Play along at home, folks! Kamsky and Leko have 2.5-0.5 leads over Bacrot and Gurevich and can actually wrap up their matches early with wins with black today. The official site has put up bulletins with quirky but very useful annotations by GMs Ruslan Scherbakov and Yury Yakovich. Excellent!
Update: Just a quick note to celebrate the early arrival of Brooklyn in the second round! I mean, Gata Kamsky! He again ripped Bacrot apart with his bare hands as soon as the position began to open up. He wins in the minimum number of games, 3.5-0.5. Ouch. He will face the winner of Kasimdzhanov-Gelfand, which is going to go the full distance of six games now that they have drawn the first four. Kamsky shows that he still has the killer instinct and Bacrot shows that he has, well, whatever the opposite of killer instinct is. What squirrels have. He just totally collapsed after that game two loss on time.
We did get the bloodbath I predicted. Six decisive games! Leko again beat Gurevich smoothly to also advance 3.5-0.5. He faces the winner of Bareev-Polgar, which will be the Russian veteran (and the oldest player left now that Gurevich is out) unless Polgar pulls out a miracle. Bareev won again today, getting another big plus out of the opening and leaving the Hungarian no chances. Amazing. Grischuk is also a half-point away from advancing after beating Malakhov again. Aronian punched back and played a fine positional game to beat Magnus Carlsen in the only match so far to see both players with a win. Carlsen has white tomorrow. Shirov-Adams was exciting and probably headed toward a fourth draw when Shirov had a total brain cramp and hung the exchange. "I'm pinning your rook and... oh god you're pinning my bishop!" Unbelievable. Poor Alexei, who has the black pieces tomorrow. Rublevsky played cautiously with his one point lead against Ponomariov and it always looked like a draw.
Update 2: Adding a few game notes culled from ICC Chess.FM and our three GM broadcast. (Federowicz, Akobian, Christiansen). Bacrot tried the Kramnikian Catalan squeeze to break his losing streak against Kamsky. As you already know, it didn't work. Big Vlad took the key 10th game of his world championship with Topalov in this line. Kamsky played 10..Ne4 instead of the 10..Nh5 Topalov played then and at Corus this year against Radjabov (1/2 in 23). A 1995 Bareev-Renet game saw the wild 11..g5 expansion plan. Kamsky, with a two-point lead, played the more sober 11..f5 for a stonewall position like they had in game two. Bacrot, despite his desperate situation in the match, failed to come up with any way to sharpen the game. Instead he locked the center and put all his eggs in the queenside basket. That met Kamsky's risky decision, 19..b5. The Fed wondered if that might lead to trouble on c5 or c6, but Black had it under control. His rook on the 2nd was a wonder of attack and defense. Kamsky didn't wait around and got rolling on the kingside. Bacrot again was behind on time and again he failed to put up any resistance when Kamsky got active. 32.dxe5 looks like capitulation, although it took a few more lame and rushed moves by White to get blown away.
It's a concrete game in so many ways, but we spend a lot of time talking about psychology and killer instinct. Whatever that is, Kamsky's still got it. Those who remember his scary scores in candidates matches in the 90's will be getting flashbacks from this performance so far. (4.5-1.5 Kramnik, 5.5-1.5 Short, 5.5-1.5 Salov) Bacrot looked panicky, going on the defensive ahead of time when the positions opened up. He left his rook and knight sitting on the queenside doing nothing instead of looking for his own attacking chances. Maybe Bacrot has been playing too much poker (as it is said he does a lot of these days) because he kept folding.
Leko-Gurevich was a mismatch on paper and the 48-year-old just couldn't put up any resistance at all. He took an even, maybe even slightly better endgame, and with some time pressure turned it into a loss in just a few moves. Aronian made it look very easy to beat Carlsen, who slipped into a lost position without making any blunders. Malakhov got into time trouble and was already rushing his moves when he blundered with 29.Nb2 (29.f4 is fine) and Grischuk scooped up the point. Poker doesn't seem to have hurt his aggressive game much.
Kasimjanov and Gelfand are quietly playing some really interesting chess. They have four draws to show for it, but if you're looking for sharp opening theory so far, this is probably the match to watch. Kasim pitched a pawn early but got it back the wrong way. Larry C thought 25.Rxe6 was the way to go, although Black can still defend. Then it was Gelfand's turn to miss a good try for a win with 26..Bb4! and White is losing the e-pawn with no compensation. 27.Re2 f4! 28.Qe4 f3! Cute! Black should have had a plus in the endgame anyway but somehow it melted away in another game with time trouble at the first control.
