Congrats! Although Radjabov should have tried a little more i think, he could end up #1 as well?

Really... 12 moves? That's borderline insulting! Carlsen must be pissed the f*ck off!

Haha, I'm getting addicted to following games at Chessbomb, people there were furious and said that Aronian was immoral and never should be invited to another Wijk, Radjabov was even worse and should be banned entirely from all chess competitions in the future. Both players were shameful cheating cowards and so on, it was impossible to respect them as persons after his draw, and there were endless posts with much worse and unprintable abuse than that. Especially funny that Aronian was showered with so much hate, apparently it wasn't enough to win 7 games, play excellent chess, decline Gelfand's draw offer and risk a lot with black, become the third highest rated player ever, etc. He was still a useless shameful dirty xxxx and xxxx :-)

Ha sido un torneo extraordinario para recordar por largo tiempo Aronian confirmo su buen nivel de extra clase con un juego muy solido y sobre todo una estabilidad emocional envidiable lo cual hace prever que su perfomance apunta al campeonato del mundo ya lo veremos ............. felicidades LEVO ARONIAN .

An exciting Wijk as always, and congratulations to Aronian for having maybe the tournament of his life, no chess for a long time now as far as I'm concerned, it has been much to follow and discuss the last weeks!

After his early draw Aronian was showered with negative comments online. Laughable, considering the quality, the maturity, the stability and the tactical class of his play. Excellent tournament, Levon.

Quite understandable Radjabov didn't try anything in this game; first of all having black, secondly against a world number 2 who's playing an opening that is as solid as rock.
His early draw yesterday against Ivanchuk is more difficult to grasp: a position with at least a lot to play for, if not better for white.
Hope he won't get court martialled in Azerbeidjan for cowardice in sight of the enemy...

Thats not a nice way to end such an exciting tournament...

I mean 12 moves ?

come on...

The comments on chessbomb were pretty funny. Super nerds going nuts.

Aronian after a fantastic tournament only needed a draw to win. Radjabov obliged by offering one early. Only a fool wouldn't accept and take 1st place honours.

Radjabov had quite a few sub 30 move draws in the tournament though and his fighting qualities seem a little suspect.

Aronian and Radjabov are just a disgrace to chess. They are pathetic. No wonder chess would never gain in popularity. The current chess champion only plays for draws. And now the number two in rankings goes for a 12 moves draw. It's utterly ridiculous.

Apparently Aronian-Radjabov took less than five minutes, as photographers were still allowed on stage when the game was over .... . The draw was 'welcome' for both players, particularly Aronian. Harder to understand is why Gashimov-Nakamura was drawn in 11 moves - in a rather interesting position, not even bothering to find a move repetition, and Nakamura could have obtained shared second place by winning that game.

did they make moves on foot? picture tells that to be so:)

Compare the finals: Novak Djokovic vs Rafael Nadal, 5 hrs 53 min, Aronian vs Radjabov 12 moves!! Massive spectators vs Few ones!!

Aronian - great!

Caruana just entered the top 10 ! Congrats to Aronian who played a spectacular tournament !!!

Such a huge improvement in rating for Aronian - +18, that is huge. Such rating changes don't appear often in top-5. Caruana also amazing rating change, +20, rise of a new player in the elite.

A 12-move draw is a disgrace, regardless of how well they played in previous rounds. The sporting situation of "securing" a draw to clinch tournament victory should be unacceptable. It is obviously bad in terms of making chess an attractive sport. Those professional players were paid to play 13 games in a tournament, no less.

The question what constitutes a "real" game is problematic, because if you had a 40-move rule, then they would just continue in protest with meaningless manouvering in a symmetrical position and exchange all pieces, reaching bare kings.

The football scoring system has its own drawbacks, because a fighting draw should be rewarded as well. I would say that as long as the players keep their sporting integrity and fight in every game, then we do not need any artificial rules.

Now, Aronian did fight in many games, including in round 12 when he tried to complicate the game at every turn and take risks - that's all true, but that doesn't give more legitimacy to the non-game of round 13.

