First it seems that both players reached the conclusion that the best way to win was to wait the opponent to make a blunder, and not take any risk at all. It's as interesting as watching a brick wall for a whole afternoon.

Then someone got the genius idea to put art and chess together. At first I thought, well that's fantastic. Play in a great museum in the middle of sublime paintings, what else can you ask? But these guys apparently mistook "art" for "art history". Art is meant to be enjoyed, not to be talked about. I like to watch a painting just as much as I hate listening to boring scholars talking about it. ESPECIALLY in the middle of a @#$%*!& chess game.

In order to ruin a bit more everything, they put their boring videos at the only moment there could be some tension in the damn game. Like, around move 15 - 20. And so when it's finally over, the game you had left at a state of advanced opening that hasn't brought anything yet because we all know the major lines, is in a end-of-game drawish situation. Thanks for killing the little spark of excitement and tension by screening it with something I don't care about.

As if it was not depressing enough, Gelfand apparently doesn't like press conferences so he answers by unintelligible monosyllabs to every question that he is being asked. Like, if he wants to play the most boring chess in history, at least he could talk about it. And if he doesn't want to create anything interesting and doesn't want to talk, maybe he should do something else. Investment banking, for example, like Joel Lautier, could be an idea.

Yeah, because I forgot to mention that we know everything about Lautier's career in corporate banking. Can't blame them, there were nothing else to talk about.

I will say though that I like the Sophia rule, which says that players are not permitted to simply agree to a draw unless approved by the arbitrator. In the baseball analogy, it corresponds to the fact that opposing managers cannot agree to (say) let the 4th inning go by with nobody trying to score, just so the players can rest.>

Excellent analysis. I agree that the Sofia rule should be imposed. I'm bothered by Chessbase's statement that "there was nothing left to play for" in the final position. I remember back in the 2006 match between Topalov and Kramnik, around move 17 of game 1 (Kramnik vs Topalov, 2006) when the queens came off the board, GM Roman Dzindzichashvili was saying the position was basically drawn and that "there was nothing left to play for". That game ended up being a phenomenal Kramnik win, in 75 moves no less!

I think the players should have to prove they can hold the draw. The argument that they're trying to save energy is ridiculous. They're only playing one game a day and get a full rest day every three days, and the schedule is even lighter towards the end of the match!

If you want to see it from the purists' point of view and get an idea of the quality of these games, tune into Daniel King's analyses on chessbase.

The problem here is the length of the match, not the players, where every game brings us rapidly closer to the end of the far too short match.

Take a look at most WC games and even quite a few of the longer Candidates matches, and this amount of consecutive draws is common.

Which btw also means these sharp lines are still sharp and only drawish for those who know the theory. If I had the audacity to (and opportunity of course) play the Schliemann against Radjabov I would find out just how drawish it can be.>

After <26.b3 Rb8 27.Ba4 Rc8 28.Ra1 Rc1+ 29.Rxc1 Bxc1 30.Qc2 g5 31.Qxa2 gxh4> I think I prefer <32.Qe2>.

click for larger view

"This is like a "half-novelty" by White, which seems to lead to a forced draw. However it was the most logical way of developing and also the standard one. White generally wants to play Qd3, Rfd1, and later he can choose between different plans, like Nde3 or h4-Kh2-Bh3, or a3.

16.Qe2!?; 16.h4!? Bh6 17.Qd3 Bxd5 18.exd5 Nd4 19.Nxd4 exd4 20.Qxd4 g6 with compensation." - Arkadi Naiditsch