Kasparov has been impressed with Bareev so far, and who hasn't? His preparation has been unreal so far and Polgar has just looked out of gas from the start. Garry pointed out that Bareev has been working with Kramnik, which couldn't have hurt. The Fed suggested that Polgar has never found a comfortable defense against 1.d4 since the King's Indian went out of style years ago.
yeah... Im curious too... why "none, of course" for adams? by the way, I was reading older posts and liked the fact that russians do have reporters who know chess, and not the contrary. as a communication student in brazil, Im quite happy some people somewhere take this thing seriously :) btw, great job on the blog, mig :)
GM Yuri Yakovich has also made analysis of the games as you may see.
kisurge
I hope Carlsen is pulling another Benkö Gambit.
Everyday life moments from Elista:
Shirov translating at the after-game press conference for Adams;
Kamsky apologizing to Bacrot for having beaten him so badly;
good old Polish arbiter Filipowicz reciting threats to players who don't attend the press conference;
Spassky analyzing the games for a Kalmyk female audience.
Taken from Misha Savinov's article at
http://russiachess.org/content/view/661/38/
(and I hope I didn't terribly mistranslate it)
Yes, very nice annotated games by GM Scherbakov!
Hmm, I dont think GMs Kamsky and Leko will be too concerned about winning their games, but rather just finding the quickest way to draw two games to advance.
If a player wins his match (3.5pts or 4) ahead of schedule, do the two players play the remaining games?
well Magnus played the bogo and Aronian is giving a lesson in why its not played at the top level looks like it could be a classic win for Aronian
Gata first man through! nice
Q
5 decided games, no draws -till now. 4 black wins
and leko quickly follows gata through to the next round. congrats fellas!
RS I believe that no, they do not play out the remaining games. The official site has Kamsky and Leko's names bolded, indicating that they have won and are done.
"well Magnus played the bogo and Aronian is giving a lesson in why its not played at the top level looks like it could be a classic win for Aronian"
Looks like someone didnt look over at Bacrot-Kamsky.
Not to mention that the Bogo is one of Adams main defenses... Why do people comment on chess?
"RS I believe that no, they do not play out the remaining games. The official site has Kamsky and Leko's names bolded, indicating that they have won and are done."
Indeed--Kamsky and Leko will be sticking around for their next matches. It looks like Leko will be playing Bareev. Bacrot and Gurevich will probably also be sticking around, at least until the end of the first round. It might be difficult to arrange an early departure.
Bacrot suffered a "Short Out" against Kamsky, both in the sense of getting eliminated in the minimum four games, and in the sense of suffering a collapse similar to what happened to Nigel Short. It seems that even without his father, Rustam, glowering behind the board with arms crossed, Gata Kamsky is still an intimidating opponent to play. He seems to have some of that Fischer mojo (although Fischer would have won ALL 4 games). On the other hand, Bacrot's play lacked any vitality; perhaps he was exhausted from all-night Poker jags.
Mikhail Gurevich's play reminded me of the compliant victim who knows that he is about to be executed, yet proceeds to dig his own grave. In game 4, it was almost as if he didn't want to create any difficulties for Leko at all.
Congratulations to Gata and Peter?
Just curious...when was the last time that "Drawko" won three games out of four? Remarkable!
Shirov's Kxf1 was so strange that he lost the game with ease.
To me Kxf1 by Shirov made a lot of sense. The point is that white is ready to meet Qe7 with Re1. White could get the exchange back multiple times and was certainly no worse. The real mistake is Be3 which is a one-move blunder.
Lékó went 6.5/7 in the middle of Dortmund 2002.
"The real mistake is Be3 which is a one-move blunder."
Yep, but the position was already drawn. Shirov didn't manage to get any advantage with his strange moves.
One reason I love candidates matches is because of the "must-win" situation. In tournaments, you can be heading toward minus-2 and draw your way to the end of a lousy tournament. But in candidate's matches you can't be satisfied with -1 !
It'll be really interesting to see what Polgar, etc. have prepared for their must-win games. Love it!
