trw wrote on 05/24/11 at 01:02:08:

Why couldn't they play rapid games only? Say four on a day for four days?

BPaulsen wrote on 05/24/11 at 00:49:58:


That is certainly not fair or true, Kamsky showed he came to fight. He tried. Even Gelfand to some extent (until these last two short draws...) He fought long hard draws with Kamsky. Gelfand played the Najdorf twice (beautiful win against Mamedyarov...) and he could have scored a second win there too in rd4 (gave a pity draw instead).

However, lets say what 12 of the 26 draws have been fights? This is not even 50% (46.2%) of the draws being worth looking at... 2/28 classical games 92.9% draw rate... and quite frankly I'm the last person to criticize draws! I am not against draws. A draw is a natural result of a hard played game. However, as GM Hammer put it.... there is a difference between a hard played game and a game that neither side played. We seeing alot more of latter than the former here.

How exactly does Sofia rules solve anything? I mean if the players want to draw they will draw. The sofia rules still allow for repetition. Sure it makes sense to ban the draw offer though that way its not as clear to each player that they both want to draw. The answer I think has already been said... it lies in longer matches. This way they know the result will come in the classical part almost 99%

The real culprit is Grischuk... he had 8! draws under 30 moves. 6 of those draws were under 20 moves... and 1 was even under 10! He hasn't won a classical game either on his way to the classical world champion challenger....

Can someone tell me why Blitz/Armageddon are required at all? Why can't they just play rapid pairs until you have a champion (less like lotto this way).

Hear hear, Phil!

I don't mind the tie-breaks they have. They're far better than when Smyslov advanced in 1983. But the tie-breaks should be used to break a tie in serious match. 8-10 games should be sufficient. Perhaps Gelfand-Grischuk would go to the tie-breaks anyway, but Aronian or Kramnik would eventually have broken through in regulation. 

These four game matches just don't cut it.

It's a pity they don't play the positions they are getting to the end. I doubt the score would be all draws then. 
Sophia rules should be in place imo. I think sponsors pay for interesting games and attitude of players who don't want to play equal positions is just insulting to them and very discouraging for the future.

Seth_Xoma wrote on 05/23/11 at 15:26:54:

Me neither, what happened to this competition, where has all the excitement gone? Maybe we need another 'toiletgate'?!

not had much interest in it myself either

This 18 move draw with Gelfand as White after a day off is the most disappointing of the match. Gelfand had numerous opportunities to play for an advantage and instead seemed to go along with the narrative that has been building. "The format is to blame."

At some point both players will need to fight for the win. I know, Grischuk is fearsome as Black in games with loads of dynamic counterplay. But at some point you have to take that chance.

Maybe Gelfand should have been the one to play on? Two active Bishops for a pawn should have given him an opportunity to torture Grischuk a bit.
Once again we must regret that the matches are so short. Gelfand must have thought the risk too high indeed.