Making short draws is an expression of human weakness. I would propose the following: the prize money (or appearance fee) each player receives will be reduced for each "uneventful" draw. The decision what constitutes "uneventful" will be determined by a special committiee, perhaps with some input in terms of public voting. I would define "uneventful" as: "clear lack of intention on a player's part to fight." This is not an ideal proposition, because it opens the door to other problems of dishonesty and corruption, but maybe an improved version of this would be a good solution. Any suggestions?

No, they didn't break the rules, but they broke the sporting spirit of the competition. A sporting situation is a precondition for any tournament, and that means: a fight between two sides (individual players or teams). If there is no fighting spirit in a single game - that breaks the spirit of the competition. If there is no competition - then that single game:
Should not be a source of financial reward for the participants.
Should not count towards other games that are part of a legitimate tournament.
Should not be displayed publicly over the internet as a "competitive chess game", because it is not.
And so on.

There is a problem with the current regulations, and with the current social norms of what's acceptable chess behavior. People are talking about it for years, but no satisfactory solution has been found so far.

I don't agree that classical chess is dead, as has been suggested by Grischuk after the Candidates. The large number of black wins at the highest level in recent tournaments proves the opposite. But I do think that a game which shows No Fighting Intention from the Participants should not be tolerated. My proposal above (financial consequences for such a non-sporting behavior) is in the direction of getting rid of those non-games.

Its quite amusing how a draw to secure victory can be ridiculed. These are professional chess players for whom chess is the source of income for their bread and butter. If by securing a draw, Aronian can ensure (i) prize money, (ii) invitation to Bilbao and (iii) invitation back to wijk next year as defending champion, then it is absolutely the correct way to go. It is due to Aronian's great play that he put himself in this nice predicament of needing only a draw with white in the last round. It would be nice with chess fans grow up and start considering chess as a professional sport and start respecting chess players. It is not because of short draws that chess is not popular, it is more because of such absurd chess fans. Be a professional chess player and earn your daily money through it and then comment on players.

The tournament as a whole was great, but ending it like that leaves bad taste. Besides, I'm not talking only about this game, but about a recurring problem of non-fighting draws which we see again and again. This should not be a legitimate option. If the players are tired - then have more rest days. In the old days they played tournaments of 21 games, and the games were longer and with adjournments. I would like to see a situation in which a non-fighting draw is simply not an option, and would be considered by players, organizers, sponsors, and fans, as immoral. Accordingly, the playing conditions have to support that, the players' attitude, and so on.

Any comments on my proposal above in an earlier comment (financial consequences to an uneventful draw)?

I don't mind the occasional last round short draw, but Radjabov really annoyed me this tournament (too many early draw offers). I expect that the tournament organisation will not invite him next year for lack of fighting spirit. I'm happy to see Aronian in next year's edition.

S.H. eagerly awaiting comments prompted me to put in following: why never the arbiter's role in tournaments is given it's due? If we take football for example, the arbiter's role defining the final score quite often surpasses that of some ordinary defence player. At any rate, referee's part in the game is very important.
Alas, in chess it's brutally downgraded and underestimated, to say the least. Every Wijk fan could easily tell all 14 main tournament player names, but how many know the arbiter's name? I personally don't.
In football the arbiter decides whether the goal scored is to be counted for real or is it a fake one. Discontent players shout, spit and curse but must obey his decision.
Now should we carry such arbiter authority into chess, then he could make his final say if Aronian -Rajabov 1/2:1/2 at move 12 with regard to moves made is legal or is 0:1/2 better or is 0:0 the best of all. Instead of insulting the players, let's give the arbiter's job its lost dignity.

Putting oneself in the position to make easy last round draw to secure clear victory in tournament this strong is to be commended.

To the victor goes the spoils.

Congrats to Aronian for a fine achievement.

For all those who refuse to confront the main point, let me state it again, so that you will realize how absurd the situation is:

Do you know of any other sport in wich a non-game is tolerated by organizers and sponsors, and is rewarded and calculated into the overall result?

Short Draws sounds like a Jehovas Witness to me..

GATA crushed TOPALOV today and nobody talks about that! Huh!

Aronian played a fantastic tournament but that draw was disappointing. No fighting till the end, 12 moves... Fischer would've never done that. Fischer was right, draws shouldn't be counted. It's either win or lose.

Just want to sum it up, as there are many complainers about this 12 round draw of Aronian and Radjabov, and of the kind.

