| Apr-23-04 | | arielbekarov: This is the draw between Anand and Bareev in Wijk aan Zee 2003.
I keep asking myself how this is possible.
This is like the draw between Germany and Austria in the World Cup of soccer 1982, Spain. They played only in the center of the field, so that bouth could qualify. There was NOT ONE SINGLE TRY TO SCORE during the match ! One of the biggest scandals ever in soccer.
This draw between Anand and Bareev reminds me exactly of this terrible match in Spain.
Have in mind that I am not personally attacking any of the players.
I am just questioning how this kind of draws not end up in a disqualification ?
Ariel |
 |
Apr-23-04
 | | acirce: Short draws are generally accepted (though not always liked) in chess since it's part of the game that the players are able to agree to draw. Not in soccer. There can hardly be a rule about disqualification anyway because you can't express it in any way that does not also hit "legitimate" draws. |
|
| Apr-23-04 | | arielbekarov: This fact is obviously clear, but, wouldn't it be possible to make some kind of rule that draws before 25 moves not can be accepted. This game was decisive for the the tournament.
If Anand would have won. He would have been number 1 without discussion.
But, by making this draw Anand secured himself as winner of the tournament, and Bareev got his third prize. And, they did this because they knew about the outcome of Polgar's game 1/2 - 1/2. According to the rules today in soccer bouth Germany and Austria would have been disqualified. Have you seen the match ?
If not. Take a look, if possible.
Everything is so obvious.
It must be possible to handle this anti-chess games as well.
Ariel |
|
Apr-23-04
| | acirce: Wasn't Polgar's game much longer than this? Or was it played at another day? THAT is the big fault in that case.. the games of the last round must of course be played at the same time. That rule wouldn't have helped anyway. They could just have agreed to a draw in the 26th. (Or later, if they shouldn't want to be _that_ impudent :-) I don't know about the Germany-Austria match at all, but I will look it up. |
|
| Apr-23-04 | | infinitehope: there is a rule about the minimum number of moves that must be played before they can agree a draw. now, if you are anand and bareev and a draw secures you first and third respectively, of course you are going to take the draw. it is simply good chess. if you knew a draw would secure you first (or third for that matter) in a major tournament, im pretty sure you would be happy to take the 1/2 pt; in any case, i would. (add to this that they are making their living here....*sings "go on, take the money and run"*) moreover look at how many last rd games end quickly at any large swiss event, the u.s. open for instance. this is true no matter what the players ratings are. the goal is never simply to win every game; the game is relative to tournament goals. there are, in any long tournament, games in which one sits down at the board and knows a draw is good result. if both players feel this way when they sit down, a short draw is likely to follow. |
|
| Apr-23-04 | | arielbekarov: It was played at the same day, and at the same time, but Polgar-Radjabov (I think, it was Radjabov) finished earlier, but, it was a real game. This result reached Anand and then he offered Bareev a draw.
You are right that they just could have continued, and done it later, but, Bareev was hesitating severely, before he accepted. This match, Germany-Austria, was played in the group play, World Cup Soccer, 1982, Spain.
I think, it shouldn't be any problem to find it. Tell me, after seing it, what you think ?
Have a nice weekend !
Ariel |
|
Apr-23-04
| | acirce: Is this the game: Radjabov vs Judit Polgar, 2003 ? Well, Polgar could clearly have played on. Maybe she didn't want to win the tournament anyway. A 19 move draw is not much more of a "real game" than a 14 move draw. I don't think Anand and Bareev should be bashed and Polgar not. |
|
| Apr-23-04 | | arielbekarov: Yes ! This is the game !
I was just looking at it, and you have a point, I must admit it.
It was more of a match, but, ....
hmmmmmm, you are right !
I should have informed myself better about the Radjabov-Polgar game as well. I remember it as more of a game, but, I see now that there is still a lot of chess in it.
Whatever, I think that these draws are a problem.
I will here take an opportunity to answer "infinitehope".
Of course, I realize that they have to earn some money. This is quite understandable !
If, I, personally, would accept a draw in a tournament in such a situation ?
I can only say ; "I hope not !"
Unfortunately my level is so inferiour to these players that I would only know, if I would have been able to be in their position.
BUT, still, I hope ; " NO ! "
I did write that I don't want my posting to be regarded as an attack on Anand and Bareev personally. No !
I am questioning the rules for that it is possible.
Now, I must say, definitely.
Have a nice week-end, but, thanks for reminding me of always be very well informed.
