That is your problem, you are making some drama out of nothing. I am perfectly fine with the way things are in chess.

It is up to players to decide when they want to draw, why ? because draws are part of the chess. And you know what ? Offering draws and giving agreement to draws are part of the game we call CHESS as well, didn't you know it? If you don't like it, than you don't like chess in its all aspects.

It doesn't matter how many draws there are, because in a Tournament you have only one goal - to win the tournament without breaking rules of the game called CHESS. Without the opportunity of mutually agreed draws chess is not a chess, but something else, at least not classical chess. As far as CHESS tournaments produces its winners and losers, everything is just fine.

These "immoral" players should be given 10 lashes in the town square. Then we should call their moms and tell them what naughty boys they have been

Kasparov has pointed it out already some time ago: among top ten or so players, Nakamura has the lowest draw % and Radjabov the highest, so this cannot really be a surprise to anyone. Still, we want the tournament to be decided over 13 rounds, not 12 (let alone less), but even a "no draw before the xxth move" rule would have sufficed to prevent this non-game, with it's clever (and cowardly) repetition already at move 10. Bah!

Thankfully more is left to the players. Arbiters are not referees.

That has to be the worst idea I've ever heard. One of the worst things about football is precisely the fact that the arbiter has so much power in the outcome of the game.

And what about the one who played black? And the other game that ended in a short draw? Do a search on chessgames.com on any leading player with the factors: result is draw, number of moves is less than 20 (or less than 25), and you will realize the extent of the problem. Perhaps only about 5% or 10% of these draws are real, fighting games.

All those enthusiastic responses that Aronian played a great tournament are fine, but irrelevant to my main point. It is a larger problem than this, and by tolerating such non-games all those enthusiastic supporters indirectly contribute to not solving this problem.

Regarding the suggested 0:1/2 result or 0:0 - it is too drastic at this point, but it's going in a good direction. I would start with financial consequences, and - yes, to give some power to an outside committee.

First the general problems with your "proposal": What exactly is an "uneventful draw"? Some games may remain balanced throughout and peter out to a dead-drawn endgame after 20-30 moves. Here it will be hard to prove that neither player even tried to get an advantage (maybe one or both did but didn't succeed).

Aronian-Radjabov was an uneventful draw, actually I think Danailov proposed (or wants to impose) that such games are counted as 0-0. If he gets his way, players will certainly find a way around it - for example they can play a 'sharp' theoretical variation that ends with an absolutely forced repetition. After the game they can claim that they couldn't deviate from the known theoretical path, or even that they re-invented that wheel.

Now the specific problem about today's game: financial consequences would have to be very harsh to make players change their mind. The prize fund isn't given at the homepage, but it is mentioned in the "Tata newspaper" which was distributed at the venue: 10.000-7.000-3.500-2.500-2.000-1.500-1.300 Euros. For Aronian, a draw or a win meant the same financially (plus the Bilbao invitation) while a loss could cost him quite a bit. For Radjabov it was a bit more complicated, but his losing chances would have been at least as high as his winning chances if they had played a full game.
Would you want financial consequences to be several thousand Euros??

If chess were a sport, the players would be wearing shorts

Personally I don't believe your proposal would have made a difference. I think it would be like 'buying' draws: If Aronian (or any other player for that matter) had a chance to win a tournament by securing a last round draw I don't think they will hesitate to give up some euros of the prize money in order to win by drawing, knowing that the tournament win will eventually bring more money in the form of other tournament invitations.

Yes, I understand your point of not this particular draw but the underlying problem in chess, but honestly we are just talking about this issue because of the 'bad taste' the last round left.
Besides, professional players make a lot of money, it's like when they fined Serena Williams $2000 usd for yelling profanities at the chair umpire a few months ago; do you think that has (or will) shut her up?

I think changing the scoring system would have more impact.
Regards.

I don't mind being in minority here, and all the personal insults, but I would like to see at least some intelligent responses to my main points.

That is worthy of a mention

Topalov did not handle the endgame well. The win was by no means inevitable.

Fischer was right on some things and completely crazy on others. For instance if he was in a 6 game match and the score was 5 wins in his favor, he would sweat over a theoretically drawn endgame until the opponent cracked from exhaustion; just check out the candidates matches leading up to his 1972 title match with Spaasky. So yeah, Fischer was a great player but also a maniac.

"It doesn't matter how many draws there are, because in a Tournament you have only one goal - to win the tournament without breaking rules of the game called CHESS."

How did a draw help Radjabov achieve that?

Concerning complains, it is actually up to players to decide when they want to pass the ball back to their goalie, why ? because back passes are part of FOOTBALL. If you don't like it, than you don't like football in its all aspects.

Without the opportunity of back passes to goalie, football is not football, but something else. As far as football tournaments produces its winners and losers, everything is just fine.

I'm no fan of Nakamura but I wouldn't want to judge his fighting spirit on the basis of one short draw; he might have been exhausted or not feeling well.

Being critical about something or someone is not 'hate', unless you're 12 and see everything in black and white.

The players can decide what ever they want, and people can to decide to be critical of their decisions if they want. It's quite simple really.