Concerning complains, it is actually up to players to decide when they want to draw, why ? because draws are part of the chess. Offering draws and giving agreement to draws are part of the game we call CHESS as well. 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.

I don't care for 12-move "GM" draws. This should not be allowed. But, it is also worth remembering that after so many rounds some form of fatigue does set in. Also, nobody has an inexhaustible store of preparation, so some games may just fizzle out to a dead position.

Aronian made the type of practical decision that professional chess players have made for decades, to secure the win without risk. Radjabov, on the other hand, had a chance to fight for =1 and bottled it.
Similarly, Nakamura had a chance to fight for =2 and drew in 11 moves. So much for his so-called fighting spirit. All he did was lose fans.
Carlsen played on in an opposite coloured B ending until it was a dead draw (a well played game by Van Wely, btw) even though he could have offered a draw as soon as the Aronian's result was known. If Radjabov and Nakamura leak fans (and perhaps invitations) to Carlsen, they have no-one to blame but themselves.

I don't understand, how fans of such an intelectual game as chess is,can't differentiate simple truth cuch as : 1)What would those same people say ,if Aronian fought for win and had lost? Stupid , right? 2)Is there higher place than 1 place ? 3)Who should have been motivated more Aronian or Radjabov? And above all ,if Radjabov risked, wasn't it possible that he could have finished in 5 or 6 place and without prize money, unless You consider Aronian, one of the greatist grandmasters of last 10 years, a client,rooky.Just food for thought ,respectful judges.

All true those practical reasons but I consider chess a sport, you go for the win, not for very short draws. That's my opinion.

Why all the hate...

Seriously, those players decide what THEY want, got it?

Most of those who are blaming Aronian or Radjabov are Magnus fanboys. They wanted to see Aronian losing and Magnus winning. And when they saw 12 move draw of Aronian and Radjabov they got frustrated! :) Well, Cheer up guys, Magnus doesn't have to win every tourney.

strange decision by radjabov not to play. did he lose his nerve? was he afraid of losing to an armenian in the last round, given the history between azerbijan and that country?

understandable that aronian would like to take a quick draw. but radjabov? i'm sad for him that he didn't have the courage to play.

Can we name one sport in which, the goal is not the final result,time waist ,to retain the achieved, or I'm wrong.

I like the point about the last leg of Tour de France and I also notice that in Basketball there are times when a team which is leading will play it safe and run down the clock rather than try to score an additional goal (and fans are not up in arms for these 'offenses'). However just to please those whose sense of propriety is offended, a system can be set up which fines the 'offending' player by deducting from his appearance fee and prize money for the non-contested game/s (decided by a committee set up by the organizers). So with this system Aronian would lose 1/13th of his pay. Since he is paid to contest chess games that is perfectly proportional to his 'offense'. Such an approach will not harm any player much unless he does it too much; and if the organizers are too punitive they will have a harder time getting that player back the following year.

On the other hand there is a very simple system which might help in double round robin tournaments (in which every player can be guaranteed an equal occurrence of colours); it is this - weight draws with black slightly more than those with white - so a draw with black is worth .6 while a draw with white is worth .4 and of course a win with either colour is still worth 1. Therefore if two players meet in the last round with an equal score then white is more likely to not be satisfied with a draw. Another way to express this would be the mathematically equivalent 10 points for a win (with either colour); 6 points for a draw with black and 4 points for a draw with white.

Bottom line however is that chess players salaries are not financed by ticket sales but by sponsors who want to be associated with this great mind sport.
As long as the sponsors are willing to cough up the money for chess AS IT IS
then the protestations of fans are not likely to carry much weight. So those
of you who are really offended can make REAL CHANGE by organizing a tournament
and instituting the rules that you see fit.

all of you chess "fans" are owed nothing. how much did you pay to watch the games? it was a long tournament and these guys can draw the game - their excellent play throughout the tournament put them in this position. in just about every sport, when you are ahead, you can win by 'eating up the clock', and it's well deserved. organizers can make draw rules if they like, but this tournament showed that they do not need to. this was one of the best tournaments in history. any talk of changing the rules of chess is blasphemous.

