This is it, the big finish. Anand is a half point ahead of Carlsen going into today's final round and has black against Ivanchuk. Carlsen is a half-point behind and has black against Leko. Svidler is still in the mix a half-point back of Carlsen and has white against Morozevich. Topalov-Aronian is for pride and Elo, although Aronian could move up to the podium if Svidler slips.
If Anand draws and Carlsen wins, Carlsen takes the Linares trophy on the first tiebreak of fewest draws (or you can call it most wins, or most losses if you're a glass half-full sort of person). If Anand loses and Carlsen draws Anand wins the trophy on the second tiebreak of most wins with black. (I believe third tiebreak is head-to-head but it can't come to that.)
Round 13 was mostly fizzle but Larry Christiansen managed to make it interesting, as always. We also had a special guest on the air in the person of legendary Yugoslav GM Ljubo Ljubojevic in the Linares press room (he lives in Linares). He commented on all the games, the players, the differences between today's players and those of his generation, and discussed his most memorable Linares game. Of course all of that took Ljubo around ten minutes. And the Chess.FM people think I talk fast. Great stuff. Ljubo should definitely take up chess broadcasting, not that he hasn't been doing it for 40 years. He just hasn't had a radio. When I asked him about his most memorable Linares game (he played over 100) he didn't hesitate long. "Against Kasparov in 1989 [sic, 1991] I had him. I set a trap and he fell right into it! I was up a full rook and waiting for him to resign! But he kept playing and I couldn't believe it!" He went on in his wonderfully emotional style as if the game had been played that afternoon and not 16 years ago. (Kasparov kept causing trouble and eventually Ljubo fell apart in time pressure and lost.) It was like listening to a fisherman talk about the one that got away. Great stuff.
Carlsen played it safe against Svidler's Grunfeld with the fianchetto variation. Ljubo insisted that "any experienced player" would have found 20.e4 with very good chances. But Christiansen looked at it for a while and wasn't convinced. Ljubo's optimism was always his strongest point. Aronian-Ivanchuk got spicy for a little while but liquidated. It looked like White might have been able to set up a net with pawn, knight, and rook, but Black had enough activity. Anand-Leko fizzled out when Black found 21..Bxe4!
That left Morozevich-Topalov, the pairing that produced a wildly inaccurate and thrilling melee in round seven. There's no love lost between them after Moro (and his friend Barsky) made comments about the potential for Topalov to be cheating. No handshake, no quarter. This one saved the drama for the endgame where Moro missed several better chances with knights still on the board but managed to win anyway in a queen and pawn endgame the tablebases announced as drawn several times. Earlier, 53.Kf3 looks superior. The tablebases say ..Qh1+ drew on move 69 or 70. Moro was very accurate after that. He was -3 in Mexico and is now +3 in Spain! Tip of the hat to Larry, who called the Moro win before the round.
Yes, it is nice to see Morozevich fight on Kramnik's behalf and take Topalov down yesterday!
It would be nice to see Carlsen win as black against Leko to take home the Linares title!
What would happen if Anand loses, Carlsen draws and Svidler wins ?
It's been a good tournament, with lots of fighting chess. Let's hope the last round continues this theme and the players all still go for the win and not a draw.
three Queen's Indian games! Only non-QID is Svidler - Morozevich which is a French Defense
Is it my imagination or have there been almost no Petroff Defenses in this tournament?! If so, isn't that rather noteworthy? Also, I think today is the first French Defense, and I don't recall any Caro-Kanns either...?! Anyone else think the openings have been relatively unusual, compared to other recent events?
Commentating is very nice today with Susan, down to earth but still entertaining and informative.
Mig, are these relays available on podcast? They make pretty good chess lessons with some of the commentators, and it would be a waste to let them disappear into the air.
Topalov-Aronian & Ivanchuk-Anand both early & boring draws?! Ugh. Carlsen's opening doesn't exactly look like he's going for a win, either...I think we're gonna have a quick 4-draw last round, unfortunately.
Didn't Rentero used to penalize (fine) the players for such non-combative play? Did that practice end?
Svidler-Morozevich is fascinating and Ivanchuk and Leko both have a big edge (the leaders are going to need to fight to draw). Sure, it's possible things might end peacefully, but it seems an odd time to be complaining!
