|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-02-09 | | AgentRgent: <Bobsterman3000: why not just play 1.d4 and then offer the draw... seriously.> Because then you'd whine about the draw... oh wait... |
|
| Jul-02-09 | | parisattack: <whiteshark: IMO it was actually a routine draw! > IMO, also. Looks like last year's model of Kramnik - and Leko. |
|
| Jul-02-09 | | whiteshark: <Knight13: <Thanks for your sarcasm, though. It was sure very pleasurable to read.>> Sorry for over-reacting. Let's say we have a different understanding and approach to beauty in chess, and both ways are o.k. :D |
|
| Jul-02-09 | | acirce: Lékó tried to find a way to get a real advantage. He failed. The game fizzled out to a draw. That happens, you know. Fine start for Kramnik. A draw as Black against one of his main competitors in this tournament is good, and it's better to get one relatively easily in 24 moves than having to spend 7 hours fighting for it. Might seem like just stating the obvious. 17.e3 meaning an exchange sacrifice after 17..c3 18.bxc3 was an interesting possibility, but I suppose nothing special objectively. White deviated from Kramnik vs Topalov, 2006 by 14.Nbd2. Haven't checked if anyone has played it until now, but Bareev mentions the possibility in "From London To Elista", giving 14..Bb5 15.Qc2 Rc8 16.0-0 Na6 17.Rfc1 as the main line with a "complicated, about equal position". 15.Qa3 is unmentioned. It's still up to White to prove something in this line. |
|
| Jul-02-09 | | percyblakeney: I think Leko and Kramnik have faced each other 16 times in all in Dortmund, the only decisive game being Kramnik's win with white in 2006. Here it looks drawn after 17. Rfc1 with lots of exchanges to follow. |
|
| Jul-02-09 | | acirce: In his 1.d4 repertoire book Avrukh also believes in Black's position after 7.Qc2 and recommends 7.0-0 as the best try for an advantage. |
|
| Jul-02-09 | | KamikazeAttack: <why not just play 1.d4 and then offer the draw... seriously.> Or better still, put them in those Bulgarian jails. |
|
| Jul-02-09 | | drnooo: For all these here that find a draw so detestable, there is an easy way to avoid them at this level.
Let all these guys play computers in a tournament. Say a roundrobinwithRybka.Not only would the draws dwindle but it might be interesting seeing whom lasted the longest. It would be like a knife fight in a dark room with the last bloody man left alive coming out. But it ain't gonna happen.
Besides, Kramniks draw percentage is no worse essentially than Anands, I never have figured how you can hold him down for that and let somebody else kick him and not do the same to Anand. |
|
| Jul-02-09 | | smaragdus: <Knight13: Nice draw.> A draw between Drawko and Drawnik is always nice, even sweet, especially at Drawkassen, Drawmund. These two guys are the real draw masters, only few have tried to contend with them, but alas, in vain, these two have turned drawing into art, they are the great chess artisans of draw, and they have a string of 70 holy draws between them, and of course, they drawed their match for the title, but Drawnik, being a slightly better drawer, retained the title. Yes, at Brissago, Switzerland, chess was in jeopardy in year 2004, in fact chess is endangered any time these two sit at the chess-board. |
|
| Jul-02-09 | | Shajmaty: <A draw between Drawko and Drawnik...> I'm getting so tired of this. According to Fischl's statistics, both Lékó and Kramnik drew 69% of their games between 2000 and 2008, yes... but only 9% and 13% (respectively) of them were short draws! Players like Nisipeanu, Khalifman, Dreev, Tiviakov... even Anand and Grischuk draw "short" more often! |
|
| Jul-02-09 | | acirce: This was just a normal game. It could have been played between any two players. But had it been Aronian-Anand most people would have shrugged and gone on to view some other game. There are usually some complaints, but it's when Kramnik and Lékó play the so-called "boring draws" that people start posting all kinds of crap. I'm used to it and it is not going to change. Just saying... |
|
| Jul-02-09 | | Shajmaty: <Aronian and Anand [...] usually play for a win...> Anad's short (under 20 moves) drawing percentage in 2008: 10%. Aronian, 3%. Léko, 2%. Kramnik, 0%! Not the best example. |
|
| Jul-02-09 | | acirce: Here are some more meaningless, arbitrary statistics. It increases the "short draw" definition by 5 moves. It's based on the games in this database and includes rapid, blitz and everything. It means just what it means, no more or less. I don't mean to pollute the game page with silliness so this is my last post on the subject but correct me if I've got anything wrong. Draws in 25 moves or less in 2000-2009
Lékó: 135/925 = 14.6%
Kramnik: 134/858 = 15.6%
Anand: 183/1067 = 17.2%
Draws in 25 moves or less in 2008-2009