Why does Mig continously ignore Gelfand-Kasimdzhanov? What have poor Boris and Rustam done to him?
I don't know if I can praise Kamsky too much over this result--seems more like Bacrot played really badly. But Gata did not look bad and with a few extra days of rest his chances against winner of the match which can not be mentioned by Mig aren't bad.
I thought the point of Kf1 was to play Ke2 instead of the Be3 blunder. Gain a tempo for the king in the endgame over taking on f7 immediately. He just spaced out. Mickey defended well. Shirov tried to get tricky with the exchange sac but there just wasn't more.
What has consistently stunned me in my game coverage so far is how badly these guys are getting into time crunches at the first control. We've seen at least eight games go from interesting and unclear to blitz insanity with over a dozen moves made in less than 10 minutes. We rarely saw this (or at least it was with the same guys, e.g. Nisipeanu) in recent super events. Bacrot was clearly a basket-case, but just today we also saw Grischuk-Malakhov push the boundaries of common sense time management. A few others were under the 30 seconds per move range too, and not in losing positions.
"He will face the winner of Kasimdzhanov-Gelfand, which is going to go the full distance of six games now that they have drawn the first four"
Um, Yuriy, does this sound like ignoring to you?
Congratulations to Gata and Peter?
Just curious...when was the last time that "Drawko" won three games out of four? Remarkable!
-- Posted by: Malachy O'Dorus at May 31, 2007 12:51
I think Leko started 3.5/4 at Linares 2006 before collapsing by losing his last two games, finishing 4th after leading the whole way.
These "Drawko" comments I am gradually finding as boring as Leko's games once were.
sorry
Mig said:
"What has consistently stunned me in my game coverage so far is how badly these guys are getting into time crunches at the first control. We've seen at least eight games go from interesting and unclear to blitz insanity with over a dozen moves made in less than 10 minutes. We rarely saw this (or at least it was with the same guys, e.g. Nisipeanu) in recent super events. Bacrot was clearly a basket-case, but just today we also saw Grischuk-Malakhov push the boundaries of common sense time management. A few others were under the 30 seconds per move range too, and not in losing positions."
I think the main difference is the format. Playing in a RR tournament you can semi-coast in rounds. Not so in a match. every game can be the match-breaker, especially a short 6-game match like these.
Keep up the great work, Mig!
Mig said:
"What has consistently stunned me in my game coverage so far is how badly these guys are getting into time crunches at the first control. We've seen at least eight games go from interesting and unclear to blitz insanity with over a dozen moves made in less than 10 minutes. We rarely saw this (or at least it was with the same guys, e.g. Nisipeanu) in recent super events. Bacrot was clearly a basket-case, but just today we also saw Grischuk-Malakhov push the boundaries of common sense time management. A few others were under the 30 seconds per move range too, and not in losing positions."
[Mark replied:]
I think the main difference is the format. Playing in a RR tournament you can semi-coast in rounds. Not so in a match. every game can be the match-breaker, especially a short 6-game match like these.
I agree with Mark but think that another factor might be that this is one of the few events in the last few years in which increments aren't part of the time control (until the 3rd session), so the players have probably become used to the "feel" of having that extra "cushion" to protect them from time pressure; the problem being, of course, that in this case they don't have it (until, again, the 3rd session). It's one thing to know, intellectually, that it's not there; it's another to totally change the way you play accordingly. Sort of like the phantom limb phenomenon applied to chess...
Well done to Adams today for winning game 4 against Shirov. Personally I think Adams would do even better if he had a second. I find that his openings are a little predictable at times and so opponents find it relatively easy to prepare against him. Having someone to assist with his preparation would add something to his play.
"....this is one of the few events in the last few years in which increments aren't part of the time control (until the 3rd session), so the players have probably become used to the "feel" of having that extra "cushion" to protect them from time pressure; the problem being, of course, that in this case they don't have it (until, again, the 3rd session)."
Frankly, I don't see the point in not using increment from move #1. The pathologies that come with time pressure undermine the quality of the play, and often serve to curtail a potentially dramatic contest by leading to a game-losing blunder, and an anticlimactic conclusion.