Sorry, I thought I read the Russian comment in the Anand game to mean it had been agreed drawn; I see now it's continuing (though it looks pretty peaceful to me, or at least balanced). I was hoping for more aggressive chess in the last round, I suppose, especially from Topalov and Carlsen (though I can understand why the former would just want the tournament to be over with a.s.a.p.; he's probably disgusted with himself for his poor showing). The Carlsen game is getting more interesting now, with the hanging pawns, though I'd say it's also quite balanced...what do others think?
Head-to-head should be the first tiebreak in tournaments. It's ridiculous that Anand had Carlsen's number twice in this tournament and would finish second to him if they have the same number of points.
Is it possible to get an mp3 of the game commentary - or atleast the bit by Ljubo mentioned in the blog. thanks
what's the latest result?
Topa and Anand get an early draw. Svidler lost his mind (though no result yet), Carlsen is at a serious disadvantage.
Svidler-Morozevich according to Chesspro.ru : "WHITE HAVE SURRENDERED."
And Moro gets another win.
Can Carlsen play 31...f5 ?!? to a) give himself counterplay; b) give himself luft for the K; c) deflect the protector of the QP ?
Kudos to Morozevich for an amazing comeback in this tournament.
Final standings, assuming Leko wins (which is the most likely result at this point in the game)...
1 Anand 8.5
2-3 Carlsen, Morozevich 7.5
4-5 Svidler, Aronian 7
6 Ivanchuck 6.5
7-8 Topalov, Leko 6
An amazing turnaround.
Topalov + Danaliov signals = first
Topalov - Danaliov signals = last
Check out 40 Rxf7 instead of 40. bxa4 in Leko-Carlsen game.
It looks like Carlsen is losing, which means the final standings will be as follows, according to the tie break criterias listed in Mig's post. Rating changes in parenthesis.
1. Anand 8.5 (+7.8)
2. Morozevich 7.5 (+5.8)
3. Carlsen 7.5 (+17.2)
4. Svidler 7.0 (+4.0)
5. Aronian 7.0 (+0.4)
6. Ivanchuk 6.0 (-5.8)
7. Leko 5.5 (-10.8)
7. Topalov 5.5 (-18.6)
Topalov and Leko are equal on all the tie breaks Mig mentioned.
Moro 2o!!!!!!
It looks like Carlsen is losing, which means the final standings will be as follows, according to the tie break criterias listed in Mig's post. Rating changes in parenthesis.
1. Anand 8.5 (+7.8)
2. Morozevich 7.5 (+5.8)
3. Carlsen 7.5 (+17.2)
4. Svidler 7.0 (+4.0)
5. Aronian 7.0 (+0.4)
6. Ivanchuk 6.5 (-5.8)
7. Leko 6.0 (-10.8)
7. Topalov 6.0 (-18.6)
Topalov and Leko are equal on all the tie breaks Mig mentioned.
(oops, fixed small mistake, hope I hit the Esc fast enough to avoid double posting)
Zakki, so what are the new ratings (including Corus) after this?
Someone in an ealier thread wanted to know why Morozevich always gets invites to these types of tournaments. Probably because like here, he's so unpredictable. I doubt after Morelia any of us thought he would end up in second place barring a blunder by Leko.
Anand: 2785 (-1.5 + 7.8)
Topalov: 2772 (+7.7 - 18.6)
Aronian: 2760 (+15.2 + .4)
Morozevich gained a bunch in Pamplona, though I haven't calculated how much, but should be close to 2760 I guess.
Svidler: 2735 (+3.3 + 4.0)
Carlsen: 2693 (-14.5 + 17.2)
If any of these guys have any rated games in the April list in addition to WaZ and Linares, they are not included here.
Has Carlsen lost ? If yes , will Anand topple Topa from the top ?
Ok, Moro gained a hefty 15 points in Pamplona and should be 2762 on the next list. Is that a new high for him?
