I think the amount of draws is not necessary the decisive factor, but the way they have been reached is. And sure the influence of computers has imo something to do with this. This has greatly accelatered the development of opening theory, and preparation. Since it is much easier (and less time consuming) to check if a slightly worse position is defensible and to extract the optimal defensive strategy. 

Are top players today so much better defenders than say 30 or even 50 years ago? I dont know. Petrosian, Korchnoi and Karpov were certainly famous for their defensive skills.

The format of a short match in combination with the discovery of more and more rock-solid defensive lines certainly leads to a "zero-risk" approach.
By the way we saw the same happening in a more extreme form in the candidate cycle from Gelfand emerged.

Do the storylines define an interesting match? And was it the only reason that we appreciate Korchnoi-Karpov match/1978 and the Kasparov-Karpov matches more. I dont think so. There were certainly quite a number of games worth remembering from these matches.

I think the main point of interest for the casual chess fan is the personalities involved. The Fischer-Spassky match is the prime example of this, but the Karpov-Korchnoi, Karpov-Kasparov and Kasparov-Kramnik,  and Kramnik-Topalov matches were all especially interesting because of the storylines involved.

Kramnik-Leko wasn't particularly interesting, neither was Kasparov-Short, despite the number of decisive games. 

Kasparov-Kramnik is an excellent example of how even drawn games can be extremely exciting for the casual chess fan. Even Kramnik's Berlin Wall defense was fascinating because of Kasparov's well-earned reputation as the greatest attacking player in history. 

The casual chess fans have been hearing about Magnus Carlsen for years now. They want to see him playing in the World championship. If the name was changed from Gelfand to Carlsen with exactly the same moves made, there would be very few complaints about how boring the match is.

I don't think this is quite true. Take your example of Botvinnik - Petrosian 1963; hardly the most feted WC match, but it saw 7 decisive games out of 22, at least two games that are famous 50 years later(!) - games 5 and 18, and quite a lot of dynamic chess. This despite not having $2.5m to play for 

Yes, could work both ways!

Anyway, match competition is different than tournaments and tends to produce more draws. Which doesn't really matter imo as the pressure piles up (so we get a different form of excitement).

But one question we can ask is why some of the previous WCh seemed more interesting? Has to do with:
1. the participants?
2. the number of games?
3. evolvement of chess theory (+computers) making preparation (and avoiding opponent's preparation) extremely important?
4. improved defensive skills of top chess players?
5. reduced time limits (per game)?
6. pure coincidence?
7. other?

It is mostly 2-4 & 6 for me..

Dink Heckler wrote on 05/25/12 at 10:02:02:


One could of course claim that Kirsan may be the big reason that chess is unappealing to sponsors... His position feels more and more like one of those billionaires who buy up a football club as their personal project, though he managed to buy the buy the whole sport for probably less than what Chelsea or United would cost.

But you're right that professional players should be more interested in what they deliver in return for appearance fees and prize money. The match feels more like a ½ million match than a 2½ million match, and I'm not even sure if the currency of the worth so far is in dollars or kronor...

But to be fair, it's a hard position for Anand to be in, as everybody expects him to win due to the rating, but the rating is based your ability to score well against different players with different ambitions. Man to man vs a lower rated but very strong and experienced player is not easy, and on top of that have the favourite role on your shoulders which makes every draw a small victory for Gelfand.

A match between more level players where both really tries to win would no doubt produce more interesting games. As it is, it's more and more reminiscent of Bayern - Chelsea, once the tiebreak kicks in, it's a disadvantage to be favourite.

This reminds me of a football match where after both full time and extra time with no penalties, both players try their best to win but simply cannot because the other is playing too solid, so the match ends in a draw. It is not the fault of either; Gelfand nor Anand play, I would think, as aggressively as Morozevich, Kasparov, Radjabov, or Topalov since both of their styles are simply not as such. Returning to the football analogy, the only way one can decrease the drawing chances is for one team to play crazy: In the last few minutes, establish a 1-4-5 (or 1-3-6?!) formation, or have the goalkeeper advance with the midfielders. Both I would consider extremely risky, and the latter strategy is probably simply insane, but increases winning chances whilst increasing dramatically the losing chances. I doubt both Anand nor Gelfand would try those equivalent types of strategies during their games.

I do not think the spectators understand how much stress and preparation both players require to play under these circumstances, even draws. Would you rather one of them lose badly, as Gelfand did in 17 moves, than have a difficult draw? If so, I think watching online 1 minute chess would suit those spectators better. It reminds me of the Test Cricket vs. T20 argument.