Tal Memorial r9

Aronian comes with a uber-strong novelity against Gelfand today or yesterdays draw has no logical reason at all.

I've enjoyed this event - although I am somewhat surprised with Mamedyarov's result...

Something else to enjoy : a lovely article in 64 on the occasion of Lilienthal's 95th(!) birthday.

He has some interesting things to say about Alekhine.

http://www.64.ru/?/en/magazine/year=2006&no=5&part=202&article=768

This article must have been published much earlier. Lilienthal turned 95 on May 5th this year.

Wonderful article about Lileinthal. What a wonderful charming man!

If only todays masters had such humor and style...

Does anyone know where the Tal Memorial blitz will be relayed? icc isn't carrying it.

Presumably the last round's started and the site's fallen over again, or is it just me?

Appears to be up - all openings have ECO Code greater than C60, so of no interest to me. Will call back in an hour or two to see if there are any interesting middlegames.

exciting fight in Pono-Leko...

exciting fight in Pono-Leko...

...and Gelfand-Aronian.....and Mamedyarov-Svidler....can't see Grischuk-Carlsen being too thrilling either. But the Moro endng is quite interesting.

Thanks babson, wonderful article indeed. Didnt know much about him, glad to have rectified the oversight at least now..

Ja, ja... "fighting games". What a waste of tournament!

anyone with an idea how we can rule out the draw outcome in chess ? I mean something similar to GO rules, not Fischer-random or similar changes.

Draw festival! Who has ever thought this?
Two guys make draw and start drinking beer at the bar, and the others think: Hey, a beer is not bad, and the draw festival begins till all are standing at the bar cooling their throats ...

Site seems to have come to a halt again. Can hardly blame it really.

Why not apply the Sofia-rule in every tournament?

i cant believe they are actually payed for such ridicolous 20 moves draws..

About the draws, I don't remember who suggested that (John Nunn or Nigel Short) in a chessbase article. The solution is pretty simple. The organizers should not invite the short draws players for the next tournament. Natural selection ...

Here's what ChessBase predicted for the last round:
"It is going to be an exciting finish, well worth watching. See you on Playchess.com, where you can join world-class grandmasters to catch all the action from Moscow."
It turned out there was no action--just the traditional waste of time. These GMs don't seem to have any sporting instincts.

What a joke!!! The last round was a snore-fest. I could hibernate for three months, wake up, take a look at round nine, and fall right back to sleep!

Ceterum censeo:

Sofia rules, Sofia rules, Sofia rules!
(The draw-rules, not the toilet-rules)

Award 1/3 point for tournament draws.

Not a good move from the players. I have absolutely nothing against draws and not even against short draws when a player is tired, ill or wanting to prepare for a big hit the next day.

However, a short draw in the last round is unforgiveable- the players can rest for a long period after this event (they probably attend 3 or 4 events like this a year, so can take a week or two's rest after giving their all in teh last few rounds).

You can probably find a few reasons for the outbreak of peace in terms of individuals (Leko wins on tie-break if it is decided by SB, Aronian if most wins, those at the bottom if they are demorralised after coming into this event expecting to win). However, this is probably the day the sponsor turns up and at least somebody should have given him a fight to watch. This shows disrespect to the sponsor and, as Aschulz says, should result in a withdrawal of the invitation for next year's event.

The sponsor who gave Shabalov and Akobian a bonus for combativity in the US Champs a few years back had a good idea and I think US players will remember it for some time to come.

The Linares field has also been announced (source TWIC)
Veselin Topalov, Viswanathan Anand, Peter Leko, Peter Svidler, Levon Aronian, Teimour Radjabov, Magnus Carlsen and Alexei Shirov or Francisco Vallejo Pons.

Shame there is no Kramnik, but Anand back after absence last year.

"Evariste Galois: Why not apply the Sofia-rule in every tournament?"

I guess because not all groups of players are solvable under that rule...

What a bunch of cowards. Sofia rules please!

al wrote: "However, a short draw in the last round is unforgiveable- the players can rest for a long period after this event (they probably attend 3 or 4 events like this a year, so can take a week or two's rest after giving their all in teh last few rounds)."

Not quite. A $100k blitz tournament starts on saturday, where they will have to play 15 games in one day.

"The Linares field has also been announced (source TWIC)
Veselin Topalov, Viswanathan Anand, Peter Leko, Peter Svidler, Levon Aronian, Teimour Radjabov, Magnus Carlsen and Alexei Shirov or Francisco Vallejo Pons."

According to http://www.chessbase.com/espanola/newsdetail2.asp?id=4694
there will be only eight players, including Morozevich, and no Shirov or Vallejo.

al: yes, Linares lineup is big news. I am suprised that recently Kramnik has preferred Wijk to Linares. I think he would do better in Linares format. It seems like a good lineup, though. Anand's participation should add to the excitement.

Interesting about the discrepancy between Chessbase and TWIC fields - I wonder who Mark's source is.

Also, what about the grand slam- weren't the top 4 players supposed to play in each event? Will Kramnik get an invitation to Sofia?

The last round is always a problem. Some want to make party after the tourney, others go home. I'm wondering why the started the round so late. If they'd begun in the morning there would have been longer games.

Ruslan,

Yes, it is very interesting that Kramnik prefers Wijk. I would have thought he'd want the extra break that Linares being in February affords him.

I wonder if there was an argument over his terms...

I imagine he'll be exhausted after the Fritz match. Three huge events in 4 months and also continuing his convalescence. I hope for his health he doesn't overdo it.

Oh God, Russianbear I'm really sorry- that must be the most offensive thing anyone has ever called you...

In all tournaments they ought to just eliminate the last round.

It seems like this is the source for the TWIC story:

"En esta versión del torneo de ajedrez creado por Luis Rentero participarán los ajedrecistas: el búlgaro Veselin Topalov, número uno en el ranking mundial; Viswanathan Anand, originario de la India que ocupa el segundo lugar mundialmente; Peter Leko, de Hungría; Peter Svidler, de Rusia; el armenio Levon Aronian, triunfador del torneo de linares en su versión 2006; Teimur Radjabov, de Azerbajan, y Magnus Carlsen, actual campeón de Noruega. El alcalde de Linares, Juan Fernández Gutiérrez, refirió que aún no se define quién será el ajedrecista español que será invitado al torneo."

I guess they deduced that one of Shirov or Vallejo Pons would be the Spanish player.

It would make sense for there to be a Spanish player there, so this probably has more credibility than the Chessbase story.

The link to the Mexican paper running the original Linares story:

http://www.lajornadamichoacan.com.mx/2006/10/25/18n1cul.html

http://chesspro.ru/_events/2006/memtal6.html

has a good report on on of Tal Memorial rounds - including Kasparov's interview and his take on the games, the Kramnik-Topalov match, Carlsen, etc. Good stuff.