The stories of this tournament for me are:
1. Carlsen shows he's capable of playing at the top.
2. Anand finally reaches number 1. in the world.
3. Morozevich shows why he will continue to receive invites.
4. Topolov shows what he can do without ...
It'll be pretty amazing (but almost predictable, from the way they've been playing this tournament) if Leko & Carlsen draw: the former blowing a dead-won [40. Rxf7] game, the latter salvaging a dead-lost one...congrats to Vishy, in any case. He deserves it! He's got to be considered the favorite to be Kramnik's challenger, I'd think, no?!
does that mean Aronian will be #2?!
Anand 2791
Aronian 2777?
Or is Kramnik higher?
Carlsen stumbles at end of Linares, losing to Leko (who hadn't won a game). Carlsen's ready to play at the top, but not be on top.
Nice fighting spirit by Moro. Excellent.
Disappointing performances by Topalov and Leko (though Peter at least showed Magnus the hammer). A bit diaappointing also Ivan Chucky Ivanchuk. But he took the tournament on short notice.
Winners and Losers of the tournament:
Winners
Magnus Carlsen--after a terrible outing at Corus, came back to play great chess in Linares. Showed what he could do with more experience playing at this level.
Vishy Anand--top-level tournament win is always nice. Anand might not have solidified his spot as #1 contender to Kramnik's title but has shown he has not aged away from the elite.
Vasya Ivanchuk--played exciting chess with little preparation to show that he belongs at the top level.
Alexander Morozevich--rebound after lack of good performances at top level since San Luis
Losers
Petr Leko--Tal Memorial not withstanding has really not played like he did in 2003-2005.
Vesselin Topalov--I don't think he is cheating. But I know he is not winning.
Petr Svidler--dull and duller, Svidler wishes he could play Topalov more often, because when position gets sharp, he often ends up embarrassed.
Vladimir Kramnik--was missed.
Teymour Radjabov--was not missed.
@Yuriy
I'm not sure if Kramnik was missed. He probably would have scored +1 or +2 with a lots of draws. Kramnik imo is exciting only in "classic" WC matches or against the machine.
"I'm not sure if Kramnik was missed. He probably would have scored +1 or +2 with a lots of draws."
Only a problem if you think there is something wrong with draws.
Congratulations go to Vishy, Magnus, Moro! Strange tournament, surely the least predictable in years.
The hero of the tournament is Morozevich! I cannot explain why, but I am not excited with Carlsen I think both Karjakin and Radjabov will prove to be better when they all "become stable" at age 22-24.
This was Topalov´s first tournament without Danailov in the audience. Was it the psychological effect that made him play like a mere mortal?
On Top of that Topa now starts a new tournament in Monaco next week...
Moro's result is impressive. He pulled a Topa trick. Of course, one can pull a Moro trick on Moro now -- suggesting that going from -3 to +4 requires a little bit more than a divine intervention, but we Topalov fans are not the low class scum to spread such rumours. Congratulations to the winners! This was one very interesting tournament.
D.
2 years ago, Linares was the tournament where Topalov started his "rise" and now he Linares has pushed him back. The fight at the top between Anand and Topa is becoming fierce. (With Kramnik trying to pull back, Aronian, Mamedyarov, Radjabov, Carlsen etc are also knocking the door!)
Zombre: This was Topalov´s first tournament without Danailov in the audience.
Are sure about that or you just repeating like a parrot what someone else told you?
D.
At freitag and acirce,
Kramnik was not missed because Anand drew as many games as Kramnik would have normally done.
Dimi, I meant Danailov in the audience without the possibility to signal due to hundreds of mobile cameras watching him. It is annoying though, because it doesn´t prove anything. Maybe Topalov just in form 2005.
Zombre, Danailov was watched carefully in Corus as well. An elementary command of the facts would be nice once in a while...
D.
Dimi, no. The allegations were put up in the middle, not at the start of the Corus tournament, as you perfectly remember.
Dimi wrote: "Of course, one can pull a Moro trick on Moro now -- suggesting that going from -3 to +4 requires a little bit more than a divine intervention, but we Topalov fans are not the low class scum to spread such rumours."
Just as a matter of interest, how would one go about spreading a rumour? Oh wait...
zombre
your accusations without any ground are -- at least -- boring
thenewone, I agree with you. I wasn´t accusing anything though, just insinuating.
