Many chess fans have long been complaining about Kramnik’s safe play and coasting habit when in the lead. Now, some of the same criticisms are gearing toward Anand.
Let’s examine the situation. If the organizer does not have the no draw rule, would it be wise for any tournament leader to fight hard, take chances and go all out in every game (like Topalov or Shirov), risking the lead and tournament standings? Or would it be wiser for the leaders to play safe just to win the tournament? After all, their goals would be to win tournaments and the top cash prizes.
In this Morelia / Linares tournament, 2 players in particular, Topalov and Anand, both have upcoming big matches against Kamsky and Kramnik respectively. Should both of them give 100% of their preparation and repertoire and possibly reveal some of their novelties or should they use alternative or secondary preparation to keep the goodies for their matches?
What is your take? Which is wise and which is not?
It would be very interesting to see a tournament in which no standings or results are posted until the event is finished. Games could be partitioned off at the top level and players would be forbidden to discuss their results, just like they should not discuss games in progress.
THEN we would we see true fighting spirirt each time.
Quite plain and simple: players should do as they please… that’s it!
By the way, I am quite satisfied with the games and I don’t complain.
So you can just give more of the same! 🙂
You cannot expect deep stategic thoughts during the games, and no strategy at all concerning the career of the players themselves !
Even if it’s not spectacular to play draw games, it’s sometimes the best result possible according to circumstances…
Yeah, but Kramnik plays safe when not in the lead as well.
Would Kramnik have scored three wins with black? Not likely!!
Under the current rules, what Anand is doing is reasonable and wise.
The problem is with the rules. The draw offer should be banned, period!
These players get well paid to play these games. Surely they should be earning this pay instead of taking days off. So force them to earn their pay, just like any normal paying job or sport!
It would also help to get rid of the absurd, illogical stalemate rule. This would increase winning chances considerably.
If Anand has a whole point of advantage, it means he has done better til now, so he has the right to play in safe style.
If other players will be able to reach him at the top, it means that they play better than him in the last part of the torney.
Go Vishy! Go Magnus!
Boo Kramnik!
Boo Putin!
“The problem is with the rules. The draw offer should be banned, period! It would also help to get rid of the absurd, illogical stalemate rule. This would increase winning chances considerably.” yeah or we could give bishops the powers of a queen, better still we could change the pieces into cards and the board into a felt table and see who can get the closest to 21 without going over.
In the last super tournament of last year – the Tal Memorial, Kramnik won with plus 4. Now that really wasn’t necessary! Regardless of who is leading, it is up to the others to catch him.
The primary goal for top level tournament players is to win the purse. Expanding the field of chess theory, if a goal at all, would most likely be secondary.
Top players use both safe play and agressive play as needed as they typically have plans and strategies that influence the current tournmant as well as anticipated tournaments.
Though early draws are often boring for fans, I certainly see (and agree) why Anand or any one that has the lead in a major tournament would play it safe and not take any unnecessary risks.
I would do the same!
Afterall, winning the tournament is the goal no matter how “exciting” the games might be perceived by others…including myself.
And, I don’t agree with the “no draw before 40 moves” idea. If two players want to agree to a draw, then that’s the rules of the game and it shouldn’t be changed.
All the top players can play aggressively if they wanted to. Or, they know how to be extremely cautious.
The style they choose is totally dependent upon the situation.
>>
What is your take? Which is wise and which is not?
>>
To evaluate the complaints about Kramnik and Anand by asking whether their styles are really wise or not, is to miss the point. People are not complaining about Kramnik and Anand on the grounds that their styles are not wise, they’re complaining on the grounds that their styles are not exciting. A completely different question.
Anon wrote:
The problem is with the rules. The draw offer should be banned, period!
As long as there is no outside incentive, chess players can always draw a game if they want to. They just go into move repetion and that’s it. Whether it is needed or not, there is nothing anyone can do about that.
How about if victory would be 2 points, a draw would remain 0.5 point? That surely would motivate chess players to avoid draw.
I think it wise for any player in the lead while playing in a major tournament to always “play it safe.” If it means playing for a draw, then so be it. It’s just silly to take unnecessary risks against another “super-GM!”
These guys know this.
and I think the complaints against GM Anand and GM Kramnik (regarding their large number of draws) is completely unwarranted. They are far better than us at chess and know when to “play it safe” or not. Hence, for us to complain against them for doing what most everyone would do if they had the lead in a major tournament and only had to draw to win….
Would do just that: Play it safe.