I may be able to translate some of it when I free up later in the day.

Looks like Chessbase has the correct lineup.

http://www.marca.com/edicion/marca/ajedrez/es/desarrollo/709710.html

Running the Kasparov interview through Babelcarp:

What thought did you of match Toplvoa-Kinmark?

Most game interesting was five game! Not so but interesting my two games Kramnik with 2000 London 15-moves pieces with white draw. Study those games should you. Easy make mistake no when play not.

Quality games of what thought did you Elista?

Games consistent not. Some games win, some lose games, some draw games. Hard to say. Consistent it much better to be. London lose I two games and win none. Consistent very. Rematch it proves deserve I. Topalov nothing deserve because results consistent not.

The Sofia rules help to mitigate against the appearance of fightless draws, but professional players will not be deterred by those sort of tournament regulations, if indeed they want to have an easy draw. However, such rules entail that the players might tacitly agree to an arranged result. The players in a Sofia rules event could, at say move 15 or 20, "agree" to split the point, and then inexorably steer the game to a draw. Thus, all of the pieces and pawns are traded off in a rather straightforward manner. If they want want to put on a good show, the players could stretch the game out to move 50, and play until there are just the bare Kings left. I suppose that everybody is reasonably happy under such a scenario: the players are assured of the result that they want, and without too much exertion or risk; the organizers get "their money's worth"; and the chess fans get to see an unrelenting chess battle, with no quarter offered or accepted.

A more honest approach to avoiding short draws in the last round is to offer a substancial prize for the best example of fighting chess. A couple years back, the exasperated organizers of the US Championship did just that...

In playing through the games, it makes one wonder if there was not some event that precipitated the players' agreement to GM draws. Perhaps there was an early flu bug hitting some of the players. Or maybe the organizer of the event tried to unilaterally alter some of the terms, perhaps with respect to a reduction in remuneration for the players. It kind of has the look of "Blue Flu" -- i.e. a job action by disgruntled workers.

Some players had nothing left to play for except pride (Moro had a go at it, but had to take the repetition). For some players draw was favourable for their tournament situation. But Gelfand was a ******* idiot. Has he ever won a top tournament? Now he had his chance to share first place. Complex position, everything left to play for and he voluntarily accepts 4th place, instead of going for 1st. Is there any other "sport" on this planet where you could see players settling for 4th when having a realistic chance to fight for 1st?

And it doesn't increase Gelfand's chances to get further invitations, and it didn't even win him any money I'm sure. And it certainly didn't win him any friends among the chess fans.

What an idiotic thing to do (unless he was physically sick).

Vienna 1996, Fat Grey. (I remember that one because I was there. There are surely more.)

Gelfand was =1st with Ivanchuk in the 1990 Manila Interzonal and 1st in the 1993 Biel Interzonal. Tournament victories don't get much bigger than that.

If I recall, A Rubinstein memorial a few years ago was won by Gelfand too.
BTW its pathetic to read a semi-patzer armed with fritz, making those comments about a player who for more than 15 years haaas been among the chess elite.

If he is tired and want to save energy for the blitz, who are you to argue about it?

draws are not a problem in chess. they are a part of the game. short draws however, are another matter. but I don't see how anyone here can complain. did anyone here pay to watch the tournament? chess has many fans, but very few paying customers. everyone that complains should chip in and run a tournament with Sofia rules. that system seems to work pretty well, but I am opposed to messing with the scoring system. not all draws are bad, but I agree these pathetic 20 moves draws are an insult to the organisers.

Update to entry: Well, I was lamentably prescient with the entry on this round when I mentioned the Sofia rules. Everyone decided to take the day off with only the meaningless Morozevich-Shirov surpassing the 20-move mark (26) - and spending most of those moves swapping pieces. A disgraceful exhibition, although I've seen disgraceful exhibitions that were more entertaining than this. Tal Memorial indeed. Tal circa 1991, maybe. Or 1993.

Aronian, Leko, and Ponomariov tie for first with a modest +2 (5.5/9). I really couldn't care less about tiebreaks unless they give it to Aronian for most wins. It was very tight throughout, with three days of 5/5 draws and an overall 69% draw rate keeping the pace slow. Most of the draws were of the fighting variety, but a last round like this should simply not be possible.

Now the blitz event begins, with Anand the top seed. (Anand interview.) A powerful qualifier is already underway and finishes tomorrow.

I don't understand the excitement over short draws on this Blog of Kramnik lovers...

People reap what they sow. I guess this "combativity" is the reason why there aren't too many millionaire chessplayers...

Here is an alternative scoring system, with 6 GMs playing in the tournament:
http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/news_7_154.php
Call it BAP or Slugfest.

I thought it turned out pretty well, but I'm biased.

In the BAP / Slugfest tournament above, 7 (count 'em) of the 40 games were drawn. OTOH, the range in strengths was greater than at the Tal Memorial. Still, there were NO short draws.

Here's my own report of the same event, GM Slugfest:
http://members.shaw.ca/berry5868/gmslug.htm

"The last round is always a problem. Some want to make party after the tourney, others go home. I'm wondering why the started the round so late. If they'd begun in the morning there would have been longer games."

I think that the tradition of short last round draws began *because* organizers insisted on starting the last round hours before the regular time. For example, rounds 1-8 would be at 3 pm, but final round 9 would be at 10 am. That drove great competitors and peaceful men such as Bent Larsen and Robert Huebner to the brink of apoplexy.

The Gelfand draw was indeed disappointing. Seirawan was already prophesying a king attack by Boris by exploiting black's weak dark squares, suddenly hands were shaked.

it is better to have move limit rules for draw. draws themselves are not bad. they are natural. the problem is the short draws. changing the scoring is akin to eliminating stalemate. I can't imagine getting zero points for a fighting draw with white vs a strong opponent...

Seems like these tournaments always end like this. Topalov is the only elite player I can think of that plays almost every game out to a reasonable end. Maybe there are others? Nakamura I think, but he doesn't qualify as elite yet. Didn't Korchnoi have a similar fighting reputation?

It would be interesting to see what the average number of moves are for each of these players games over the last few years. Maybe some kind of award could be presented to the one that manages to have the fewest moves per game. We could call it the Clown award.

> But Gelfand was a ******* idiot. Has he ever won a top tournament? Now he had his chance to share first place. Complex position, everything left to play for and he voluntarily accepts 4th place, instead of going for 1st.>

Why do you wonder that he has never won a top tournament ? It is exactly because of taking also before the same kind of decisions as he took today that he has never won.

It seems that losing in chess is so painful that nothing would be rewarding enough to take the risk and go for win.
Only a change is rules to make draws impossible would make chess players to play different games.