Sorry if this has been discussed elswhere, but is there a good reason why the loser of Elista was barred from the Mexico WCC? I mean why would anyone (FIDE or the players) want that provision?
"Is it my imagination or have there been almost no Petroff Defenses in this tournament?! If so, isn't that rather noteworthy? Also, I think today is the first French Defense, and I don't recall any Caro-Kanns either...?! Anyone else think the openings have been relatively unusual, compared to other recent events?"
Anand played a Petroff against Svidler, I believe, and Moro played a French earlier against Topalov (he lost).
Hi RR:
There was only room for 8 players as per dates committed by the organizers and the sponsors.
So, there was room for only one of Kramnik or Topalov.
It is a ridiculous rule but Topalov and Kramnik agreed to it before their match.
So, ...
Zombre, the snitches who were watching Danailov's every step admitted that he didn't visit the playing area after round 3. Topalov did quite well after that. It seems that even a miniscule command of the facts seems such an unachievable dream for some…
D.
Observations - Morozevich is something else - when he's hot, he's hot and can beat anyone. When he's cold, he can really go down in flames.
Anand just played practical chess and responded well to his opponent's mistakes (e.g. Leko-Anand), except for the thorough crushing he gave Carlsen.
Leko had 2 or 3 won positions he couldn't convert, though his play in the last game was excellent. He's going to have to play more 1. d4 and work on his theory, and do better in sharper positions if he's going to maintain his standing. I don't think he will.
Topalov seems to have gotten his signals crossed this tournament (ha-ha).
Carlsen is improving, and I really like his direct style of play - he's logical and knows how to play with measured risks. I haven't been impressed with his opening play in the Tal Memorial or Corus, but he definitely took big strides here, though he got some big help from his opponents Topalov (who resigned a draw) and Morozevich.
Aronian can swing from brilliant to mediocre (or worse) in a single game - he has great positional understanding and calculating ability, but needs more consistency.
Svidler lacks inspiration.
Chukky faded at the end of the tournament, but he's definitely one of the top 10 players, ability-wise.
Thanks dirtbag, but couldn't they have let the Elista loser play in the Candidates tournament? Surely not all the candidates were decided by then.
Also, does Kramnik consider Mexico to be a title defense? After all it is named WCC 2007 and he agreed to participate in it. Even FIDE talks about the Mexico winner playing the "previous world champion", as if the former is the new WC.
RR, you're asking "hot" questions that got tons of debates in the recent past. There was a deal on the table that the loser from Elista will not play in Mexico. Both parties signed it. So, there it is. As far as FIDE -- tinkering with the rules and changing them a million times since then, it seems that they could have "rationalized" that crazy situation. But they didn't. So, here we stand today.
D.
There was only room for 8 players as per dates committed by the organizers and the sponsors.
So, there was room for only one of Kramnik or Topalov.
-----------------
That's the formality that was officially presented as the reason.
The real reason was that FIDE wanted to get rid of the true Match WC Kramnik. Everyone in FIDE thought that Kramnik would lose the Elista match, and that therefore Kramnik would be out of the way for the Mexico WC tournament too. Surprise, surprise!
Everyone seems to have forgottten that, but there is a need for vigilance in that powers that be in FIDE still want to kill the WC match tradition.
Dimi, I hope you´re right. This is the turning point: now Topa just has to repeat his San Luis performance and forget this miserable Linares.
ChessJunior says: "[...] but I am not excited with Carlsen I think both Karjakin and Radjabov will prove to be better when they all "become stable" at age 22-24."
LOL! So the reason you're not impressed by Carlsen is because he will not be as strong as Karjakin or Radjabov in 6-8 years? Now isn't that an irrelevant comment if any!
Zombre, you thing that's easy to "just repeat"... How many players can "just repeat" their great streaks. Can you ask Moro to repeat that -3/+4 again? Or Topalov to "just repeat" his strings of victories... Or Anand, or anyone. What the big tournaments show us to appreciate what these people do much more because it is not easy. Now I appreciate much more Topalov's previous successes, even as far back as a month ago in Corus… Because you see how hard it is and how easy it is to slip down a few notches. Anand has been maligned by slippages for a long time -- I feel for his fans now with the sword of that #1 ranking hanging over his head. The pressure is on him now to maintain it. It's not that easy. I hope that they don't write him off when he slips out of it.