It would be silly not to. Why? If you play to win every time, then you’ll “play” your way out of the lead in many instances.
And that’s just the way it is.
Thanks for officially starting this post, Susan.
I quote myself from another one:
{quote}
“Anand is doing what is in his best interests to maintain the lead and win the tournament.”
That is nonsense in my humble opinion.
If you’re one point in front (or 1/2 a point and any second valuation) in the last round that’s a real reason for drawing as quick as possible to accomplish the tournament victory. If the half point ASSURES the victory or at least make it more probable as if you fought it out, than it’s okay, too.
A quick draw to recover your power after some hard games may be okay, too.
{end quote}
So as long as Anand takes three quick draws in a row and while one other player can even catch him in the same round (Magnus yesterday was just one point behind Anand after his draw playing against a ‘weak’ (I do not know the correct word, ‘formschwach’ in german) Leko had good chances to catch him) I do not feel ALL these draws are justified.
And I do not accept states like “he was just going to extend/cementing his lead”.
Quoting Susan:
“would it be wise for any tournament leader to fight hard, take chances and go all out in every game (like Topalov or Shirov), risking the lead and tournament standings? Or would it be wiser for the leaders to play safe just to win the tournament? After all, their goals would be to win tournaments and the top cash prizes.”
I am sorry to say this, but this is not a simple neutral question but it shows up an opinion and tries to makes cases for the “draw is good” point.
Another big problem in the “aristocratic” chess society around Anand and his always returning Super-GM troup, and this point is a direct add to the “is Magnus Carlsen benefitted as he may play against the big ones?”:
If a player with a big ELO rate draws against one with a low ELO rate he is going to lose many points.
If every counterpart in a tournament has a high ELO, too, you can’t lose that much points.
I’d be quite interested to see Anand, Kramnik, Leko in a tournament with a mass of 2600- players.
In direct comparison with the big ones Ivanchuk unfortunately often does not show why he had that second place in the ELO list for a short time… but he got that playing and winning (!) against many less rated (but not weak of course) players and that is much more impressive than just holding once ELO rate by always drawing against other high rated players (Leko is the best example here, I predict).
So, come on, stop this incest and put them in less rated tournaments and I am sure most of them will lose big ELO points….
Regards
Jochen
PS: call me buffoon if you want to 😉
It might pay to be a little creative in prize distribution.
Let’s say you have a prize pool of 50K (I don’t know what the prize fund is for Linares 2008), and you are playing Linares/Morelia tournament 2008. Therefore, you have 8 players and a double round-robin. That results in 56 games.
Since chess is a zero-sum game, you could distribute the prize fund based on 50K/56: or,
$892.85 per point.
Take the players final scores and multiply it by the amount above and you have what each player earns.
Right now (after round 11), the prizes would be:
Nº Nombre Puntos
1 V Anand 7 – $6249.95
2 M Carlsen 6 – $5357.10
3 L Aronian 6 – $5357.10
4 V Topalov 6 – $5357.10
5 V Ivanchuk 5 – $4464.25
6 T Radjabov 5 – $4464.25
7 A Shirov 4,5 – $4017.83
8 P Leko 4,5 – $4017.825
Which is fairly flat, and is representative of the performance of all the players.
I think you’ll find that players in the later rounds down in ht estandings would be willing to risk more at the board to get more of the pie.
Perhaps give the winner an extra added bonus for incentive.
Just an idea.
Unrelated Question:
Susan, have you ever seen the Bangiev “Squares Strategy” CD’s from Chessbase and if you have what is your opinion on them? I have the first one and I must say that it has really opened my eyes to strategic middlegame play (I’m a Cat A/Expert player).
And Jochen: You are a Buffoon! Goodbye!
Anon 8:42 AM,
You are suggesting a completely different game.
Getting rid of the stalemate rule does not change the essential core of the game significantly; it is just getting rid of a silly technicality. Getting rid of this would largely eliminate Tartakover’s ‘drawing injustice of chess’. If chess can be improved, why not? Why shouldn’t a player who has achieved a better position (eg 3 pawns vs 2 all on the same side in a Rook ending) have significant winning chances?
Gabor,
Many draws are agreed out of mutual fear (often in time trouble)in interesting positions where a 3 move repetition could not be convincingly (or safely!) arranged. So banning draw offers would certainly have considerable effect as these are not prearranged.
As for 3-move repetition, I suggest another small rule change that would also not essentially affect the core of the game of chess: That the player making a move that repeats a position for the third time loses (ie he has to vary not to lose). That would get rid of quite a few more premature draws!
