The "draw" deserves a better reputation

After the 2nd draw in the Anand-Carlsen match there seems to be a lot of anger and upset on forums, comments and even media articles because of the draws.

We as the viewing chess world are putting the players under strong pressure to force wins, give us blood, wild mating attacks and entertain us with stunning queen sacrifices. We put them under the weight of expectation to an extent that the players had to apologize for the draws in the press conferences (Carlsen did that after round 1, Anand after round 2).

I think this is going in the wrong direction, chess is not a bloodsport and a draw (not speaking of prearranged draws) is a sign of precise play and absence of heavier mistakes. It is not easy to draw a Carlsen and Anand for anyone of us and if they draw this doesn't have to be a game without the "fighting spirit". The draw should be seen as an respectable result for the black player and not a sign of a "wasted game". 

As a viewer I'd not be happy if a player, who has a slightly worse position, decides not to "pull the emergency brake" (as Carlsen called it) and force a draw if he can, but plays on - just to please the commentators and the bloodthirsty spectator crowd.

Yes, and also it is not the job of Anand or Carlsen to 'entertain' here at all, but to focus on winning the competition. One commentator also suggested that after the game ended quickly again perhaps the players should play some rapids to entertain the crowd? Not at all. It's a 12 match campaign to decide on the world championship title and that's the priority. After it has been decided then perhaps but not during the competition.

I think the two quick draws is a very good start for Anand.

Sorry, fischer would have had some comments also. He said always that you had to continue by playing some moves, and fight for the win. And he did. These guys do not fight like fischer would have fought (if he turned up :-) )

It's the fact that the games didn't even reach move 30 that really makes the situation look bad. If the games were drawn out into endgames there probably wouldn't be as much fuss.

Yeah, the final position is drawn. But I have a feeling these draw positions are actively pursued, especially by Anand. He didn't have to go there.

I'm just waitng for the game where a forced repetion is not so easily found

Anand did have the chance to avoid queen exchange and immediate draw, but as the underdog he is content with draws, a bit like Gelfand was in the previous match. It's difficult to beat a top player that doesn't take risks, and Anand is probably hoping that Carlsen will overpress at some stage since he is the one that will be most criticised for every draw.

I also agree with the OP.  I thought the 2nd game was interesting and, with opposite side castling, it didn't look like they were playing for a draw.  They're both extremely strong players and right now they're just holding serve & testing the water - think we just need to be a little patient.

Hopefully Carlsen will play 1.e4 on Monday  :-)

1.e4 doesnt automatically mean it will be a fighting game.

Black can play Caro Kann and Petrov which in modern times is a theoretical solid line which in most cases leads to a dull draw.

1.d4 can produce longer and more strategic games, but usually doesn't lead to explosive games. Can easily produce a long boring draw.

Basically what Im saying is that it takes 2 people to agree on which direction the game should go, and not just an opening.

In the past, the championship was played out over a larger number of games. So draws weren't such a limiting factor on great chess being played. In this format we're down to 10 games. And every draw further limits the odds of an historic game being played. What happens if they draw every game? The title could be determined by ONE win in a limited time game. I don't think anyone wants to see that. They need to change the rules back to a longer match. Say 30 games first to 7 wins, a tie and the champion keeps the title. That way, a couple draws still leaves lots of room for excellent games to be played. And the challenger NEEDS to win more games than the champion because tie goes to the camp.

"I think the two quick draws is a very good start for Anand."

In the past it would have been. Even score and the title stayed with the champion. Now, it goes to limited time games to break the tie. So they could draw every game, and one win in limited time determines the camp. Yuck.

What matters isn't whether the game is entertaining or boring, it's the result. Neither side gest any extra points for being "entertaining," and the same goes for any non-judged sport. So you can criticize a player or a team for getting bad results, but you can't criticize them for being boring. If playing in a boring way is the best way to get good results, then they should continue being boring, and you should switch to watching another player or team, or perhaps another sport altogether.

The problem is there are only 12 games without the chance of extensions or a requirement to reach a certain plus score. (The latter has been abused in the past also.)

