I think the same. In my opinion, Gustafsson is the only player that is really managing his games well. He goes for the win against Naidistch and then holds off Mamedyarov as black(and Mamedyarov needed a win).

The matches against Ivanchuk and Kramnik are different. Not so much because Gustafsson didn't want to win, but because Ivanchuk and Kramnik are content as always with getting draws...

That's Ivanchuk. Well basically there often seem to be two Ivanchuks:

1. The ingenious chess player who can wipe out any given player, and he can do it in style.

2. The lackluster Ivanchuk, who plays terrible chess and is even capable to offer a draw after the first move (as white).

Funnily enough they sometimes appear in the same tournament.

<Leko shared third place with Vassily Ivanchuk, the man who drove the organizers to despair with his undisguised absence of any wish to play chess. With an indifferent stare Ivanchuk would gaze into the audience and mechanically make his moves when it was his turn. Early draw offers were most welcome, and only in case of less cooperative opponents would he rack his brains to punish them for their obstinacy. Chief organizer Jürgen Grastat got all worked up by Ivanchuk's passivity. While he praised the fighting spirit of all players he openly condemned one of his most expensive players for sabotaging his tournament and rejected any mitigating circumstances with a straightforward 'He didn't have any problems accepting his starting fee, either.'

Winner Vladimir Kramnik held a milder view of his colleague who is so talented that he can finish on plus one without playing: 'He told me he just didn't want to play chess, because he was bored with chess. For the moment. He just didn't play. But he has so much class that even when he is making draws, after having lost the first game, he won two games.'>