Before the end of 19th century this was solved by the implicit obligation to show courage, play "gentle-manly". Even Morphy disliked 1.d4 on moral grounds and said that it was "cowardly".

But today ? There is no such "code of honour" to act as an inner pressure to overide fear.

so we get draws, draws, draws.....

I guess Mig can resurrect the ol' Chicken Awards.

News about candidates matches: http://www.fide.com/news.asp?id=1173

So, there will be 12 matches as originally planned, not a tournament. Prize fund is also as originally promised (as far as I remember it was 40K, then it went down to 15K and now again 40K).

"Why do you wonder that he has never won a top tournament ? It is exactly because of taking also before the same kind of decisions as he took today that he has never won."

ovidiu, if you paid attentio to the rest of the thread, you would have known that Gelfand had won two interzonals and a few others (Dos Hermanas 1994, back when that was a major tournament, Belgrade 1995, and others.)

I get your point, though, and agree with it. Incidentally, you could argue that with openings for 1. e4 like the Petroff and Berlin and the resurgence of QGA, that 1. d4 is the new fighting opening.

fluffy:

One can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

You might also have felt disappointed at tying for second in the GM Slugfest tournament (like Ftacnik and Serper did) and earning $0. The $5,000 prize was indivisible, and had there been a tie, quick playoffs would have ensued. A similar measure at the Tal would have decreased the likelihood of so many perfunctory draws.

But I wouldn't dismiss BAP scoring so easily. Yeah, it was bittersweet for me to get a draw against the highest-rated player I've ever drawn ... and get zero BAP points for it.

That reminds me of the 1995 Groningen Tournament, when Karpov resented the fact that the last round was due to start in the Morning. Clearly, he is very much the night owl. So, Karpov got up at (what was for him, at least) the prescribed "ungodly hour", and went to the tournament hall. As he was White, he played 1.d4, and then offered his incredulous opponent, Leko, a draw! This was back when "Karpov was Karpov" (just a year after his 11/13 [+9] Linares victory) and before "Leko became Leko". If the FIDE World Champion offered you a Draw as White, one would be prudent to accept it.

Leko took the draw; the organizers got the message.
================================
"The last round is always a problem. Some want to make party after the tourney, others go home. I'm wondering why the started the round so late. If they'd begun in the morning there would have been longer games."

I think that the tradition of short last round draws began *because* organizers insisted on starting the last round hours before the regular time. For example, rounds 1-8 would be at 3 pm, but final round 9 would be at 10 am. That drove great competitors and peaceful men such as Bent Larsen and Robert Huebner to the brink of apoplexy.

Short draws were even more endemic 20 or 30 years ago. Many players from the Eastern Bloc were obliged to accept invitations to play in other Socialist countries. Sometimes, conditions were Spartan, and the Prize fund meager. It was not uncommon for a player to show up, whip out 10-12 quick moves, and then offer/agree to a draw. Up and coming players were happy to draw titled players; players with Black accepted Draw offers from White; "Veteran" players drew each other, as did compatriots. In some 15 round events, there were players who drew every game. In a few 9 round events, a MAJORITY of the players made it through undefeated.

I too would be interested to see the "record" for fewest moves played (average, per game) in a Round Robin chess tournament. Maybe the database jockies can sort out an answer?
=============================
"It would be interesting to see what the average number of moves are for each of these players games over the last few years. Maybe some kind of award could be presented to the one that manages to have the fewest moves per game. We could call it the Clown award."

The fact that "BAP" is rendered in all capital letters suggests that it might be an Acronym. If that is indeed the case, what does the "BAP" acronym stand for? If "BAP" does not signify an Acronym, then what does the word mean, and why was it coined?

========================
Posted by: Jonathan Berry at November 16, 2006 17:51
"In the BAP / Slugfest tournament above, 7 (count 'em) of the 40 games were drawn. OTOH, the range in strengths was greater than at the Tal Memorial. Still, there were NO short draws."

The fact that "BAP" is rendered in all capital letters suggests that it might be an Acronym. If that is indeed the case, what does the "BAP" acronym stand for? If "BAP" does not signify an Acronym, then what does the word mean, and why was it coined?

========================
Posted by: Jonathan Berry at November 16, 2006 17:51
"In the BAP / Slugfest tournament above, 7 (count 'em) of the 40 games were drawn. OTOH, the range in strengths was greater than at the Tal Memorial. Still, there were NO short draws."

I'm more than tired of hearing chess fans complain about what the players are doing. The fans have other jobs to pay their bills (hopefully), but this is the livelihood that the players have to rely on. Why should a player, guaranteed a decent pay day, choose to risk it for someone half a world away who he a) has never met, b) will never meet, and c) would never remember if he met? What do we have to offer these players in exchange for them throwing away money for our entertainment?

As any person who's played a long tournament knows, it's hard to keep your energy from start to finish. In the last round, when players are exhausted and so much is on the line, anxiety alone is able to make a person forget how the little horsie moves. I can't, in good conscience, fault a player for wanting to get out of the last round safely when there's so much to lose.

Merv is right, as far as not blaming the players for acting in their own financial interest. They are legitimately balancing the risk/rewards of potential game outcomes, while adhering to the rules of the game. Agreed draws are allowed, regardless of their length. The problem, however, is that having rules that allow such short, uncontested draws, detracts from the potential entertainment value of professional chess events. And entertainment value is what attracts fans, and fans attract sponsors. Players and organizers in several other sports have figured this out, and they constantly are tweaking the rules and structure of their games to improve the entertainment value.

RP brings up a good point as far as the dynamics of the whole sponsorship situation. Risks draw fans and fans draw sponsors (in the hopes that said fans will buy whatever said sponsors are selling). From that standpoint, the short draws are a problem.

If we leave the realm of the theoretical and get into the practical, however, we notice that there are all sorts of things amiss with trying to attract sponsors through fighting chess. First of all, we're all well-aware of Kirsan's attempts to make chess more fan-friendly by speeding up the game; the result was that the game became less enjoyable because the moves were no longer of top quality. Players duking it out in a dead-drawn position is also not the most exciting thing in the world (as a former scholastic coach, I've seen far too much of this). Finally, the sponsorship would come down the line and would presumably increase little by little, and the players would have to go through very lean years before any sponsorship money would come their way. To use an analogy, we all know that college graduates make more than those who didn't go to college (on average), but it's not worth going unless you can eat while studying for your degree.

I am going to translate http://chesspro.ru/_events/2006/memtal6.html
I will start from the moment Kasparov came into the press center. The original article is by Yury Vasiliev. Whenever they discuss a
facial expression or some such, the original article has the appropriate pictures.

Then a little panic started in the ranks of journalists, and management of the club and the tournament. The ex-king of chess, Garry Kasparov came to the tournament.