This format puts enormous pressure on the players. Most of the time the players are going to play it safe. They will only take risks later on when the tie break is a serious threat. It should be no surprise to us if 75% of the games will be drawn.

Agree with the OP that they don't have to apologize for any draws. But they do for different reasons. They do because the game is short. It's like saying, they have play enough moves and here they are. Regardless what's the spectators would say, they are not going to make move 26. 25 moves is enough for them.

Move beyond 25 would be too much for them, and they are not going to make it. That's why they made hyphothesis and discuss the game. But No, No real moves.

I'm writing a post on today's game for my Chess Skills blog. It should be posted in the next hour or two.

Here's the beginning:

Draws in Pursuit of Truth

Chessplayers love to complain about short draws. They expect top level matches to be a fight. Spectators want two gladiators to slug it out until one of them surrenders or until only kings remain on the board.

There were expectations that this World Championship would not become characterized by the short draws that have been the norm so often before. First, there is the style of Magnus Carlsen. No other chess player in history has proven as adept at squeezing blood from a turnip. Carlsen frequently takes an even position that almost seems stale, makes his opponent play chess for four hours, and eventually gains a small endgame advantage that can be nursed to victory. Second, a rule for this match prohibits draw offers by the contestants prior to Black's move 30.

The players have yet to make it to move 30 and the score stands at one each due to two draws. Both games have been drawn by repetition.

I do not share with the majority of chess enthusiasts their antipathy to short draws. I agree with Boris Gelfand that commentators have the responsibility to explain why the players chose not to play it out. They are not afraid of a fight. Rather, the contestants know that winning a match requires finding the appropriate moment to land a blow that will have some effect. Before that moment, the players must probe one another's preparation.

World Championship matches are characterized by deep exploration of a small repertoire of openings. Small truths are often revealed. Most of this exploration never appears on the chessboard. Moves that are not played are central to the story. The contestants have the responsibility to seek victory by finding the correct moves. Commentators explain to the rest of us why the roads not taken are less sound.

In game 1, Anand's ninth move had been played only a few times prior, and never by top players. White won the previous encounters due to unsound moves by Black. Anand's move was the correct one in the position, and it turns out that Black has a slight edge. The game soon ended in a draw 

It would be better to have more games I agree but the players can only play within the current framework and strategise accordingly.

Last year in the Anand-Gelfand match the first 2 games also ended in a draw before move 30, it is normal in match, no one wants to take chances in the first game espectially if it is a short 12-game-match, I think the old 24 games matches was better.

Very well put. I think the "anger and upset" is because people expected that bloodsport style of play like you mentioned. But if you look at heavyweight boxers, they don't go head to head, but instead try to finesse each other... going head to head with an opponent with such a powerful punch would be foolhardy unless you knew darn well you could deliver that knockout blow.

I totally agree. In fact, I can't remember when it was I first read some chess instructional material that said, "And this move is the only move that allows for a peaceable conclusion to the game" or something like that, but it made an impression on me. Then, sometime later, I read someone saying, "Chess, at the highest level, if played to perfection by both sides, results in a draw."

This was somewhat counter to my sensibilities that thought the whole idea was to attack and/or strategically position your resources to win by checkmate.

I had thought a draw was only for someone who couldn't find a win and had to scrape by so at least they didn't lose.

But, as we see the World Champion and highest rated chess super grandmaster in the world battle it out at the highest level, the results are, a draw each time so far.

There is probably much to learn from the analysis of their first two games.

I mean, what is it about the positions that make it virtually impossible for the opponent to successfully make progress and how is it he was able to do this for both games consecutively?

If forcing a draw is a skill that can be replicated at will at even the highest level, as we've seen it twice in a row now, is there a concrete way to learn to put this particular skill into your chess toolbox?

To me, the games have both been gems and with positions rich in strategic ideas and I do say this sincerely, very exciting to watch!

(By the way, this comes from a beginner who used to say, "I"d rather lose than draw.")