|Sep-15-04|| ||Giancarlo: This game transposes into the Dutch Defense nicely. And Botvinnik plays it with my favoutire ..b6 :-). There is an early move of the knight f6 to e4, another characteristic of the Dutch. What is so intresting about this game is hhow both players take it upon themselves to finnachetto their QS! A very agressive move.|
Most people think these early draws are bring, and yes, even I would like to see more play. But I can't help but watch any game that has these 2 players in it. Especially in the Dutch Defense. If there is such a thing, and I'm sure many will blast me for saying this: this is a "good" short drawed game.
|Apr-02-05|| ||iron maiden: One can hardly blame Tal for drawing, anyway, since it won him the World Championship. Botvinnik had virtually no fight left in him once he fell three points behind. That was also the case when he lost to Petrosian two years later. |
|Oct-25-08|| ||Eggman: This game isn't a draw. Cancelling a game by mutual agreement and calling it a draw doesn't make it a draw. It's simply an unconcluded game. The fact that the players and officials all agreed to call it a draw doesn't make it a draw for the same reason that having the players and officials agree to call it Scrabble wouldn't make it Scrabble.|
|Oct-25-08|| ||DoctorD: Eggman:
The fact that the players and officials all agreed to call it a draw doesn't make it a draw for the same reason that having the players and officials agree to call it Scrabble wouldn't make it Scrabble.
That is an incredibly specious argument, given that a draw is an expected outcome of a chess game, calling it by any other name....
|Oct-26-08|| ||Eggman: It's an unconcluded game. There was no 3-fold repetition, no stalement, no 50 move rule, no dead drawn position arising (the last of which is surely the basis for the rule which allows for draw agreements in the first place). This isn't a draw. It's an unconcluded game, and calling it a draw doesn't make it so.|
|Oct-31-09|| ||WhiteRook48: Botvinnik was too tired to play anymore and said "see you later in '61..."|
|Dec-07-09|| ||The Rocket: "his game transposes into the Dutch Defense nicely"
it most certainly does not tranpose to a dutch.. just because the pawn moves to f5 its a dutch to you?
so if I play c5 at one point in the kings indian it transposes to a benoni?:)
the pawn is on f5 but the other pieces are not configured in a way that its a transposable dutch. In fact the f5 variation is quite common, and called something like queens indian dutch, or whatever. but its not the dutch defence! a seperate opening.
|Apr-05-10|| ||The Rocket: "It's an unconcluded game, and calling it a draw doesn't make it so."|
Have you never heard of draw by agreement???
I offer a draw and the opponent accepts without having to repeat the position... ...........
|Oct-30-18|| ||That Roger: <Have you never heard of draw by agreement??? >
Eggman appeared to be speaking more about technicality, more about the position itself, not about the circumstances surrounding the position. The game was a draw by the possibilities of rules, but the position is not concluded to be a guaranteed drawn position. Meaning that the game was not theoretically or technically drawn, but that the players agreed to stop playing, to not attempt to further conclude the position, which can be referred to as a 'tie' for point scoring methods, but not a proof that the game position is a draw.|