Mig suggested that the players should suffer consequences for misallocating their time. Yet, even with increment, the player in zeitnot still faces an uphill battle--it is no picnic to have to find a move in a tense position, with the 30 second increment. But what suffers more than the players is the game of chess, when a "just" and satisfying conclusion to the game fails to happen due to a time scramble. In many ways, the quality of the game can be said to be only as good as the weakest segment of the game. If the last 10 moves before the 1st or 2nd Time Control is blitzed, then the game, often during its most crucial sequence, reflects the flaws and superficiality of blitz play. At least, when increment is utilized, the game should be no worse than rapid chess.
It is not as if there is any real hurry; what else is there for the players to do in Elista, anyway? ;-) even with increment, the games will be done in a timely manner.
After all, the chess clock is merely a tool to insure equitable sporting conditions in chess competition--the clock is extraneous to the game itself.
A while back, I saw a proposal on a chess forum, which sought to exploit the potential of the then novel technology of digital chess clocks.
Essentially, the chess players can be allocated a block of time per finite time control, and can use the chess clock as a time allocation device. Each player can divide that time up as they see fit. For instance, if the players are given 120 minutes to play the first 40 moves, Player A may opt for a formula of:
80 minutes of "block thinking time"
+ 40 minutes of total increment time (1 min. per move * 40 moves) = 120 mins
Player B's formula might be 100 mins. + 30 secs. increment (40 * .5 min. = 20 mins)
Player C might opt for maximum flexibility (and maximum personal discipline required) and just allocate all 120 minutes to block thinking time (The "formula" used at the candidates matches.
Any decent digital clock can accomodate those formulae. Just as the actual Utilization of one's time can be a strategic or tactical decision in and of itself (think about a player with ample time, who opts to blitz his opponent during his opponent's zeitnot), so can the initial Allocation of time.
Perhaps the formula can become more refined, so that a player may program increment to kick in after, say, move 20. So, the formula might then be: 100 mins. + 20 mins. (from moves 21-40, the player receives 1 min. increment/move).
In any event, increment is a positive development in chess, and there is no reason not to incorporate it in serious events.
Yeah Kamsky!
Go Gata go!!
"Player C might opt for maximum flexibility (and maximum personal discipline required) and just allocate all 120 minutes to block thinking time (The 'formula' used at the candidates matches."
DOug:
If Player C's choice is the most flexible, then it actually allows for the best chess. Any inflexibility in time allotment introduces the possibility that the player will be forced to use his/her time in a less than ideal way. Therefore increments may impede, but not assist, ideal time management by the "ideal" player.
That the "block" format requires more personal discipline should be irrelevant, given that the players are top professionals--why should the POSSIBLE quality of the game be (however slightly) compromised in order to help the participants with self-discipline? That's their job.
This said, my disagreement may ultimately derive from my feeling that the clock is not "merely a tool to insure equitable sporting conditions" any more than the board is a tool to insure a conveniently visual geometrical relationship between pieces. The board and clock are both necessary to the game in spite of not being intrinsically part of the game mechanics, because they set out the context in which performance is evaluated. Untimed chess is not unsatisfying because it isn't equitable or sporting, but because there is no clear move-to-move objective: it's like running without a finish line, or mountain-climbing without a summit.
"Player C might opt for maximum flexibility (and maximum personal discipline required) and just allocate all 120 minutes to block thinking time (The 'formula' used at the candidates matches."
DOug:
If Player C's choice is the most flexible, then it actually allows for the best chess. Any inflexibility in time allotment introduces the possibility that the player will be forced to use his/her time in a less than ideal way. Therefore increments may impede, but not assist, ideal time management by the "ideal" player.
That the "block" format requires more personal discipline should be irrelevant, given that the players are top professionals--why should the POSSIBLE quality of the game be (however slightly) compromised in order to help the participants with self-discipline? That's their job.
This said, my disagreement may ultimately derive from my feeling that the clock is not "merely a tool to insure equitable sporting conditions" any more than the board is a tool to insure a conveniently visual geometrical relationship between pieces. The board and clock are both necessary to the game in spite of not being intrinsically part of the game mechanics, because they set out the context in which performance is evaluated. Untimed chess is not unsatisfying because it isn't equitable or sporting, but because there is no clear move-to-move objective: it's like running without a finish line, or mountain-climbing without a summit.
Ilyumzhinov's answers to questions about time controls really shocked me. With the candidates matches in progress and a long match for the world championship already scheduled I was starting to believe in Kirsan again. But then I read this:
Q: Will the classical control be kept only for the most important tournaments?