Now we can understand atleast a little why Fischer hated quick draws. You didn't see him going for a quick draw in the Candidates matches did you, even though he was 5-0 against Taimanov and again 5-0 against Larsen. On the other hand I can't really blame Aronian for it, all he needed was a draw to be solo first anyways.

I agree with most that the Short Draws argument sounds quite silly - and I think it has been adequately answered. Let me try a little differently - Consider boxing: A player scores a healthy lead over his opponent over n-1 rounds. After the break, coming back to the last round, all he has to do is avoid a KO blow by his opponent (his opponent can never catch up on points). So he decides to not throw any punches and simply defend any punches thrown by his opponent.

And yes, he did NOT play the game in that round in the normal sense, the organizers do count the round, and do award the winner.

What is the problem?

Congrats to Aronian for an amazing tournament win!!
And congrats to Harikrishna and Turov!

The tournament has been already replete with so much excitement that I don't understand those who would have expected to see more excitement in the last round - from the point of view of a chess fan, we love to see but look at what Aronian says about his sleeping times; for two weeks, probably all players have been thinking about chess 24 hours a day and it should be really mind-boggling after a certain point. You look at your food in front of you at dinner and what you see is a dubious line in Petroff Defence, or you take a shower and you don't even realize that you just have washed your hair with your shampoo with a nice scent but rather your mind is stuck with that complicated line in Nimzo-Indian. "Enough!", one would easily say after some time, I guess.

I live in Boston and I definitely knew that when I woke up on Sunday morning many of the games would have finished with short draws already and didn't get surprised even for a second when I checked the results immediately - because this is what is happening in many tournaments and the players have every right to do so (especially when they repeat their moves).

Congratulations to the organizers; I think the tournament has been a success this winter in terms of the spectacle and excitement already, even without a real fight in the last round for some games.

PS: For the next year, it would be lovely to have live broadcasting as they do in Moscow during the games (even a standard quality in broadcasting would be enough, if there is any budget problem), and even if I like this old-fashion board demos, it would be again lovely to have the player of the day sit in front of a computer equipped with Chessbase or a program like that, and show his/her game, as they do in Moscow again. There are, in effect, thousands of people who follow this tournament live even if they are not there; and the organizers should do their best to keep this on-line interest alive.

And as always, thanks to Peter and the Chessvibes for the wonderful reports.

shame

Haha, the nutjobs around here busy hating the greatest players of our time as usual

If an organiser/ sponsor would divert from the classical pricemechanism then I believe it is possible to avoid (largely but not completely) the short draws.

One modest way to do is to set a price per scored half point (e.g. 500 euros).
Further finetuning can be done by raising the price per half point above a certain threshold (e.g. above 7/ 13 then price/ half point is raised with another 500 euro).
One radical way to set prices is to only give price/ full point so no price when a draw has been made. (e.g. 2000 euros which means Aronian would earn 14.000 euros).
The radical way is likely too harsh so I think we should search some balanced method. In the end draws will not be interesting financially for the player so there will be a serious financial incentive to avoid the draw.

Everybody forget to congragulate Hari and Maxim, I do so. Aronian Played good chess.

Great tournament, and congrats to Aronian, who was a deserved winner. I was surprised by the speed of the draw, but it's completely understandable from my perspective, for reasons stated repeatedly above. As for all this "moral" stuff, I wonder what all you armchair moral absolutists would have done in Aronian's chair. If one of the "best players ever" wants a draw with white, then good luck denying him.

the most comments are at a poor level, despite a nice tournament

quick draw is fine, Aronian deserved winner.

Giri took a deserved last place too, if only for calling those who beat him coffeehouse players.
And chessvibes should actually stress that statement imo, instead of being so surprised with the Aronian last round draw, like in the 5,5 years of running the site they have never seen a player forcing a last round draw to secure a tournament win again!

congrats to aronian for winning this very nice piece of tournament!
concerning his last game: it's completely understandable--he pulled 9(!) decisive games in a long, 13-round race--give him a break! however, imho, radjabov exactly because of such things (see the world cup for further reference) will not ever live up to the expectations many have from him...
i though caruana would enter the top 10 sooner or later, but so fast?! wow!
thx chessvibes for the coverage, players and organizers for the fun provided

Maybe I overlooked some comments but Caruna had a great tournament as well.