| page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 28
|1. Kramnik vs Anand
||½-½||35||2007||Dortmund||D12 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav|
|2. Gelfand vs E Alekseev
||½-½||23||2007||Dortmund||A32 English, Symmetrical Variation|
|3. Carlsen vs Leko
||½-½||29||2007||Dortmund||C88 Ruy Lopez|
|4. Mamedyarov vs Naiditsch
||1-0||44||2007||Dortmund||C58 Two Knights|
|5. Kramnik vs Gelfand
||1-0||62||2007||Dortmund||D45 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav|
|6. Naiditsch vs Carlsen
||½-½||35||2007||Dortmund||C69 Ruy Lopez, Exchange, Gligoric Variation, 6.d4|
|7. Anand vs Leko
||½-½||29||2007||Dortmund||C89 Ruy Lopez, Marshall|
|8. E Alekseev vs Mamedyarov
||1-0||45||2007||Dortmund||B46 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation|
|9. Mamedyarov vs Kramnik
||½-½||21||2007||Dortmund||E14 Queen's Indian|
|10. Carlsen vs E Alekseev
||½-½||59||2007||Dortmund||E17 Queen's Indian|
|11. Leko vs Naiditsch
||½-½||38||2007||Dortmund||B29 Sicilian, Nimzovich-Rubinstein|
|12. Gelfand vs Anand
||½-½||21||2007||Dortmund||D45 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav|
|13. E Alekseev vs Leko
||½-½||34||2007||Dortmund||D11 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav|
|14. Anand vs Naiditsch
||1-0||57||2007||Dortmund||C78 Ruy Lopez|
|15. Gelfand vs Mamedyarov
|16. Kramnik vs Carlsen
||1-0||30||2007||Dortmund||E06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3|
|17. Leko vs Kramnik
||½-½||38||2007||Dortmund||C42 Petrov Defense|
|18. Mamedyarov vs Anand
||½-½||69||2007||Dortmund||E15 Queen's Indian|
|19. Carlsen vs Gelfand
||½-½||27||2007||Dortmund||D11 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav|
|20. Naiditsch vs E Alekseev
||½-½||50||2007||Dortmund||E29 Nimzo-Indian, Samisch|
|21. Gelfand vs Leko
||0-1||65||2007||Dortmund||D47 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav|
|22. Anand vs E Alekseev
||½-½||43||2007||Dortmund||C42 Petrov Defense|
|23. Mamedyarov vs Carlsen
||½-½||26||2007||Dortmund||D38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation|
|24. Kramnik vs Naiditsch
||1-0||47||2007||Dortmund||E04 Catalan, Open, 5.Nf3|
|25. E Alekseev vs Kramnik
||½-½||31||2007||Dortmund||C42 Petrov Defense|
| page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 28
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 62 OF 62 ·
|Jul-02-07|| ||collodi: Only 7 decisive games out of 25!!! I realize grandmasters are more likely to draw, and perhaps super-grandmasters to do so even more, but this drawish tendency in the long run is death for generating spectator interest in such tournaments. Is there any serious conversation these days in the chess community, especially among the governing bodies, about ways to reduce this deadening trend?|
|Jul-02-07|| ||kellmano: At least the draws here were reasonably fighting on the whole. If you do not like draws, I suggest you do not visit the Basna tournament!|
If you think about the good old days when there was a match to establish the WC, seven decisive games out of 25 would be fine.
|Jul-02-07|| ||acirce: I'm not crazy about the thought that the chess world would have to please people who so lack understanding of chess that they seriously think there is something wrong with draws. Chess doesn't have to adapt to get "popular" by attempting to get the nod from such people and shouldn't. It's like saying classical music should be more like rock music. Why should it? Let people who like rock listen to rock. Let people who hate draws take up shogi.|
|Jul-02-07|| ||Karpova: There's nothing wrong with draws and there were almost no short draws. Many of them were quite exciting and entertaining.|
And the fear of draws putting an end to chess - it existed already in Capablanca's time...
I prefer a game like Leko vs Mamedyarov, 2007 (draw)
over Mayfield vs Trinks, 1959 (win) any time.
|Jul-02-07|| ||YouRang: Unfortunately, there is a tendency in many people to regard decisive games as "exciting" and draws as "boring".|
The truth, of course, is that the game's outcome has nothing to do with it being exciting or boring.
