This round says it all. Anand could have played for a draw, after having seen his closest rivals bug out for a draw. It would have been the “safe” thing to do, the modern-grandmaster thing to do. He could back his way to the crown.
But apparently, Vishy did precisely the opposite. He courageously played for a win by gobbling up those queen-side pawns. It looked outright wrong to me, but that’s why he’s where he is and I’m where I am.
Throw in the fact that his opponent Morozevich is a very dangerous foe in such unbalanced positions, and one can only admire the fortitude of Anand. He fully deserves to be world’s champion. He earned it by fire. And I hope he’s there for awhile, because he seems to be the only one up there with a little guts. Thanks to Morozevich for allowing the public to witness the end of the game, including that last move. He could easily have resigned a move or two before. He’s up there in spirit and class, maybe just a shade less ability than the top 3 players. I’ll be rooting for him too.
What can one say about Kramnik? His reign as champion is best forgotten. The less said the better. His answers as to why he played a 20 minute game in round 11 are absolutely disgraceful. I won’t buy any book of his, or anything that makes him money.
I really don’t like bringing up the ghost of Fischer, it’s time to move on, but I can think of no better contrast. Here was a guy leading a tournament by 3 points (1970 Interzonal), and he was still playing to win. What’s that story in the last round, the tourney had been decided, his opponent wasn’t going to show, so Fischer went to the dude’s hotel and tried dragging him to the board? Whatever we think of Fischer, the modern chess world needs that attitude again, and chess will not rise in popularity until we get it.
I don’t know why Kramnik is taking short draws as his chances slip away.
I can’t excuse his suspicious behavior in the match against Topalov, or the same behavior earlier in his match where he beat Kasparov.
But he is a beautiful player, a real world champion, nevertheless. Few ever could play like him. So fluid, so easy.
Consider his game in Round 12 today against Peter Leko. One little positional sacrifice by Kramnik after another, and it all worked. Smooooth. I get the impression that there was a class difference between the players, not over their careers but in this particular game.
Yes, Kramnik is capable of playing dynamic chess, artichoke. But he seems to choose not to. Kasparov is right. Kramnik represents the new chess player, the “businessman-grandmaster”, or however Kasparov phrased it. I’ve seen several grandmaster quotes to the effect that they take short draws because this is the way they make money, and they can’t jeopardize results.
However, I believe these grandmasters badly misjudge their position (pun intended). If they played more risky chess, there would be more spectators, more money in the game, and perhaps results wouldn’t be as important.
I’m still waiting for some GM to come along, and play some openings out of the 1800’s (time period, not rating), and really make 'em all scramble. I can’t believe that these grandmasters are so good that they have memorized 5 volumes of ECO, and are capable of refuting every out-of-the-way opening that is thrown their way. I’d love to see some Modern Defenses as Black, or a Ponzani as white or something.
For an example of what can happen when a GM “plays more risky chess” see the game played today between GMs Shabalov and Nakamura at the Miami Open (it’s available on the Monroi web site). Shabalov went wild and threw everything but the kitchen sink at Nakamura’s king - and lost miserably.
– Hal Terrie
… Depends upon your definition of “risky chess”. Didn’t Polgar “go wild” and beat Bareev a little while ago? And what about Topalev’s success? He plays some pretty wild stuff, and is close to world championship caliber. What I’m saying is, 20 move draws by playing the Petroff, or playing semi-slav’s knowing the first 25 moves, perhaps is not necessary, perhaps counter-productive to one’s chess, and definitely counterproductive to promoting chess as a popular sport.
This isn’t new.
If they would all do it together, perhaps so. But for each one to do it is just a way for them to lose. And there’s the matter of appropriate risk vs. just bad crazy moves.
There have been some limited attempts like this. Say why don’t you watch Morozevich? But a GM is really a very very good player. If you are not quite experienced in high level tournaments, you don’t know how good. Generally speaking, a GM can do what you describe for most questionable openings. It doesn’t even take a GM to do it.
Yeah, I like Morozevich… Listen, i was just a 2000-2100 player at my best, I don’t have all the answers. But I do know that the modern grandmasters just don’t seem to have the fighting spirit that the old ones did, and this is disadvantageous towards promoting chess.