D.
Morozevich played the French 3 times in this tournament: against Leko2, Topalov and Svidler. The other two times he faced 1.e4, he played 1...e5 - against Anand and Ivanchuk.
God, Dimi, do you ever take your Topalov-coloured glasses off? Is there no aspect of this world that can't be construed in some kind of Topalovian terms?...
Theorist, you were saying something?
D.
"I'm not sure if Kramnik was missed. He probably would have scored +1 or +2 with a lots of draws. "
Which would have placed him in clean second. The players who finished with a positive score in this tournament ranged from 7 to 9 draws out of the 14 games played.
The amazing thing is how often Kramnik gets pointed out as the poster child of +1/+2 with lots of draws when everybody else pretty much does the same thing.
Dimi, now we are talking about more than single tournaments. Kasparov was able to repeat his successes. Kramnik was able to do that as well consistently, year after year if we forget his illness. Now we´ll see how Topalov will manage. If he´ll manage to repeat his 2005 play in credible conditions and beat Kramnik in a match I´ll be seriously proud of him. Then I could call him number fifteen.
"The amazing thing is how often Kramnik gets pointed out as the poster child of +1/+2 with lots of draws when everybody else pretty much does the same thing."
Not quite, because other players actually take risks, play out more positions, and sometimes lose games. Morozevich and Carlsen lost no less than 3 games and finished second. I'm not sure when Kramnik did achieve a similar feat last.
Kramnik is probably the player who draws the most games in the world... He is one of the best chess non-player ever.
"The amazing thing is how often Kramnik gets pointed out as the poster child of +1/+2 with lots of draws when everybody else pretty much does the same thing.
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at March 10, 2007 17:40"
A Kramnik like +2 score here would usually mean a performance with 2 wins and 12 draws in this tournament... so infact no one managed that here
>Kramnik ...is one of the best chess non-player ever.>
well said, it doesn't seem to make a difference whether he plays a tournament or not, the conclusion is the same. You can well say that he was present at Linares, he is somewhere at the middle of the table in between Svidler and Aronian.
Topalov seems to have lost the tsunami-momentum of the last years-- Elista must have been the turning point-- and he has started the "retreat". Maybe now he will marry, just as Mig and Kramnik, it is fashionable.
Basically, the same thing was said about Petrosian 30-40 years ago. Oddly enough, I always notice that his best games books always sell for more on ebay than others from that time...including Spassky and Tal. No like Petrosian, Kramnik's legacy in time won't suffer that much because of his style play.
zarghev,
Feel free to accuse Kramnik of being the top player who takes the fewest risks. It's the kind of thing that's impossible to prove objectively and that's close enough to being true for everyone to assume it is. For that matter, I don't see why going for unsound variations or once you can't fully calculate makes you a more admirable chess player than a more sound and steady style which leads to many fewer losses, though also of course a few less wins. But I am not trying to defend Kramnik as much as point out that he is not that different from everybody else and that everybody else does the same thing, and often.
stringTheory,
Exactly. As Mig pointed out many times before, in drawish chess tournaments the more combative chess players tend to become more drawish and in more combative tournaments, the drawish players start playing for the win more often. Which is why I said Kramnik was missed. It would have been interesting to see how he would fare against Carlsen, Chucky and Moro in this round-robin.
As far as what everybody managed this tournament, Svidler managed precisely 2 decisive games as did Aronian. Granted, Kramnik might have won both his decisive games but he is no more a poster child of +1/+2 with lots of draws on that account. Percentage-wise, his average is higher than 2 decisive games out of 14 played and higher than Leko and combative Topalov's 29% this tournament.
chesstraveler,
Petrosian probably doesn't/didn't get published as much due not having been as popular as Spassky or Tal. Because of that his books are more sought after. My dad found Bronstein's book at a yard sale--doesn't mean he is not highly thought of. Kasparov is all over every store I ever been in, often on sale, and in Russia you can find some book by Karpov and Gik dirt cheap in every book store.