At first, he forgot to change his very mean face expression but then, after he was surrounded by his chess world colleagues, he warmed up and ended up sitting in the back room of the press center almost until the end of the round. Not everyone managed to sneak in there.

Andrey Shustaev, technical director of the tournament, was exercising astrict control over that. For example, twice a very famous GM commentator tried to enter the room, but both times Shustaev didn't let him in. On the other hand, he let good looking female college
students in, and that is something I understand.

Kasparov spent time in a useful way. His comments - both humorous and not - were received very enthusiastically by the journalist
crowd. When he was watching Shirov suffer in a position where he had two bad pieces and Grischuk had one good one, Garry asked:
-Which black piece is the extra one - the knight on h3 or the bishop on g8?
(laughter in the hall).

And when Grischuk started pushing his central and queenside pawns, Garry said enthusiastically:
-Yeah, it will be a beautiful game!

Tournament Director Aleksander Bakh told Kasparov that the prize for the game played in Tal's style, will be the most modern, or as he
said "full-featured", computer. Garry replied instantly,
-Mikhail Nekhem'evich [Tal] would be glad.

Kasparov had a curious dialog with Bakh about a subject we discussed here.
-Why aren't "Sofia rules" in effect? - Asked Garry.
-It was agreed that the participants need to be able to rest if they want to. The [tournament players] field is very solid.
-In this case I am talking as a spectator.I can give example of several games where "Sofia rules" would be appropriate. For example, the
game Ponomariov-Svidler. I can name some others.
-But one has to admit that as a whole, they are giving a good effort- said Roshal, the press center manager, the person who brought up the topic on several press conferences.
Garry agreed:
-Yes they are playing well, it fun...

Kasparov:
-And what happened in the Aronian-Svidler game? Does Petya [Svidler] have some influence on Aronian? That game is so different from anything that was played here! And what about Magnus yesterday, eh?

One of my colleagues tried to defend The Kid:
[here and below Vasiliev refers to Carlsen as "The Kid" or "The Boy", which is a reference to the Russian version of Astrid Lindgren's
childrens book "Karlsson-on-the-Roof" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlsson-on-the-Roof for more details). The Kid is a major in
the book and there is another major character there named Karlsson, which sounds very similar to Carlsen, especially in Russian. That,
and the scandinavian connection are the reasons for the nickname, I guess -RB]
-Well, it was an accident.
Kasparov disagreed:
-Accident? Things like that don't happen by accident.

Garry refused to answer my tradition question about Tal:

-I wrote a book about him.
-Well, the book can't be a substitute for the "live" word. -(I tried to get something-anything from the chess king)
Garry disagred with me:
-The book also has the live word.

Then I tried something else:

-Garry, I remember your first game against Tal well. It was Major league of the USSR championship in Tbilisi. Do you remember it?
-We played in the last round. He already won the first place and I already secured a spot in the Major league. What did we have to play for? There were no "Sofia rules" back then.

After everyone finished laughing at that joke, Garry continued:

-I played Tal twice in USSR championships and both times in the last round, when noone needed anything anymore.
-Garry, and here, whose play do you like the most?

Garry willingly answered this question:
- I liked how Ponomariov played in the beginning of the tournament. He was displaying interesting novelties, played in a fresh way and showed he had room for improvement.

I decided to mention my hungarian protege:
-And Leko has been playing well, too, I think. Remember, how well he was playing against Aronian?

Garry made a characteristic grimace and winced in this way... As if to say, don't you know what I think about Leko:

-Well... yeah...
Kasparov quickly said:
-Leko has been playing as he always does! He plays safely!

The word "safely" was said by KAsparov with an ironic stress.

After these words the monitor showed the position of Carlsen-Leko. Garry asked:

-Who wants to win here? Ok, Leko can play without any risk. And when Leko can play without any risk, he is very dangerous!

Jumping ahead I will note that the game Carlsen-Leko lasted a long time. Leko was getting quite a lock on The Kid and "almost won", but
didn't. The young chess viking turned out to be a tough nut to crack!

When I asked Garry an innocent question on whether he wants to play in Tal's Blitz Cup, he gave me a mean stare and could barely say:

-What for?
-Well, just to play chess.
-Both results will be bad. If I don't succeed, its unpleasant. If I win, you yourself will write that Kasparov is back to chess. What
do I need that for?
(laughter)

-------------
Ok, it seems like this article is longer than I thought. Maybe I'll do the second part tomorrow.

RB

BAP means "Ballard Anti-draw Point", at least according to 13 or 55 google hits.

I feel sorry for people who can hardly play chess but find every reason to insult well-respected GMs like Boris Gelfand.

In final position of Gelfand-Aronian game black can win a pawn by 16...Ba6 17. Qa4 (nothing better) 17...Qc8 18. Qb3 (only move) and here 18...Qc7 and white can't save e5 pawn. Perhaps, there is a way for white to keep it balanced somehow, but I respect Gelfand's decision. Gelfand played fighting chess in Moscow in most of his games,same he did in Dortmund this year, despite beeing the oldest player in both events.
Draws in Mamedyarov-Svidler and Ponomariov-Leko games are much more disappointing: no chess contest in both-all theory.
Overall, I must agree that the last round of Tal Memorial was an upset. Sofia rules are pointless-Mamedyarov and Svidler could've continued in their ending for another 70 moves trading pair of pawns every 10 moves. Would you enjoy such chess? Me not. Danailov can't force players to fight if they don't want to.
If you noticed, the fighting in some of Sofia 2006 games was just artificial.
Players must respect organizers and sponsors- that's what Danailov must learn.
Perhaps, several players of Tal Memorial who hadn't scored any single win, could try harder in the last round.

P.S. Mig, delete messages which insult Gelfand.

Tyomkin: There's no point in censoring people's posts. While it's in poor taste to insult Gelfand, you can certainly criticize his lack of fighting spirit. Nor do you have to be a GM to criticize a GM. In virtually every sport/art, people are free to criticize the artists/players, even if they're nowhere near their level.

Yeah but in no sports are the true understanding less accesible to most of the yelling people.

However I agree, there is no need for censoring, when the idiocy is transparent and answered by people who are actually qualified to do so.

Q

A dull tournament with expected, boring, final day results.

Say what you want about Topalov and/or his manager. At least Topa loves to play chess and I love watching him do it.

Tyomkin :

>I feel sorry for people who can hardly play chess but find every reason to insult well-respected GMs like Boris Gelfand.
Mig, delete the messages that insult Gelfand>

quick to censor criticism, "protecting muslims sensibilities"...well, apologizes have just been issued by Pope and chessbase.com in their article on the last round

freitag :

>The Gelfand draw was indeed disappointing. Seirawan was already prophesying a king attack by Boris by exploiting black's weak dark squares, suddenly hands were shaked.>

that was a good move in the sense that it ambushed the spectators; surprise-factor is serious advantage in war.. lol...well, Seirawan is retired, he hardly plays chess nodways so he better shut up not voice what he sees but only what he should see.