Ariel |
|
| Apr-23-04 | | arielbekarov: This last statement about questioning the possibility of making such draws and not attacking the players as such, did I write at the Polgar-Anand game earlier today. Also Wijk aan Zee, 2003 !
Writing about the same issue on two different places. Well ! I have to bash myself, I think.
Take a look at that game. That is a real draw, and a very nice game.
Finally !
All the best during the weekend!
Ariel |
|
Apr-23-04
| | acirce: Not to rub it in, but in fact there WAS also a goal in West Germany vs Austria - that goal (for WG) was exactly what was needed, it seems. Take care! :-) |
|
| Apr-25-04 | | arielbekarov: Here is a new version, due to that I was not satisfied with my posting just before this one.
I remember it as a draw, but you are right as I asked you to look at the match. Did you see it ? It is so obvious, when one looks at the match. Everything is just happening in the middle of the field. The main thing is that it was a fixed result that suited bouth Germany and Austria. It stays as one of the worst scandals in the history of soccer !
And the main thing is that there shouldn't be any space for this kind of unsportive behaviour, whether it is chess or soccer.
Ariel |
|
| Apr-25-04 | | arielbekarov: Oh, my English ?
"The main thing , the main thing ..."
THE MAIN THING must be to find a way that these kind of draws should not be possible.
There are so many interesting draws in the history of chess. Draws that ended up in draws, because bouth players had tried evrything. There is one extraordinary draw between Eduard Lasker vs Emanuel Lasker that Dvoretsky has commented, if I remember correctly.
Ariel |
|
| Apr-28-04 | | infinitehope: PART I
i am sorry if my money comment earlier distracted from my real point, BUT my real point was that these kind of draws are not always bad and in a significant way, at times, represent smart chess. asking a player to go to a 14 round tournament (or so) and fight to the death (or at least try to) every game is silly. no one does it, nor are they capable of it. chess is exhausting. those of us who are patzers (like me) and have played a saturday 3 round swiss at a classical time contol, know that the quality of chess declines as the day goes on. but there are also ups and downs over the course of a long tournament like the u.s.open or world open, etc. there are times when you need to save your energy. this is even more true in these double round-robin super-events, where winning is not easy, one knows who one is going to play and when and one has to/and can pick one's moment to go for broke. i am not defending what happened at linares (though i am not as scandalized as most), but i think people forget what it takes to go out and play for a win. the goal for these players is to win the tournament. there are times when, to achieve that goal, a short draw is going to be strategically beneficial. if you are anand in this game which has been the catalyst for these kibitzes, taking risks is, quite frankly, stupid. it would be bad chess. the same is true for bareev. all they needed was a draw to achieve tournament goals. that said, an short draw is not a shocking nor even scandalous result. insisting that they fight it out is to forget the context in which this game is being played. |
|
| Apr-28-04 | | infinitehope: PART II
finally, as regards something like linares 2004....these players were very evenly matched, and again taking unnecessary risks is not going to help them win the tournament. if we think about the 80s and the first match between karpov and kasparov, one should remember how hard it was for them to get wins;...how karpov was worn down to the point of exhaustion by the effort and stress of play. i do not even remember how many games those two played before the match was finally suspended without either of them reaching the goal of 6 (i believe that is the correct number) wins. seen in that light, is it really such a crime for kramnik to save his energy, and win 2 of 14 games. it may not be ideal, but is it so horrid, or even poor tournament strategy? one does not ask a marathoner to sprint the entire way, nor even at the end if there is no reason. moreover, given that at least two of the players who have a reputation for "boring" chess, kramnik and leko, are regularly willing to venture the sveshnikov sicilian (if anyone will allow them to) suggests to me that people need to reconsider why they think kramnik et alia are boring. (n.b., kramnik beat leko in a svesh at linares; and there was a time when leko was also a regular practioner of the gru:nfeld). kramnik and leko are both capable of and regularly do play fighting chess. but kasparov (!!) among others went out of their way to avoid an open sicilian against them. that is respect for them as very strong players against whom entering complications is a recipe for disaster. results like karpov's 1990-something (i am not sure of the date off the top of my head??) linares where he walked all over the competition is NOT the norm, and for that reason all the more impressive. the players are too good and at the moment very evenly matched. if you want more decisive results, invite more weak players. that is the only real solution. every gets all excited about morozovich and his chess. but look at the competition against which morozovich regularly plays. he is playing in russian chess league right now where he is heads and tails better than everyone else. but if you look back a couple of years ago when he was playing classical time controls against the worlds best, morozovich struggled at times, especially with white (to the pt of losing more games with white than he was with black)! here endeth the rant.
infinitehope. |
|
|
 |
|
