I think Leko missed his only chance when he failed to take the a5 pawn followed by retreating with Bb5. There seem to be several lines where Kramnik can win a pawn or two, or even set up a mating position but black gets a perpetual check or other sufficient compensation thanks to the bishop on b5.

I posted my take on this game at http://cartermobley.com/Game_14:__K...

I say we should have a Leko-Anand match, with the winner to face whoever wins next January in Dubai. It would be quite an interesting match now that Leko has drawn with Kramnik and Anand is playing stronger than ever. It might be difficult to put enough stakes on the games to prevent a lot of early draws though.

I consider it the second most entertaining game of the match conceding first place to the first game which I enjoyed very much.

If you really want to get rid of drawn matched I'd suggest a chess varient instead, where being stalemated would lose you the game, repeating the position is illegal forcing the opponent to chose another move.

Even in a king vs king endgame (they'll run out of legal positions because of the repetition rule) this produces a decisive game every time, but would change the tactics and theory of the game significantly although I would expect it to carry much of the same depth as real chess.

Personally, I love the game as is and to me a draw simply means a game played with the best skill by both parties and produces many great escapes which are great to watch in their own right!!

5-3

<and he was transparently a man at the end of his physical and psychical reserves.>

I wasn't there so I don't know what Karpov looked like. He said he wanted to play on. It was the match funds that were dwindling

<Kampomanes steped in to save Karpov's title, perhaps even Karpov's life. The match was declared a no-decision and Karpov retained the title while Kasparov was given another match.>

Kasparov said his chances of winning the first match were 'about 40%'. He was very pleased to start a new match. Karpov was the one that was annoyed.

<Kaspy won the second match. Somewhere in the mean time, Kampomanes restored for Karpov the previously discontinued rematch rights.>

The rematch clause had been in since 1975.

<Their third match was thus the re-match, and Karpov barely failed to get his title back. He was immediately seeded against Hubner into the candidate final.>

Hubner? Are you mistaking Hubner for Sokolov?

<After Hubner surendered in the middle of their bout for nervous strain, Karpov got to play Kasparov for the fourth time.>

Hubner gave up matches against Petrosian and Kortschnoi; I don't think he has ever played Karpov in a match.

<Kasparov ... was very pleased to start a new match. Karpov was the one that was annoyed. > You may buy that cover, I do not. (Although I do understand that Kasparov was pleased to start that new match; he had been worried that it would be cancelled.)

I stand corrected on Sokolov and 5:3. The point we were realy discussing, however, was the issue of rematch rights; and from that we wandered off to preferential treatments for some players. My position has been that rematch rights confer a way too large an advantage to the champion. On the tangential issue I claim that two players in history received prefferential treatment from FIDE far above all others: Karpov and Botvinnik.

looool - I like your humor. And your loyalty to Kramnik the whole match (o.k. there was one "idiot" after Lekos Qd3 in the Marshall). And your positional understanding of chess and your analysis of the endgames.