...........

Seirawan has a deep understanding of chess. Nevertheless, his plan 16.Qc1 would hardly passed the test. After 16.-Bg5 17.f4 Be7 the black bishop has a comeback on c5+. Also black has opportunities to play Qd3.
Seirawan would also have played 16.Nxc4 if he was sitting at the board. But his comments are always interesting to listen to.

Curious how some people hate Seirawan so much, for no very good reason I can see. Why is that?

Of course he’s still a strongish GM: he may not have played so much recently but he won’t have forgotten how to the extent ovidiu absurdly suggests.

i meant exactly the opposite, i was mocking a previous post on those who "hardly play chess"

"I feel sorry for people who can hardly play chess but find every reason to insult well-respected GMs like Boris Gelfand."

Totally agreed. The constant attacks, insults and name-calling are as pathetic as ever. Some people seriously need to grow up.

Kasparov implies that lifeless draws are excusable if a player is not in postition to fight for something in a tournament, or if there are no Sofia rules in place.

With that I (unfortunately) agree.

The player of short draws enjoys a competitive advantage (more rest time) over the always-fighting player. Exhorting the short-draw player to give up this advantage "for the good of the game" will be about as effectual as exhorting individual pro baseball players to give up steroids "for the good of the game."

Exhorting the tournaments to adopt the Sofia rules won't help much either, for the same reason. Tournaments which don't impose the burdensome, exhausting Sofia rules on their invitees enjoy a competitive advantage over those which do.

So in chess, as in baseball, such reforms "for the good of the game" will have to be imposed from the top.

There seems to be nothing that can be done.

Nunn's point of view is the "voice of reason" but doesn't work in chess since there is no money feedback from the "market" (public) to select out those who play as Gelfand or Leko.
How much did you pay (and would have paid) to watch them playing rather than drawing ?

How could such systems set in motion? Privately broadcasted tournaments ? Copyrights on games as Em. Lasker wanted once ?. Unrealistic.

Moralizing doesn't work either, it only fires back in defensive comments as "you hardly play so shut up" "grow up" etc.

What is left then ?
Not much, just watch the tournaments as usualy and pray that more "Topalov-Fischer"-like players who force themselves to play out of their own inner standards will appear, for unfathomable reasons.

One minor adjoinder to Greg's post which I largely agree with. There are few if any "always-fighting" players, as this last round proves. Similarly, nobody always plays short draws and indeed a player who plays them will never get anywhere in ratings and invitations.

The question then is formulated thus:

What is one to do to encourage players to play for the win in a given single game?

I don't like the idea of eliminating draws. Many chess positions are drawn and GMs deserve rest days when we want them.

But GMs are severely handicapped by the fact that a loss is more meaningful than a win. Lose and your error will be disected for days, if you are a top player and lose to an even slightly poorer one, your failure will be analyzed, talked about, etc.

On the other hand, what do you get with a win? An extra half point in meaningless tournament standings? Why would anybody risk a loss in a situation like that?

I can think of a couple of ideas:
1. Establish a prize fund that rewards players for each extra half point they earn in the standings.
2. Convert SuperGM tournaments into qualifiers for a final stage of WCC cycle. If top three-four players from each tournament get in, there is more incentive to finish in the top three-four.
3. Create a strong WCC cycle with several match or tournament stages. With such a strong meaningful opportunity to redeem yourself for any losses and to qualify based on more than just rating points, GMs will not worry as much about a couple of losses in super-tournaments and might even use them to test out ideas/lines.

I am not sure why Greg thinks that Sofia is having trouble attracting GMs, I haven't heard anything like that.

>What is one to do to encourage players to play >for the win in a given single game?

find a way, a system, to have these highly critical and demanding chess-buffs spectators to pay the GMs for doing this and they will fight to death

don't broadcast the tournaments on line(or do it only to paying subscribers and sue the hackers, likely impossible these p2p times) and charge high prices for watching the show, a show.

Why does everyone offer such complicated ideas? The solution to the short draw problem is simple.

Use Sofia rules everywhere.

If anyone has any proper arguments against it, then please post them, since I've never seen one.

I wonder what leads the trolls to pick on one victim instead of another, even when the choice is clearly inappropriate, as in the case of Gelfand this time.
Without going back to the two consecutive games lasting over 100 moves (Adams and Jobava) that he played in Dortmund last July, a glance at the crosstable would be enough to make these geniuses realize that Gelfand had 3 decisive games in this event and scored at least as many wins as any other participant, with the single exception of Aronian.
But of course facts are not a problem when your only objective is to lower the level of discussion on a first-rate site by insulting whoever you feel like at the moment...

The qualifier is over.

>Use Sofia rules everywhere.
>If anyone has any proper arguments against it, >then please post them, since I've never seen one.

They look a bit artificial, only motivating resentful players to stage repetitions to get around them. No point in starting such kind "war".

It would be different if fighting were willing, enthusiastic... for the sake of money and new tournament invitations as Nunn suggested.

Thus how do you get the chess fans to pay for what they get and thus to become the ones who set the standards is the issue.

Until then we will get what we pay for, no point and right in complaining.

I have read many entries expressing severe criticism of the Tal Memorial players' performance in the last round. I think that this reaction is completely unwarranted and mindless.

First, the games may look dead to the spectators but they are not dead to the players. There is no agreement to 'play on' until move 20 and then settle amicably. One always has to hold the balance. Be sure that if a player estimated his position as superior, they would have played on.

Second, it is downright offensive for chess amateurs who know little of the game's nature and its psychology to accuse top players of boredom, complacency and the like. These players have mad it to the top of their profession exactly because they have displayed high quality and determination throughout their professional careers. Each top player has thus earned to right to play as they see appropriate, not as the public would like to see them playing.

Third, I wonder how many of those who accuse players for being boring have considered that top chess players are human. One may offer/play for a draw because one did not wake up well, because one heard a piece of bad news, because it secures first place etc.

Fourth, some say that quick draws are disrespectful to the public. This too is disingenuous. If there is a sport in which top players receive absolutely nothing back from the spectators, it is chess. Why should players feel compelled to 'perform' for the spectators, when they feel that there is little to play for in the position? In the same way, the image of an amateur chess-fan, coming back from work and eager to see top players grind down each other strikes me as really silly.

So please, think twice before accusing top players for being 'boring'. And Mig, I think you would do well not to fuel such accusations.

I have read many entries expressing severe criticism of the Tal Memorial players' performance in the last round. I think that this reaction is completely unwarranted and mindless.

First, the games may look dead to the spectators but they are not dead to the players. There is no agreement to 'play on' until move 20 and then settle amicably. One always has to hold the balance. Be sure that if a player estimated his position as superior, they would have played on.

Second, it is downright offensive for chess amateurs who know little of the game's nature and its psychology to accuse top players of boredom, complacency and the like. These players have mad it to the top of their profession exactly because they have displayed high quality and determination throughout their professional careers. Each top player has thus earned to right to play as they see appropriate, not as the public would like to see them playing.

Third, I wonder how many of those who accuse players for being boring have considered that top chess players are human. One may offer/play for a draw because one did not wake up well, because one heard a piece of bad news, because it secures first place etc.

Fourth, some say that quick draws are disrespectful to the public. This too is disingenuous. If there is a sport in which top players receive absolutely nothing back from the spectators, it is chess. Why should players feel compelled to 'perform' for the spectators, when they feel that there is little to play for in the position? In the same way, the image of an amateur chess-fan, coming back from work and eager to see top players grind down each other strikes me as really silly.

So please, think twice before accusing top players for being 'boring'. And Mig, I think you would do well not to fuel such accusations.

In my opinion, while the Sofia rule is not perfect, it can prevent the "uplanned-before-the-games-draws". It can prevent at least these two situations.

1- An equal position with full of play arises on the board and one of the player offers a draw.
2- A position where a player has an advantage, but is on time pressure. Being a chicken he offers a draw.

So I believe the Sofia rule should be used everywhere. After all, tournaments should be organized for fans that take a day off to come see the games and not for GMs that want to take a ride in the park.

And in a totally drawn position a player can make an error (ex: Aronian vs Carlsen in this tournament). It is so fun to watch an endgame as a spectator because you can learn how to make a draw in some situations.

>Each top player has thus earned to right to play as they see appropriate, not as the public would like to see them playing.>

I would disagree here. You never get to such kind of right.

You do not do a job or a service as you deem appropriate but as the payer, the employer,
think it is. Who pays the piper calls the tune.

My point was only that as long we (chess fans) don't pay for the show we have no right in accusing of being cheated.

The criticism expressed here on "Gelfand and team " has been objective however hard to swallow but beside the point since we have not been the payers but rather just got all for free.

As payers we would have had the right to "fire" those who instead of "working" just "walk in the park" as you put it.

Fluffy

The great thing about blogs (and democracy) is anyone can complain. So here goes - a truly miserable and gutless display that sullied the reputation of those involved in the pathetic agreed short draws. Three cheers for the memory of Tal - what a way to commemorate him. I guess the 3 wimps agreed with each other that no one would be naughty and try to win.

Emmanuel

What planet are you on - spectators have every right to critcise without spectators and its not just "paying" ones who attend, there is no sponsorship and no sugnificant professional chess at all. Its just gibbersh to say you didnt pay or organise so you cannot criticise. Are you really suggesting that some of those draws were not prearranged - get real. Of course players can play (within the rules) as they want but they should get criticised and not invited to tournaments if they persist in certain ways of playing.

Well, in the American or Goichberg model that often gets trashed here in Dirt-land, a portion of the fans (those who play in the lower sections that feed dollars to a contemporaneous open event where the title-holders are clustered) DO in fact pay for the privilege of hobnobbing with the GMs. That makes ME a sponsor: I contributed about $350 to the World Open prize fund, for instance.

(Well, to be precise, my contribution to the GMs' prize fund less was than that, but greater than zero. You'd have to extract the pro-rated portion of my entry fee that went into the prize fund for the section I was playing in, and the remainder would then constitute my contribution to the GMs' prizes. You do the math if you like, I'm not going to bother.)

And I have no problem with GMs making draws, short or otherwise.

The sponsor has spoken.

>Of course players can play (within the rules) as they want but they should get criticised and not invited to tournaments if they persist in certain ways of playing.>

yes of course, I guess that tournament organizers have read Mig's blog and our critical opinions.

They now think again whom they invite so as to have us hit their future tournament website and read the advertisements of sponsors, and buy something .

question :
How do the money flow in chess from fans pockets to organizers and players pockets ? Nunn's idea again.

I don't think the draws were pre-arranged at all. If they did want to pre-arrange they could have made a much better job of it. It was clear to me that most of the players did intend to fight at the start of the game, but then they all chickened out halfway through. These kind of draws are made impossible by Sofia rules.

There is nothing artificial about Sofia rules at all. Draw offers are artificial. Getting rid of adjournments was radical at the time, now going back to them would be unthinkable. The same should happen to draw offers.

Emmanuel,
I'm sure it was a fun little fantasy (Hi Peter! Hi Ruslan! It's me-Emmanuel!) writing that piece of work, but as Andy (and Woody Allen) put it, I have to get back to planet earth now..

>And I have no problem with GMs making draws, short or otherwise.
The sponsor has spoken.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs >

That's interesting, thanks for posting ( if you are indeed a sponsor).

If this is true then it follows that what is traded here is "status" not "games".

What matters is if "big"-names are playing, not what they are playing. The fans don't care that much, or insignificantly so, of the games played but who plays them. What they want is to feel close and to look up in awe to the "great players", and thus this is what is sought and delivered by sponsors.

Interesting, it may be true.

"Draw offers are artificial."

You have a point here. In football it is also not common that the teams offer a draw when they are getting tired. They have to play till the end.
I don't think it hurts the players to play on. Just a question of habit. If the position really is drawn it will end in a theoretical draw sooner orlater.

Gijssen has spoken again! He insists on declaring points which display him as a willing servant of some nazi regime.

He states:
"Why? Because the Judicial Branch (Appeals Committee) was not separated from the Legislative Branch (FIDE).Instead of abiding by the Law, the Appeal Committee didn’t follow the rules and made its own laws: this is against “Separation of Powers” doctrine and this is not democracy.
"

But even in this situation he insists on executing obvious illegitime law.

Now thats exact that what the Nazi servants did.

Typical No class and Hypocrital comments by Kasparov. He bashes when other made quick draws but when he did the same quick draws, it was justified. This man has less credibility than Susan Polgar.

>Typical No class and Hypocrital comments by Kasparov. He bashes when other made quick draws but when he did the same quick draws, it was justified.>

Read Jon Jacobs' recent post. He is hitting the nail. We have been debating a non-problem.
Complaining about the fries in the steak-house.

What "Gelfand-team" has recently done was exactly what they should have done to secure next tournament invitation.

There is no real problem, Nunn got the idea half-right, the business is working actually exactly as it should do but what is traded here is status not chess-games. It really doesn't matter what, if anything, they play ( short, long, agreed or non agreed draws)

Kasparov is hypocritical as usual but the point is that Tal played, not what and how he played.

Ellrond Wrote regarding Gijssen:

He insists on declaring points which display him as a willing servant of some nazi regime.

.....

But even in this situation he insists on executing obvious illegitime law.