What makes chess exciting:
1. How well and hard fought the game is played.
2. The observer's ability to comprehend and appreciate the ideas behind the moves.
I think that it's point #2 that is the problem. People don't really understand what's going on in a high-level game, so they focus solely on the outcome.
|Jul-02-07|| ||plang: What makes chess exciting:
<1. How well and hard fought the game is played.
2. The observer's ability to comprehend and appreciate the ideas behind the moves.>
The players I enjoy watching the most are those who are willing to take risks. Topalov, Morozovich and Ivanchuk are examples. Players like Svidler and Leko play solidly and depend on their opponent to either err or overextend. If everyone takes that approach you are unlikely to get many interesting games.
|Jul-02-07|| ||Zebra: <Let people who hate draws take up shogi.>|
You can get draws in shogi as well, though they are rare. What you don't get is the "I can't be bothered" kind of draw.
(I agree with the main point, that draws in chess need not be boring.)
|Jul-02-07|| ||fgh: The logic here is very simple: If one or both players play an amazing sacrificial game full of subtle maneuvers and counterattacks, but in the end the game ends as a draw, does it automatically become boring? Of course not, that's the thing that most people somehow miss here.|
|Jul-02-07|| ||acirce: Chess is extremely hard, and it takes time and effort to even get close to understand what is going on in a super-GM game. Even very strong players can find it hard or impossible even after hours of analysis. This is just the nature of the game.|
In the Soviet Union, intellectual activities were treated with infinitely higher respect than in most societies today, and there chess was popular. In our anti-intellectual and impatient culture, people are often not willing to put in any particular effort. They want to look at a chess game as they would an action movie or a soccer match. Now what bugs me is when people suggest that chess somehow has to adapt to this superficial culture and to people who are not willing to put in any effort. There's no reason it has to. It's people who don't like to watch top-level chess who should stop watching, try harder to appreciate it, or at least stop complaining.
As for the traditional exciting/boring dichotomy, I don't even think a game has to be "exciting" in a narrow sense to be valuable, any more than you necessarily have to be "excited" about it to enjoy a fine piece of music or to be fascinated about a new scientific discovery. A short draw can be extremely interesting, even though it wasn't exciting to watch live or when you play through it casually - it could for example contain a very important novelty that equalizes as Black in a topical line and the game will have big chessical significance. A so-called "dull" game can be a technical and even creative masterpiece, or it could just be enjoyable anyway.
|Jul-02-07|| ||pubaer: I really got to say, Leko has really surprised me in the last few months. He used to be a very dull, no risk, defensive player.
But somehow, he has changed. He really tries to win in each game these last months. Its like someone has shoved some fighting spirit in his boring backbone. I really got to say, its an exiting metamorphosis. let's hope he doesn't change back. He'll need that backbone in Mexico.|
|Jul-02-07|| ||Confuse: <acirce>, your comments are thoughtful and appreciated. I feel that with your comment I can truly understand why chess will always be a pursuit of a limited audience. Wheras with physical sports like soccer, tennis and so on, a commentator isn't really necessary to appreciate the sport, chess requires a person of near equal intelligence to the player to describe what is going on for most of us. Like a specific field of art, many games of chess will always be most appreciated only by a select few.|
|Jul-02-07|| ||ganstaman: <acirce: In our anti-intellectual and impatient culture, people are often not willing to put in any particular effort. They want to look at a chess game as they would an action movie or a soccer match.>|
I get the point you are making, but using soccer as an example really just brings up another point -- would you believe how many people in the US don't and probably will never like soccer because they see a game end in a 0-0 tie and can't comprehend how it could have been a good, exciting game?
It's so fustrating trying to explain to people how the value of the game isn't so tied up with the value of the results. Huh, I guess that sentence fits both me arguing about soccer here in the US and your argument about chess a few posts up. Not bad at all.
|Jul-02-07|| ||Akavall: <would you believe how many people in the US don't and probably will never like soccer because they see a game end in a 0-0 tie and can't comprehend how it could have been a good, exciting game?