Yuriy,
That's a good point and newer editions probably have much to do with that. I was talking about older editions that were published about the same time. Still, the Petrosian books do sell and (I can't say for sure) his draw percentage could very well be higher than Kramnik's
"Feel free to accuse Kramnik of being the top player who takes the fewest risks. It's the kind of thing that's impossible to prove objectively and that's close enough to being true for everyone to assume it is."
Actually it is objectively measurable. In fact, about 8 years ago, I studied the win/lost/draw probability versus rating difference. Among top players, Kramnik did stand out as abnormally drawing.
"or that matter, I don't see why going for unsound variations or once you can't fully calculate makes you a more admirable chess player than a more sound"
Because otherwise you may as well play noughts and crosses. In noughts and crosses, you don't have unsound variations, and you can fully calculate moves. But then again, there isn't many World-class noughts and crosses tournaments. For a similar reason, the "best games" collections of any player or any tournament, usually tend to not include a high proportion of short draws, or linear balanced draws with quick exchanges and every attempt to remove any risk, finishing with a flat dead-draw ending.
Kramnik get criticized for playing non-chess, or non-playing chess (short draws), because 1) he is the usual culprit, 2) everyone knows that he has much more talent than his results show. Isn't he World Champion? Didn't he tie for first with Kasparov on FIDE rating list a decade ago? Even the technical Karpov did better in tournaments.
It's a little different when you are a player in the bottom/middle of the pack, and you are just trying to survive the tournament, and not finish last - and every player has his bad tournament (Kasparov Linares 1998: +1, =11, -0). Problem is, Kramnik plays like he is trying not to finish last in every tournament (which is could be ok, I grant you, in world championship matches).
yes, randowan, I think excitement is such a thing that you cannot feel it in respect to everyone. Do you imagine someone to be excited about 50 of top-100 players?
>"Feel free to accuse Kramnik of being the top player who takes the fewest risks. It's the kind of thing that's impossible to prove objectively and that's close enough to being true for everyone to assume it is."
Actually it is objectively measurable. In fact, about 8 years ago, I studied the win/lost/draw probability versus rating difference. Among top players, Kramnik did stand out as abnormally drawing."or that matter, I don't see why going for unsound variations or once you can't fully calculate makes you a more admirable chess player than a more sound"
Because otherwise you may as well play noughts and crosses. In noughts and crosses, you don't have unsound variations, and you can fully calculate moves. But then again, there isn't many World-class noughts and crosses tournaments. For a similar reason, the "best games" collections of any player or any tournament, usually tend to not include a high proportion of short draws, or linear balanced draws with quick exchanges and every attempt to remove any risk, finishing with a flat dead-draw ending.everyone knows that he has much more talent than his results show. Isn't he World Champion? Didn't he tie for first with Kasparov on FIDE rating list a decade ago?Problem is, Kramnik plays like he is trying not to finish last in every tournament (which is could be ok, I grant you, in world championship matches).<
Since coming back from his illness, Vlad played two tournaments. He finished first in Dortmund and half a point out of first in Corus. Now I am not going to write here that Kramnik is at the top of the pack when it comes to avoiding draws or that his style is ideally suited to tournament wins, it's not. But what I would like to suggest to you and to everybody else reading this is that a lot of statements made about Kramnik are misconceptions grounded in perceptions of people who don't like the guy and who make him appear as a lot more of a passive drawer than he really is.
Sorry, messed up my previous post. Mig, if you can remove it, that would be great. Here is what I meant to post:
""Feel free to accuse Kramnik of being the top player who takes the fewest risks. It's the kind of thing that's impossible to prove objectively and that's close enough to being true for everyone to assume it is."
Actually it is objectively measurable. In fact, about 8 years ago, I studied the win/lost/draw probability versus rating difference. Among top players, Kramnik did stand out as abnormally drawing."
That's an interesting measure, zarghev, but is it an objective measure of risk taking? Such a measure would mean that you count each position in which Kramnik could have taken a risk, count each move in that position as him taking a risk or not and perhaps also qualify each move as to how risky it is (queen sacrifice-5, pawn exchange-2, passing on exchange-1). That is what is meant when I say who takes the most or the fewest risk can not be proven objectively.
""or that matter, I don't see why going for unsound variations or once you can't fully calculate makes you a more admirable chess player than a more sound"
Because otherwise you may as well play noughts and crosses. In noughts and crosses, you don't have unsound variations, and you can fully calculate moves. "
I am a bit handicapped here, because I have no idea what noughts and crosses is.
"But then again, there isn't many World-class noughts and crosses tournaments. For a similar reason, the "best games" collections of any player or any tournament, usually tend to not include a high proportion of short draws, or linear balanced draws with quick exchanges and every attempt to remove any risk, finishing with a flat dead-draw ending."
Why do people insist that the opposite of taking risks/making unsound moves/uncalculated lines is making short draws or linear balanced draws or flat dead-draws? Does it make it easier for them to argue against the less-risk inclined GMs by making their approach seem no-gain oriented? The opposite of risk taking is still making good sound moves that yield an advantage, just avoiding more dangerous questionable waters. Perhaps for most casual chess players the great dynamic sacrificers who favored open gameplay hold most appeal. But I find that at the higher levels there are a lot more fans who also find great aesthetic in the styles of Kramnik, Petrosian, Smyslov and my favorite, Karpov.
"everyone knows that he has much more talent than his results show. Isn't he World Champion? Didn't he tie for first with Kasparov on FIDE rating list a decade ago?"
I don't know, Kramnik's results are pretty impressive to me. He beat Kasparov and Topalov in a match, won Dortmund in 2001 and 2006, Linares in 2003 and 2004, got a 2847 performance in Olympics last year with best individual result...considering he spent over a year in illness, I will put his results in this century against any other chessplayer.
"Problem is, Kramnik plays like he is trying not to finish last in every tournament (which is could be ok, I grant you, in world championship matches)."
Since coming back from his illness, Vlad played two tournaments. He finished first in Dortmund and half a point out of first in Corus. Now I am not going to write here that Kramnik is at the top of the pack when it comes to avoiding draws or that his style is ideally suited to tournament wins, it's not. But what I would like to suggest to you and to everybody else reading this is that a lot of statements made about Kramnik are misconceptions grounded in perceptions of people who don't like the guy and who make him appear as a lot more of a passive drawer than he really is.
All you dirt bloggers get to the message board and vote for the most beautiful game of the 2007 Morelia/Linares chess tournament, voting stops next saturday winner will be announced and receive the presitigous award on sunday.
http://www.chessninja.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=001485#000001
Yuri,
"That is what is meant when I say who takes the most or the fewest risk can not be proven objectively."
On a move-per-move level, no, but overall, sacrifiying a piece is less likely to produce a draw: this is risk-taking.
"noughts and crosses" is tic-tac-toe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tic-tac-toe
"But I find that at the higher levels there are a lot more fans who also find great aesthetic in the styles of Kramnik, Petrosian, Smyslov and my favorite, Karpov."
That is a good point. Indeed, some of the games of those players are strategic brillancies. However the downside is that many of their games are snoozers, and are/will be forgotten forever. I'm sure Petrossian bored many people to death with his share of insipid draws and was criticized - while still producing the occasional brillancy. But I guess it is ok if you expect to have rather have one enjoyable excellent game per tournament, versus, than 10 interesting games.
As for Kramnik, he may be unfairly criticized (compared to other players), but hey, I guess, he is not doing enough to kill his reputation.
"overall, sacrifiying a piece is less likely to produce a draw: this is risk-taking."
Undoubtedly, but just like sacrificing is not the only way of taking a risk, taking a risk is not the only factor that contributes to your win/loss/draw percentage. A player more prone to blunders will have more losses and hence fewer draws and a player with better endgame technique will have more wins and and hence fewer draws, yet neither one took any more risks. There is of course a correlation between taking risks and decisive game outcomes, but that is why who is or is not the biggest risk taker is not something you can measure objectively.
""noughts and crosses" is tic-tac-toe"
Ah! Like zeroes and exxes, I get it. Chess does have the advantage on t-t-t of allowing imagination and thinking at the board, but t-t-t quite simply is a played out game with no possibilities. But again in chess it's possible to exercise creativity and intelligence without being risky on the board.