Now thats exact that what the Nazi servants did.

**

If ever anyone deserved to be called an idiot, then you are that person.

Has the Blitz field been finalized? Pretty big payday for that event - should be exciting!

Ellrond,

You are actually so stupid that it's impossible to imagine how stupid you are. You are a living paradox of stupidity.

DRAWS.....DRAWS.....DRAWS

Talking about this for decades in the past and decades into the future. It is all the same conversation.

Bottom Line there is no way to change the incentive to win to significantly change the draws over the long term. The players will simply learn how to survive in the new environment and things will return to equilibrium once again.

Basically there are 2 choices.

1} Accept chess just the way it is and stop belly aching about draws.

2} Change the actual rules of chess to eliminate draws. This has been mentioned here by other people and rejected. So it looks like there is no option but to accept #1.

My personal opinion is that chess would be a much better spectator game if all draws were eliminated via changes in the rules.

Yesterday I had a creative idea for changing the rules. lets say we get to a basic draw maybe even by 3 fold repition. now get this. The next move is to put another queen or piece on the board anyplace I want, and then my opponent gets to place a piece any place he wants if he can do that. another idea is for the first player to put the player into check in such a way that he has to take a piece or move and does not get to put a piece down. Let's say he is checked by a new piece called the knight instead of the queen. If the opponent can not take the knight he has to move the king out of check and does not get a new piece. A real encentive to avoid 3 fold repetition.

The point is that both sides play the new rules so any rule is fair. People simply have to play out some games under the "new rules" to make sure they "work fairly" before implimenting the new rules.

I am not saying the above rules should be implimented. I am only showing that with some creativity all draws could be eliminated. Where there is a will there is a way.

The point is that if the game must end with a winner and loser then both sides will fight as hard as possible on every game.

The Sophia rules are a nice bandaid over the problem. They do not fix the problem. They simply lessen the effect temporarily until the players learn how to survive in the new environment.

Bla-Blah, 1500 semi patzers judging how Elite GM should work. This is a nonsense.

A questions for those who are quick to criticize players for being boring:

You need to explain what has changed in the last years that makes it necessary to devise special rules to prohibit early draws. Draws have been with us for centuries. Why are they a particular problem now?

Note that the answer "we just don't think they are fun" will not do. For who says that top players should produce 'fun' games, at the expense of their best judgement about the assessment of their positions?

>DRAWS.....DRAWS.....DRAWS
Talking about this for decades in the past and decades into the future. It is all the same conversation. >

yes but somebody (J.Jacobs) has recently posted here that the chess fans are part of the problem not of the solution.
Not the GMs, they are fine and actually only get better precisely because of the way they play.

Next time when you want to watch a given online tournament ask yourself why you do it : for the sake of a fighting and interesting game or to get and "ego-boost" as you feel "on league" with-- as pass judgment-- on the "greats" as Kramnik, Topalov, Pono etc.

It is status that is sold and bought in this "big" tournaments not the quality of games.

There were maybe 5 --out of 45-- worth watching games in the whole Tal-tournament but the issue is that kibitzing on Moro and Svidler is what fans crave for, not chess itself.

We are enforcing the present situation, it is so because we make it so, GMs have no fault, and it ain't going to change.
If Pono, Leko etc. play tomorrow you will be again there watching in spite of what happened ( actually because of what happened as it led to them winning the tournament and increasing their status}

Make your mind what you want. It isn't easy I know ( to some extent is mixed up as "love or sex ?") but the sooner you do it the better.

Ovidiu

Are you saying I have to choose either love or sex.

Well I tried Love without Sex

I have tried Sex without Love

I still want Both.

Yuriy,

Sofia hasn't had any problem attracting players. I'm sure the prize fund has something to do with that.

I'm just saying that if two virtually identical tournaments were available, most GMs would choose the tournament without the Sofia rules.

the mob is grousing

OK, I found the six final qualifiers for the Blitz:

1.JOBAVA, Baadur
2.KARJAKIN, Sergey
3.RADJABOV, Teimour
4.JAKOVENKO, Dmitry
5.BOLOGAN, Viktor
6.TIMOFEEV, Artyom

Many posts above call Kasparov a "hypocrite." I'm not so sure.

Maybe he just doesn't have much of a "horizon" to his thought. Reading his interviews one gets the sense that Kasparov is always playing blitz-chess. He's simply trying to score points off of each individual question, without much regard to whether his answers are in any way consistent with each other.

One doesn't see a "search for truth" in Kasparov's interviews; one often just sees a sparring match.

>Ovidiu
Are you saying I have to choose either love or sex. Well I tried Love without Sex.I have tried Sex without Love. I still want Both.>

I know man, I am not from another planet.

My point was only that one has to be rational and make his choice. If you want further advice on this issue there is chapter on it in E.Z.Borovsky "How not to play chess" where he vents out his frustration with teaching chess to amateurs.
He concluded that being rational is the most difficult thing in both chess and life.

Running after two targets you wont get any properly. There are many real games played all the time. But not by Gelfand or Leko etc.
During, say, the Essent tournament Cheparinov was going high voltage game after game or Rogers won a fantastic 60 moves game after which he lost 2 in a row (exhausted perhaps)all these while Polgar was pinning her queen on e-file and Sokolov was losing from out of the opening positions where only he could have won.

That's it, you just can not have all.
Both status and game feel fine but you wont have them both. Save with some particular players as Topalov-- or Fischer once-- who play the way they play for some personal reasons.

Draws are not a problem. Short, unfought draws are a problem. Problem for chess as a spectator sport, and problem for chess as an entertainment business. I can't believe you losers who pretend to be somehow profound with your "1500's criticising GMs or GM Tyomkin suggesting Mig'd censor those who criticize". Gelfand acted an idiot. What he did hurt his own image as a chess player, harmed his chances to get further invitations and was against the spirit of competitive sports. If you have a realistic chance to fight for 1st you won't peacefully, without a fight settle for 4th. It's so obvious, I can't believe why you would be contesting this self-obvious truth.

Sofia rules are the solution. It's so clear and straightforward. For "boring prolonged draws" and "50 pointless moves" look at how Kamsky destroys Anand in the dead drawn rook ending Sofia 2006. Chess is rich with possibilities, like EVERYONE who has played against computers can admit. These dead drawn positions are easy to lose. Remember how Hydra penetrated Adam's position in the 6th game of their match. The possibilities are there, and are rich in abundance. In this regard chess will NEVER be exhausted and chess will never be solved, nor face a draw death. We don't need Fischer Random, we don't need 3 points for a win, and computers are good for chess, increasing our understanding of it's dynamics. We just need fighting chess, games that are played out to the finish. It's so simple, don't try to make it more complicated than it is.