That's better than today's USA 1 - Paraguay 3 game ;).
|Jul-03-07|| ||Atking: <Zebra: <Let people who hate draws take up shogi.>> Well you will agree that a fight is possible around a total equality. Draws have some charming point as the stalemate for example. Subbtle fight to make a lost position a draw. Subbtle fight to make a drawish position a win. In chess draw is no such boring. I read you are living in Germany and you love shogi too. Next week M. Moriuchi (EiseiMeijin) who is quite strong too in chess will play in Paris. The Open. If you have time.|
|Jul-03-07|| ||Zebra: <Atking> I completely agree with you (and wasn't disagreeing with <acirce> either). I have come to appreciate apparently drawish simplified positions in chess much more of late.|
Thanks for telling me about Moriuchi. I won't make it to Paris, but will be interested to see how he does. I didn't know he was a strong chess player, though I have been following Habu's chess with interest.
|Jul-03-07|| ||Atking: <<Zebra> I didn't know he was a strong chess player, though I have been following Habu's chess with interest.> They started to play chess nearly at the same time about 10 years ago and are actually, clearly the best chess players in Japan. Their style at chess too, are different but they enjoy much our game. I hope Moriuchi will play his best. He could surprise but he has just finished his match for the title of Meijin. Just one week to prepare might be not enough...
Else the Professional Shogi Association will send a player (Honma sensei 6 dan) to teach shogi during one year in Europe. Mr Honma said to me that he will stay few months in Germany. That could be another occasion|
|Jul-03-07|| ||Per: <acirce: Chess is extremely hard, and it takes time and effort to even get close to understand what is going on in a super-GM game. Even very strong players can find it hard or impossible even after hours of analysis. This is just the nature of the game.
In the Soviet Union, intellectual activities were treated with infinitely higher respect than in most societies today, and there chess was popular. In our anti-intellectual and impatient culture, people are often not willing to put in any particular effort. They want to look at a chess game as they would an action movie or a soccer match. Now what bugs me is when people suggest that chess somehow has to adapt to this superficial culture and to people who are not willing to put in any effort. There's no reason it has to. It's people who don't like to watch top-level chess who should stop watching, try harder to appreciate it, or at least stop complaining.>|
A agree with you in most of what you wrote regarding the superficial view many fans seem to express about draws. The only draws I dont like are the short ones that hardly present any new moves.
As for your description of intellectual activities in the Soviet Union, I would, however, like to add one thing that you did not mention:
The Soviet Union was home of a great number of great intellectuals, scientists, artists and so on, that is true beyond doubt. And since the society was one were all its institutions were corrupted by a system that made basically everything subject to Marxism and Leninism ideology that hardly no one actually believe in, it was morally very difficult to be an intellectual with integrity.
And hence... what intellectual activity should they then pursue?
Chess of course! Or mathematics. Physics. Natural sciences. Sciences where there were little room for "intepretations", where right or wrong could be proven only with objective arguments. If it is mate in five, it is mate in five, with or without Marxism.
The humanitarian areas were much more ideologized, and hence more difficult to strive in for intellectuals with great minds and lots of integrity. (not saying that the Soviet Union lacked strong intellectuals in the humanitarian fields, but many of them were either childrens culture workers (less ideology) or dissidents.)
|Jul-03-07|| ||Jim Bartle: "That's better than today's USA 1 - Paraguay 3 game ;)."|
Especially when a US player has an uncontested header five meters in front of the goal and heads it straight at the goalkeeper. That's like missing a mate in two...
|Jul-03-07|| ||LIFE Master AJ: http://www.geocities.com/lifemaster...|
This is late, but you know the old saying ...
|Jul-03-07|| ||Knight13: I totally disagrees AND agress with <acirce>.|
|Jul-04-07|| ||nikhil.ramesh: If people think chess draws are boring, they should watch 5 day test cricket.
Its close to 60 hours long and boooring if nothing exciting is happening for extended periods of time. |
Not complaining about cricket or anything as i happen to be an ardent fan..Just some thoughts.
|Jul-04-07|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <LIFE Master AJ: http://www.geocities.com/lifemaster...|
This is late, but you know the old saying ...>
...Better copy and paste late from Chessbase than never come up with my own material...
|Jul-04-07|| ||tud: Jim Bartle , the thing is they play football and USA plays soccer , and this is a whole world of difference...|
|Jul-04-07|| ||tud: They had some good years though ...|
|Jul-04-07|| ||Zebra: <Atking: the Professional Shogi Association will send a player (Honma sensei 6 dan) to teach shogi during one year in Europe. Mr Honma said to me that he will stay few months in Germany. That could be another occasion>|
I will certainly look out for that, and will alert my shogi-playing friends (not that there are many of them). If you come across more details at any point, perhaps you would be kind enough to post them on my chessforum?
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 62 OF 62 ·
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
- No personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No posting personal information of members.
See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.
NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.|
your profile |
Premium Membership |
Kibitzer's Café |
Biographer's Bistro |
new kibitzing |
Tournament Index |
Player Directory |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC