Organizers should take into consideration the fight spirit of the players and not just its ranking, If you invite Kramnik,Lecro,Bacrot, you'll surely get a boring tournament. Even Carlen's victories in this tournament are boring.

Invite Topalov, Ivanchuk,Shirov,Nakamura, there won't be a boring day!

If Carlen scores 3/4 in the final 4 rounds, he will overtake Anand's rating and be world no.2 on the unofficial rating list.

2.5/4 will give Kramnik the no.5 rank on the unofficial ratings.

Agree with marpada: What's going on in Dortmund is that you have Kramnik, Leko and Bacrot in one tournement...

Organisers should invite more players just below the top ten. The top players are too much concerned about their ratings and protect them by drawing a lot of games with fellow top players. This ensures them of getting invited for the next boring major tournament and so on, and so on. Next to that I agree completely with marpada.

Like I said earlier, I miss Kasparov! Ivanchuk also would have graced this tournament,.. It's really boring.

Agreed with oak and marpada. I don't even understand why people keep inviting Leko, he never plays for a win and only produces draws. I hate watching him play and I'm probably not the only one.

Leko wasn't invited in in Linares or Corus tournaments this year. So that's a good sign.

@marpada (and everyone agreeing)
If you find Carlsen's victories against the Berlin Wall boring, well, in that case all I can say is: endgames can be great if you have the patience to study them.

@Ruben
Your second is sentence is just nonsense and you know it. Please show some respect for one of the greats of our game.

Hmm, I did not agree completely, I liked Carlsen's endgame.

In an interview (in Hungarian) L?©ko mentioned that he enjoys much less winning a game with the help of tactical motives, and by confusing his opponent in unclear positions. On the contrary, he prefers wins in positions where it is not obvious where his opponent made a blunder. He simply strives for a rather subtle style of winning.

One may dislike his approach towards chess and winning games but everyone should admit his deep knowledge on our beloved game. His style might not be captivating for some of the chess-fans, but by his wins (like the one against Bareev in Elista, or against Gelfand at the last Grand Prix) he should earn the respect of those, who would like to chase him away from top tournaments.

not a big fan of Leko and Kramnik .... great players no doubt about that, but that tendency towards the short draws is pretty frustrating. Read on chessbase that Kramnik's win with black was his first in a classical time controls since 2006 against Topalov ... what does this tell you? These guys don't like to play for a win when they are with black.

@WGIFM, I think Karpov said pretty much the same. Somewhere, no idea where.

For the complainers, how much did you pay for watching the tournament? Or, if someone forced you to, why don't you call your local police?

Bacrot and Naiditsch have worked together, as have Leko and Kramnik of course.

First of all the Sofia-Rules should be used. Has anyone counted the moves Leko played so far ? He is just drawing every game in 20 moves, only against an "outsider" with white he is trying to win. And Kramnik is just Kramnik. His comments about changing his style and so one after his match with Anand , well still the petroff defence, what to say more.

I prefer watching San Sebastian definetly

@WGIFM: The interview with Leko (or another one where he said +- the same) is also on Chessbase (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5463); here the full quote is
"I like to play in a “clean and clear” way, and I am definitely not the type of guy who takes unnecessary risks. I believe much more in the logic of our game rather than gambling on your opponent's nerves. My favourite victory is when it is not even clear where my opponent made a mistake. Unfortunately, such wins are extremely hard to achieve on the highest level nowdays."
Regarding the Nalchik Grand Prix, not only his victory against Gelfand (against the Petroff) is remarkable, but also another Petroff win against Kasimdzhanov and his overall result (shared second place). This, along with Peter Doggers' reaction, should be enough in response to Ruben Kuijpers ... .

I continue to question why professional players should play for a win.

@marpada: "If you invite ... Bacrot, you will surely get a boring tournament."
Well, Bacrot was not "invited" (i.e. picked by the organizers), he _qualified_ by winning the Aeroflot open. This means two things:
1) Bacrot cannot be THAT boring (drawish) if he manages to win such a strong open.
2) I would say the organizers deserve praise for offering a qualifying spot, and then they cannot be blamed that "the wrong person got it".

from what i have recently seem of the womens elite chess tourneys, they are filled with waaaaay more fighting chess than the mens tourneys. but if organizers want to keep paying for players who consistently make short draws, go for it.

@patj: The average rating of the women's #2-10 is 2551 [I exclude #1 Judit Polgar who is in her own league - based on rating and the fact that she doesn't play in women's tournaments]. So one would have to compare the level of fighting chess with men of about the same strength.
BTW, today's game between Kramnik and carlsen wasn't THAT boring, nor did it end in a (short) draw ... :)

This is one of those rare occations when I agree with Thomas. I don't have to add anything, in my opinion he is totally right.