Lékó: 19/194 = 9.8%
Kramnik: 15/145 = 10.3%
Anand: 19/146 = 13.0% |
|
| Jul-02-09 | | Bridgeburner: <acirce>
Don't confuse their minds with facts! |
|
| Jul-02-09 | | acirce: Btw, don't know how many people who actually looked at the game, but it should be noted that Kramnik played a pretty sharp line against the Catalan. Not the somewhat passive mainline with ..Be7 which is very solid but harder to win with. Of course he didn't get any winning chances anyway. |
|
| Jul-02-09 | | Augalv: <smaragdus: <Knight13: Nice draw.> A draw between Drawko and Drawnik is always nice,> Not being able to read the stupid posts from a moron like you ever again is nice. |
|
Jul-03-09
 | | kamalakanta: I really do not understand the objections to this game. <acirce> has provided some objective analysis. I found the game to be quite interesting and instructive. There were some nice tactical themes, most of which I doubt I would have found at the board. This is my main reason for looking at these games; to see if I could learn something. I do not use an engine for analysis. I play over the game as much as I want/have to, either to be entertained and/or to learn something from it; it could be a tactical sequence, or an interesting maneuver. It was a nice draw, as <Knight13> stated. |
|
| Jul-03-09 | | acirce: <kamalakanta> Well said. In fact almost every single game played on this level contains things of interest. The exceptions are very rare (draws without leaving theory..but even then you could find it interesting to look at them if you don't already know that line well, although they do lack independent value). I'm not saying this was a fantastic game. But there are always things worth studying in even relatively short and outwardly unspectacular games. In fact, you could easily spend hours on most 20-move draws. I sometimes feel like an alien having these views on a community where "short boring draws" almost unanimously seem to be frowned upon. Here's a good example involving the same players: Leko vs Kramnik, 2004 Boring Petroff draw? One could look at it that way since on the surface very little happened, but one could also note the very valuable novelty 17..Qc2, changing the evaluation of the whole line a bit. Earlier 17..Bf6 had been played and White kept some advantage. <A variation of the Russian Game that's objectively considered very unpleasant for Black was rehabilitated by this novelty, and it was precisely because of problems in this variation that many people didn't play the Russian Game. After this it became very popular.> -- Kramnik |
|
| Jul-03-09 | | hedgeh0g: <Draws in 25 moves or less in 2008-2009 Lékó: 19/194 = 9.8%
Kramnik: 15/145 = 10.3%
Anand: 19/146 = 13.0%>
Let's not <draw> too many comparisons here... |
|
| Jul-04-09 | | azi: If a game is drawn positionally and tactically why play on? The odds are again even that one player or the other will soon make an error and so isn't that just 'hope chess' at the GM level? - and that would bring us to games going on until bare bones positions are reached (K vs K endings for example and many 80+ move draws may come about). Aiming for draws has a key role in stratigic planning based on one's event/performance standing and realistic outcome expectations. So as far as draws may go, imho, that's the long and short of them! |
|
| Jul-04-09 | | azi: Interesting is that black's plundered
gambit pawn on c4 at move 4 is still on the same square 24 moves later at the end of the game. So much for material equality... in a funny sense |
|
| Jul-04-09 | | azi: I am sorry but I just don't consider draws boring. There is almost always
a surprising move or an unplayed plan to explore post game. True all games are not created equal in terms of fascination, brillance, forsight or creativity, e.g. But I don't think its written anywhere that GMs have to include entertainment on their preparation schedules...like beauty boredom is at least partially in the eye of the beholder: Nimvovich 23:6 |
|
| Jul-04-09 | | azi: past tense of draw is drew or drawn not drawed (had to, sorry)...Druids were tree lovers, maybe they were the first wood pushers? |
|
| Jul-05-09 | | Ulhumbrus: An alternative to 10 axb5 is 10 Ne5, not only attacking twice the c6 pawn but also pinning it against the capture axb5. |
|
Jul-05-09
 | | halito27: I'm on the side of the people who found this game worth playing over. I play both sides of the Catalan and appreciate its subtleties (to the best of my ability). I think this is an interesting line, and would be interested in playing it and seeing if I can come up with any better ideas (I like Ulhumbrus' 10 Ne5). In this game I saw two positional players maneuvering for advantage, and as it turned out, the game petered out, but I think both players gave it an honest try. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