A: For World Championships, yes. However, we will still decrease the time from 7 to 4-5 hours. For all other official tournaments we will use 20 or 25 minutes per player. All chess players I talked with support this idea. During the Olympiad in Turin we questioned female players, and 100% of them backed the FIDE control. I guess 90% men share their opinion. When I met Vladimir Kramnik in Paris recently, he said that the classical control should be preserved for World Championships, but rapid control can make chess more exciting for the public.
So let's just get used to time scrambles. Ilyumzhinov is back with his bright ideas again. "For all other official tournaments we will use 20 or 25 minutes per player." This just can't be true.
Parsnips: 1)The opening of the game Bacrot-Kamsky was not a Bogo-Indian: playing Bb5+ after 1d4 Nf6 2c4 e6 3g6 is part of the Catalan and this sequence has been played by many top players (Leko, Adams , Kramnik Kasparov etc) in fact its the most popular black reply after 3..d4
in this line.
2) Adams main defense after 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 is the Queens Indian, overwhelmingly so, he has played the Bogo just a hand full of times in the last 10 years.
No GM rated over 2600 plays the Bogo regularly - its for surpise value only or against weaker players. There is a good reason for this and I do not believe its fashion. Anand Adams and even Aronian have essayed the Bogo occasionally but its not a main defense of any current top 20 player. Aronians defeat of Magnus shows why. He did not play any obviously wrong moves but rapidly found himself in a difficult position. A bad opening choice to play against Aronian
Parsnips: 1)The opening of the game Bacrot-Kamsky was not a Bogo-Indian: playing Bb5+ after 1d4 Nf6 2c4 e6 3g6 is part of the Catalan and this sequence has been played by many top players (Leko, Adams , Kramnik Kasparov etc) in fact its the most popular black reply after 3..d4
in this line.
2) Adams main defense after 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 is the Queens Indian, overwhelmingly so, he has played the Bogo just a hand full of times in the last 10 years.
No GM rated over 2600 plays the Bogo regularly - its for surpise value only or against weaker players. There is a good reason for this and I do not believe its fashion. Anand Adams and even Aronian have essayed the Bogo occasionally but its not a main defense of any current top 20 player. Aronians defeat of Magnus shows why. He did not play any obviously wrong moves but rapidly found himself in a difficult position. A bad opening choice to play against Aronian
Ilyumzhinov's answers to questions about time controls really shocked me. With the candidates matches in progress and a long match for the world championship already scheduled I was starting to believe in Kirsan again. But then I read this:
Q: Will the classical control be kept only for the most important tournaments?
A: For World Championships, yes. However, we will still decrease the time from 7 to 4-5 hours. For all other official tournaments we will use 20 or 25 minutes per player. All chess players I talked with support this idea. During the Olympiad in Turin we questioned female players, and 100% of them backed the FIDE control. I guess 90% men share their opinion."
I don't want to use harsh words, but this is a lie. 90% of the Olympiad players want to play 20 minutes games? I don't believe this. Why would they like to do this? They are used to play two hours all their life.
I don't know any player in my club who wants to play rapid chess regularly. It's also not much fun to watch these games, since there are too many faults.
Another BS interview by Ilyumzhinov.
Where is this Ilymzhinov interview, freitag?
It's in the globalchess.eu website.
It is always easy to say that many players support your views while mentioning no names, no questions and no possible answers at all. Impossible to check if it is true. That can be done differently.
The Association of Chess Professionals had a survey about time controls. All names of the 161 chessplayers that answered the questions are listed, together with questions, possible answers and outcomes: http://www.chess-players.org/eng/news/viewarticle.html?id=198
I quote: "Over 50% of the participants have chosen 7-hour time control as best for use in official events and 6-hour time control as the second choice. At the same time, almost 2/3 of the participants have chosen 4-hour time control as worst."
"m": Whether or not C's choice allows for the best chess, it certainly does not entail that the "best chess" would occur, and, in practice, it is quite unlikely to result in optimal play. In reality, increments are likely to benefit most professional chess players.
But your whole argument is just a "Straw Man", since in the system that I outlined, no player would be forced to use increment. An "ideal player" can still choose Player C's option, and receive all of his time in one block. If his opponent opts to do otherwise, it's "no skin off of his back".