Nothing to argue today:
37 moves and draw in a double rook endgame with each side 5 pawns and no advantage on either side….
This is a fully acceptable draw, I’d say.
Regards
Jochen
What is wise? Wise is to play your best chess if the organizer pays you well. If you don’t want to show your best, don’t play the tournament. That is what the organizers, sponsors and all the chess fans around the world deserves: the top grandmasters get payed for playing chess, not for make fast and boring draws! It does not matter if you have a match after the tournament, you get payed for playing in the tournament, so you should do so! That would be wise!
Why do we keep blaming the players? They are not the ones sending the invitations.
Why is Leko even invited to the Super GM Tournaments? When was the last time he won one? How many people are actually looking forward to watch his games? He’s invited because of rating, and rating alone.
While invitations are based on ratings, players efforts will concentrate on keeping their high rating.
We don’t have to change the rules to stop the draws, just change the rating system or the invitation criteria.
“Why is Leko even invited to the Super GM Tournaments? When was the last time he won one? How many people are actually looking forward to watch his games? He’s invited because of rating, and rating alone.”
How does Leko (and all others) keep his rating so high all the time? Why don’t he go below 2700 if he is so lousy?
Quote
“It would also help to get rid of the absurd, illogical stalemate rule”
Absurd? Illogical?
What’s the option? To declare the game lost for the stalemated?
The object of the game is to give Checkmate to the opposing King. That goal has been achieved on a stalemate position.
Quote
“Why shouldn’t a player who has achieved a better position (eg 3 pawns vs 2 all on the same side in a Rook ending) have significant winning chances?”
Because he has NOT achieved a better position, just has more material. We might as well just count pieces at the end of the game to see who won.
Stalemate gives endings most of their beauty. Checkmate gives Chess a strategic goal. And the difference between them is what makes Chess what it is.
About Leko… I haven’t said he’s lowsy. He’s obviously a very strong player. But his tournament strategy is boring. Nevertheless he’s still being invited. If we don’t want to see draws in high level chess, then we need to stop inviting drawish players.
“When was the last time he won one?”
Yesterday. 🙂
Quote myself
“Why is Leko even invited to the Super GM Tournaments? When was the last time he won one?”
Don’t take it out of context.. it’s obvious “one” refers to Tournament, not “game”.
I’m sorry, I really didn’t know what you were talking about.
You’re right then, I can’t remember either.
Regards
Jochen
Tournament directors should stay out of the business of trying to micromanage the outcomes of tournaments. Leaders are leaders because they’ve outplayed everyone else! And if they take short draws, they risk being overtaken by more aggressive players. Draws are a part of chess, and they are taken into account by everyone playing in a tournament.
Pls dont compare Anand and Kramnik. Kramnik plays safe from the very beginning. Anand is different. Anand plays tough at the start and tries to get the lead. Only then does he start playing safe.
Cant even begint to compare Anand and Kramnik. Anand has wonr 3 games with black in the tournament.
Has kramnik ever won a total of 3 games with black in a whole year??
If I am 1 km ahead of all my opponents in a foot race, should I continue to run at full speed ? Or should I concerve my energy for a possible final sprint ?
If I am a lap ahead in an F1 race should I keep racing on the limit and risk a stupid mistake ?
Unlike most “sports” such as football, the audience interested in a chess game comprises very few armchair spectators. Ask anyone who does not play chess to watch a game and they are quickly bored (in general). So we should find a way to make chess attractive to the non-chess playing viewer.
Fiddling with point systems will not change viewership, and will not really help chess.
Fistly, comparing Football and Chess is ludicrous, unless you are comparing the technical aspects of running an offense, block assignments, routes, defensive alignments, etc., then only is it similar to chess – and at least as complicated.
Ask any arm-chair football fan to give you the details on the west coast offense – they’ll probably say “you throw alot.” and think they are a football afficionado. Same goes with chess – plenty of patzers out there who have trouble discerning between a pawn and a bishop, the Ruy Lopez and the Philidor’s, the French and the Caro-Kann. Large strategic differences, but not obvious to Joe Blitzer on ICC.
Chess doesn’t need ‘Poker Style’ TV or advertising. Chess, like poker, is inherently a boring spectator sport. Only difference is that Professional Poker can be edited down to a few exciting hands and the public let’s ESPN get away with it.
They could easily do the same thing for chess on a weekly program – show the exciting parts of the best games of the week, sprinkled with some basic instruction.
But I’m dreaming. It’ll NEVER happen.