I remember the interview that Kramnik gave after he played that exchange Slav against Anand. Kramnik stated that he had had a lot of trouble holding the half point  with Black against Rybka, which is why he decided to give it a spin himself with White.

trw wrote on 09/09/10 at 18:55:47:


Once again, I stipulated "master games" that lasted more than 20 moves. 

I refined the search to master games (both players rated +2200) that lasted +25 moves and found that more than 62% of the games were decisive.

I chose these game to avoid the known tendency of players who use the Slav Exchange to play prearranged draws.

You stated that authors of books on the Exchange admit that neither side gets anything from the opening. 

This is what Glenn Flear wrote:  

Quote:
(The Slav for the Tournament Player, 1988 p.89)

Silman and Donaldson say, 

Quote:

Silman and Donaldson, The Exchange Variation of the Slav, 1994 p. ii)


Burgess writes, Quote:

The Slav, 2001 p. 81.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 09/09/10 at 17:08:32:


Sorry the evidence is with me, look at the Exchange Slav in my database 88.1% draws. I am not attacking 'any evidence' as you said. The analysis of the games say 'Kramnik achieved zilch in an Exchange Slav but proceeded to outplay his opponent in the middlegame.' Every slav book you read the author admits to both sides having nothing in the exchange Slav.

Exchange French is a completely difference beast just like Exchange Caro Kann or Exchange KID. 


When you lower time controls on any opening, people make mistakes. Keep in mind Kramnik played the Scandinavian at the World Blitz. He's played the Owens Defense and Larsen in past blitz tournaments.

MartinC wrote on 09/09/10 at 18:07:48:



and look at the game... he achieved nothing so draw.


There are no theoretical clouds for black to solve in this opening and there are even less attempts for white to stir trouble up.

In my database, Kramnik has played white against the Slav 105 times. He opted for the exchange variation 5 times. 2 of them blitz (the 1 win against Aronian, draw), one blindfold win against van wely, and the only standard time control games were both draws with Anand.

I think the fact speaks for himself that if Kramnik thought he could get an edge with the exchange Slav or beat strong players with it all the time he would play it alot more.

trw wrote on 09/09/10 at 16:47:37:



Nice! When the evidence is against you, attack the evidence! 

Do a search of master games featuring the Exchange Slav games that last more than 20 moves. You will see that more than half of those are decisive! 

As John Watson said about the French Exchange, trading off one pawn doesn't make the game drawish. Only if both sides want the draw is the Slav Exchange drawish.

Kramnik expressed his opinion by choosing the Slav exchange in a play-off game against one of the best players in the world. It wasn't some random blitz game, it was for the right to play in a major event.   

He didn't choose the Englund Gambit. He chose a line that he thought would win.

I stand corrected. Well, that weakens the argument, yet Kramnik did win using the Exchange Slav as his weapon. I think that in reputedly drawish opening variations sometimes the statistics reveal the players'intention to draw, i.e. that they chose the variation because they were going to draw;  they did not draw because they chose the variation. There's a lot more room to win in virtually any opening variation than in a drawn rook endgame.

He didn't.  He took Black in the armageddon game.

Rene, I looked before responding. I saw no such play-off game. Does this mean that Kramnik took second in the Shanghai Masters, but needed a play-off to secure his "ticket"?