"If Player C's choice is the most flexible, then it actually allows for the best chess. Any inflexibility in time allotment introduces the possibility that the player will be forced to use his/her time in a less than ideal way. Therefore increments may impede, but not assist, ideal time management by the "ideal" player."
________________________
Actually, their job is to play their best chess, within the constraints of the rules of chess (e.g. no cheating),and organizers' stipulations (e.g. playing "blindfold chess" at Melody Amber).
I don't know many people who play over a game to see how well disciplined the players were in their time management. MOst people who enjoy viewing top level chess games because it is a test of skill, not of personal discipline.
But let me turn your question around: Why should "top professionals" who make their living from chess, be denied the opportunity to voluntarily choose a formula that incorporates increment? Chess professionals are interested in results, not in some abstract idea of "best play". If a player deems that his results will improve with increment, why deny it to him?
"That the "block" format requires more personal discipline should be irrelevant, given that the players are top professionals--why should the POSSIBLE quality of the game be (however slightly) compromised in order to help the participants with self-discipline? That's their job."
__________________________________________
m, perhaps you are unaware that the game of chess was played for over 1,000 years before the advent of the chess clock. Chess got along quite fine without being timed. It's regrettable that you feel that Morphy's are "Unsatisfying"--although I doubt that they'll be expunged from the game anthologies.
By the way, the "clear move-to-move objective" in chess is called "checkmate" (or the avoidance of being checkmated).
Your running analogy is flawed, by the way. After all, the winner in the foot race is the person who crosses the finshing line 1st, whether or not the race is timed.
"This said, my disagreement may ultimately derive from my feeling that the clock is not "merely a tool to insure equitable sporting conditions" any more than the board is a tool to insure a conveniently visual geometrical relationship between pieces. The board and clock are both necessary to the game in spite of not being intrinsically part of the game mechanics, because they set out the context in which performance is evaluated. Untimed chess is not unsatisfying because it isn't equitable or sporting, but because there is no clear move-to-move objective: it's like running without a finish line, or mountain-climbing without a summit."
The interview with Ilyumzhinov, http://globalchess.eu/main.php?id=34, is revealing indeed. After discussing the incidents of Elista:
Q: What measures were taken to prevent such incidents in the future?
A: We are blocking all the signals in the playing hall in order to rule out the computer assistance. The players share restrooms and relaxation rooms. And there is another solution I am firm about: cutting down the thinking time. When Topalov and Kramnik played their 25-minute tiebreak games, they didn't run to the toilet! You were in Elista last autumn, and you remember that the hall was half-empty during the long-play games, but was full of excited spectators for the rapid games. Popularity of the web relay rose even steeper by the end of the match. The rapid games were very tense and exciting. In addition, I think that their quality did not differ much from the classical control games.
Q: So, your new proposal is 1 hour for the entire game?
A: Maybe more, but this is the direction we are going.
"When I met Vladimir Kramnik in Paris recently, he said that the classical control should be preserved for World Championships, but rapid control can make chess more exciting for the public."
Earlier it was reported Kramnik supported the very fast time control for all tournaments except for the World Championship. Above it is stated differently. Probably they asked him if 30 minutes a game would be possible, and he said it would - not implying it should be played always, at every single tournament.
Kramnik in part 2 of his Chessbase interview is disappointing but far from Kirsan's extremism, although it could be interpreted to resemble it:
"Well, definitely in top-level tournament we should use classical time controls. I also think we should make more rapid chess tournaments – one hour, 25 minutes, whatever. It is good for the popularisation of the game. It could be a system like in tennis. There are four grand slam events with five sets, and all other tournaments are three sets. Something like this is quite logical: top tournaments classical chess, opens up to the organisers, FIDE time controls if they want. But world championships and super-tournaments I think should be played by classical time controls. Because these players can deliver value, they can deliver deep chess games. Why take that away from them and from chess amateurs. That is my view of it. Actually I play with different time controls, and as a chess player don’t have problems to play with any time controls. But talking as a businessman I think we should keep classical chess."
I think Kirsan is right in a sense. I don't think he was advocating rapid games, but I once heard Kaidanov say that GM's (I don't know about amateurs) would make mostly the same moves in a long game or a speed game. 30 minutes is enough to cut most blunders and leads to perfectly reasonable games. And it would be so much more exciting for fans. It's not like Kramnik games are usually full of complications.