Exactly!..hehehe

- Tomashevsky dropped a piece in a 2 move deep combination,
- McShane made a crucial mistake already in the opening,
- Nakamura spurned a possible draw by repetition by avoiding it with a blunder
- Caruana had to lose twice during the game before it was decided

I wouldn't say chess is dead but the quality of play has certainly not improved since the match between Anand and Gelfand.

Yes one round of one tournament surely destroys the whole idea that chess may be being sterilized by computer prep.

Nf4 was just an unprecesive move compared to 0-0, thats what the engine and Kramnik said. The real question is did Kramnik make repetition move because he chicken or did he forget that he has time increment, and he gave an answer himself after the game which indicated that he has chickened.

In which way can it be considered as a chicken move?(serious question)

- 16 0-0 sacrifices a pawn for development and activity
- 16. Nf4 keeps material balanced and may lead to a draw in 4-5 moves.

If I was marketing myself as the worlds strongest player I wouldn't like a draw with white in 20 moves.

Whether or not it's chicken to cling to equal material is up for debate. But we can safely say that Nf4 didn't lead to complications, as the game was effectively drawn in 5 moves.

Oh stop with this anti-American stuff. What does his nationality have to do with Anything? Isn't Kariakin Ukrainian playing for Russia? Grishchuk has a Ukrainian name. Does that make him so called Russian?

Hey Mike. Do you hate Americans or the Japanes?

+1

Except for the 23 move tame Carlson-Kramnik draw. There was a *lot* more play left in that position than any of the draws in the WCC match that everyone complains about.

Also the blunders in the Radj-Timo game and the mutual blunders in the Aronian-Naka game were crap.

But, except for all that it was great chess.

Kramnik played the game without an engine (sure he did) and it wasn't home preparation either. He steered the game to a draw because he was low on time - a 30 second increment isn't much if the position remains complicated.
Kramnik's comments on game 12 of the Anand-Gelfand match might haunt him a bit, personally I think he went too far in the live commentary. But it's one thing if Anand offers a draw a pawn up with more time on the clock; it's another story if Kramnik forces a draw a piece down with little time on the clock. If Carlsen had somehow managed to consolidate, keep the extra piece and win the game, the same people who now call Kramnik "Drawnik" or "chicken" would probably have a field day making fun of him ... .

Think I'm going to read the article and skip the comments from now on. Fyi

During the wch Carlsen made a silly tweet about not blaming the players for the draw but blaming the rules for not preventing it.
First thing he does afterwards is playing a miniature draw with another critical observer when there are Sofia rules/40 move rules in place.
Pathetic.

try http://www.google.rs/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=russian%20chess&source=web&cd=1&ve... for live cam & some post-mortems (It´s on russian, use Tal´s pic as an orientation where to click, you should have it after few attempts =)

LIKE. YOURSELF.

Where can I find press conferences?

lol i think you are missing the point

A Q+3 pawns Vs Q+3 pawns on the same side of the board might give arise to a tree complexity of 10^10 (I did not make the calculation but assume it for seek of argument) but every body knows that it is draw. In other words, I do not need to check FOR EVERY integer n, that 2n+1 is odd, but a simple proof does the job. Chess might be solved or partially solved (as the case for many lines of the sicilian) without explicitly constructing the whole state space.

Aren't 10^122 moves losing?

i like to see the ratio of legal moves to reasonable/playable moves

"Seriously. That's your best shot? I'm very disappointed."