t really care if players draw or not. In truth I can’t blame them. They make a living at the game and if draws are how they make the best living then fine.
There are millions of games out there I can study, and some I can even get entertainment out of. But to be honest, chess to me is a participation sport and not a spectator sport.
Watching Morozivech and Magnus Carlsen battle it out is much more interesting than all the boring draws at Dortmund. hands down. no contest.
I also learn more about how to play chess from watching those who battle to the end then those who draw.
I watched I think it was the first Dortmund Kramnik game and was emotionally left flat when he took a draw. I dont need to waste my time watching people fake that they are playing chess.
gslvapg
Watching Morozivech and Magnus Carlsen battle it out is much more interesting than all the boring draws at Dortmund. hands down. no contest.
I also learn more about how to play chess from watching those who battle to the end then those who draw.
I watched I think it was the first Dortmund Kramnik game and was emotionally left flat when he took a draw. I dont need to waste my time watching people fake that they are playing chess.
The difference between a 2500 and a 2700 is much more pronounced than the difference between a 2300 and a 2500. Once you hit 2700 you are breathing rarefied air. A real test is to play through a game without knowledge of the names of the players and estimate the rating of the person playing each color. Can people distinguish a 2300 from a 2500?
For me, a draw could be just as satisfying to watch as a win. It all comes down to what transpires between the first move and the final result. I guess this is why I detest some of the recent “anti-draw” measures, particularly when two players have to pare it all down
to King vs. King.
Providing incentives to win makes a lot more sense. Have a prize for the most wins in a tournament in addition to best overall score, and make it clear that playing half-hearted chess will result in no invitation next year. Heck, if you set it up right, even Kramnik will try to win games!
Put a match between Carlsen and Karjakin (both below 2700) and you will see how many guys will be looking that match.
Of course the answer is A LOT.
The average chess amateur, never mind the general public at large, has a hard time following any high level games. Sometimes a spectacular tactical shot is apparent two or three moves later, but most grandmaster moves are mysterious, whether the grandmaster is 2500 or 2700.
So, I think the real question then becomes, which would you prefer to watch, if there was, say, an knowledgeable commentator on the game. If Susan was providing the color commentary on a high-level game, I would definitely prefer to hear her explain some sharp, over-the-board fireworks rather than a very dry, uninteresting draw.
I would much prefer to watch the higher rated player playing.
Let’s face it, I wouldn’t have a clue what was going on in either game, but at least I would obtain more of the magic that celebrities carry around with them.
I believe Yermolinsky put it best:
“Generally speaking, most chess players are boring, self-centered, money-oriented, poorly educated overgrown adolescents I couldn’t care less about. With some exceptions, that includes the Linares crowd and all of the world’s top twenty.”
Do people like to see bad poker players who make bad moves, or good poker players that make good, safe, boring moves?
#2. No contest.
I don’t mind some draws. Kramnik for example. He plays very well, and he doesn’t lose much. I can respect the desire to have games without mistakes as much as I can respect the desire to complicate and fight. Of course an aggressive game, probably on analysis your win should have only been a draw.
It’s obviously subjective, and I’d rather leave it to each player to decide, rather than try to impose a style or ideology on the players.
Susan, you’re known for playing a more aggressive style than some. But that doesn’t make you superior to a cautious player.
I imagine if you were playing a match against Kramnik there would be some dry draws, and he would also crush you a few times.
Complaining about people with a different style, it is absurd. Is competative chess a serious sport where your score determines… your score, or would you have it converted into some entertainment event, some “reality show” where some midlevel GMs decide the tournament scores of the 2700s by voting?
I am happy that there is no need to pick one – both are available without limitations, and neither demands exclusive commitment. I liked watching Biel and Dortmund in two separate windows.
It’s not really fair to chess players to always complain about their games. If they draw – why didn’t they fight on, but if they press on and blunder – how can they make such reckless moves, where is their sense of danger. As a result, viewere like the winners and complain about everybody else.
I respect draws that are caused by never blundering on either side. When Anand and Kasparov played and drew, I never felt that I was missing out on a gladiator show. Leko and Kramnik, too, can have an interesting game that ends in a draw. It suits their style. Being undefeated is respectable.
Nice to see so many visitors here taking a more reasonable and more wise stand on the matter than Susan herself. Of course both are great and we love to watch both, it’s the VARIETY that matters most. I love to see Morozevich sacrifice right and left and play incredibly weird openings and demolish very solid GMs in such way, and I also love to see Kramnik play a game versus Adams which contains lots of maneuverings, gradually improving his position, and ends in a draw — because Adams is great at such maneuvering too. In fact, it is fascinating to watch, just requires a slightly different approach to the game to appreciate fully (with focus on learning something valuable about the game as opposed to having most entertainment). I can learn from Kramnik’s play — when a Bishop is attacked by a pawn, where is the best to retreat it? — I watch Kramnik and learn. If it was Moro, he would ignore both the pawn and the bishop and make a move on the other side of the board. It is harder to learn from that. On the other hand, his second game vs Volokitin in Biel was truly a masterpiece beyond words, and I am happy that I can follow both kinds of chess (and many others too) and appreciate them all.
Number 2., all the way. At my level, I very seldom can figure out why they decided on a draw – it still looks like middle game to me.
The players, who are in the 2700 and above range, are the elite of the sport.
The availability of the game to a fan is the best it has ever been. Internet access makes chess a spectator sport, available to the average chess fan, and NEW fan. The sponsors and the fans will eventually pressure the participants to play fighting chess.
Since moves were first published, the public has been, and I suppose will always be drawn to the best player. The ones with fighting spirit have always been the most popular. This is true in any sporting event.
The players on the Susan’s Blog, are already players, and will do and watch according to preference. But the New players are the target, to the sport, and the game. That is what the sponsor, and players should target. That should include, The Best….. #1 for the promotion the great game of chess.
.
The lower rated the players are, the easier it is for me to spot their mistakes.. which reminds me to get my head out of my behind.. cheers=)
The latter.