Want an example of fighting spirit? No need to go far away: in this very tournament Aronian played on in an "elementary" (at that level) drawn ending against Magnus Carlsen and actually managed to win!
In fact, if we forget the unfortunate final round, this event was certainly no worse than most other Cat. 20 tournaments as far as combativity is concerned.

>Gelfand acted an idiot. What he did hurt his own image as a chess player, harmed his chances to get further invitations and was against the spirit of competitive sports.>

Gelfand did NOT act as an idiot and did not harm anything. He acted along what chess fans really want not what they say they want.
Neither did or usually does Leko, Pono, Aronian etc. with their many non-games.

To the contrary.
Chess-buffs complain just as a wife who every day complains about her husbands love but never divorces him. All looks absurd until you realize that his money and the safety he offers her have always been what she wants. She will never divorce him.

GMs know that their status not their games is what matters for the chess fans. What draws them to their games.
Kramnik does not give a damn that he is an absolutely boring player. As long as he is WCC
his games are going to be watched with "interest" because his status is what it actually impresses.

The organizers could have had a prize for the favourite game of each round (perhaps moving the necessary money from the 1st 2nd 3rd ... prize fund). They do such a thing in the Netherlands. Why not in Russia? Is it considered "disrespectful"? Otherwise, the fact that they didn't provide an incentive means that they didn't care so much about the entertainment value of the games. Which is fine. We chess fans will have a better idea of what to expect next year. Maybe when the last round of Tal 2007 is being played, some of us will be tuned into the Halifax Remembrance Day Open instead. Grin.

Jon Jacobs is "a" minor sponsor of some big-money open Swisses by virtue of the fact that he pays an entry fee. To say he is "the" sponsor sounds like a mistranslation from Russian (which doesn't have words for "a" or "the").

[]
People should stop blaming the players for the draw problem in chess.

Blaming the players is just an obfuscated way of saying the rules of chess should be improved.

[]
The only people who can fix the rules are sponsors and/or Tournament Organizers; or people willing to move into those difficult roles.

Sponsors and T.O.'s represent perhaps 0.4% of all tournament chess players, and 0.04% of all chess players.

[]
The blunt force Sofia rule is probably good.
But the Sofia rule does nothing to change the inherent draw-prone nature of grandmaster chess, under the present rules of chess.

I would guess the majority of short draws would still end as draws if played on per Sofia; even if played on with a fighting spirit.

- - - - - - - -
[]
In the Kramnik-Topalov match...

The awful decision of the Appeals Committee members, taken shortly before game 5, put everyone else in a lose-lose situation, including Gijssen.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - Posted by: Photos at November 17, 2006 15:41
{
Blah-Blah, 1500 semi patzers judging how an Elite GM should work. This is nonsense.
}

Humm, then are we mere civilians are being nonsensical when we blah-blah criticize the Iraq War decisions made by PhD cabinet members and 5 star Generals?

FWIWorth, I disagree with the criticism someone made above about Gelfand. I say "You go Gelfand!"

But I also reject the derision expressed against the concept of club-level-chess-players opining about GM's on a chess blog.

A couple of questions:
1) Why Shirov isnt playing the blitz tourney? I remember he was the Nº1 blitz player on ICC some time ago (LEON).

2) Elo changes after the tourney?

Just guessing, but maybe Shirov has to play in the Bundesliga?

Regarding all the comments on draws, my view is we ought to make slight and slow changes to the incentives, observe what happens, then make more slight changes, and so on. There are enough tournaments today that statisticians can draw clear conclusions on the effects of changing the incentives.

It seems to me that in knockout tournaments, the draw problem has already been solved. Everyone seems to accept that if the players draw, they must play more games faster, and if they still draw, they must play more games even faster, etc. until a winner is "produced" (by an error, typically). If a smart player wants to prove superiority, he/she knows they must strive to win the slower games, where skill plays a higher role and chance a lesser role.

Second, it seems to me Swiss-Style Tournaments somewhat resolved the drawing problem, by always matching winners together. So long as there are a sufficient number of rounds, winners who win are favored over straight drawers. If Swiss Style Tournament Directors would just get rid of the rule that tying scores always split the prize money, there would be an even more increased incentive to win.

Which leaves us with the Round-Robin and double Round Robin (or all-play-alls), where it seems to me the draw problem is the greatest. There are ways of changing the incentives paid to win, without changing the win-draw-lose points allocation (1, .5, 0). For example, one could pay more prize money for higher scores. In other words, prize money would not be paid to places (first, second, third) but rather to scores (anyone at plus 2 makes so much money, and more at +2.5, more at +3.0, and so on.) Thus first place at +3 would pay more than first place at +2. Perhaps pay a LOT more, and see at what $$ the players overcome their fears and play for wins.

My basic point - the players (not individuals, but the whole body) are probably playing within the rational consideration of the current incentives. So don't change the game, change the incentives!

tjallen

A little more on this draws business:
I think chess fans want to decrease what they might call "lazy draws", or non-fighting draws. The chess fan does not begrudge a fighting draw at all!

Consider two players in a 4 game match. If they go into it with the exact same rating, then our rating-predicting system says the match will be a tie at 2-2. But there are different ways of getting there. One could have
1-0, 1-0, 0-1, 0-1,
or one could have
.5-.5, .5-.5, .5-.5, .5-.5.
Surely the fans want the former and not the latter!

I believe we can decrease the number of non-fighting draws without changing the rules of chess, and without changing the 1.0 / 0.5 / 0 scoring system, by appealing to the players' greed. (I've read Hobbes on self-interest!)

Yes, I remember the "fines" for short draws by one organizer. Perhaps positive reinforcement would work better than negative reinforcement, and we should "pay for performance." If we want a certain type of performance, reward it! One can incrementally increase the reward structure until the changes desired come about.

tjallen

Shirov did indeed defeat Vaganian in the Bundesliga today.

Gelfand was in a pretty dangerous position and if the game goes on he scores less than 50% easily. But, he knew Aronian would be amenable to the draw, so he took advantage of this. In the first round, Gelfand doesn't offer this draw because he knows Aronian doesn't want to hear it. I don't see what the issue with Gelfand is really. To play on would be like playing the lottery--- big success if you win, but most likely small(or in this case significant) failure.

Funny that Leko has 8,5 points after first half of blitz in Moscow. It seems that no matter what, he always finishes with even score.

Except when he wins tournaments, of course, Slavmonster...

Charley, Shirov indeed played in the Bundesliga, but Baden-Baden's other top guns (Anand, Svidler...) chose to play blitz instead.

In an upset, Baden-Baden lost the Saturday match 4.5-3.5, so I don't think the club was so happy about that decision.

If you're in the corner and have no money to move out from that, you would require to take the loan. Just because it will aid you unquestionably. I take sba loan every single year and feel OK because of this.