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.
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.
Actually, it really depends on the style of the pugilists. A heavy fighter does not have to win on points, if the match turns into a slugfest. Much lighter fighters are usually not natural knock outers, which means they can afford to make more techniques in the match. While this may look interesting, the lack of the impact can be a little off putting. I think we all know that ''winning on technique'' is not appreciated by all. Textbook example is Dr. Vladimir Klitschko, a technical fighter and a real heavy weight who uses his forehand a lot to control the distance. He scores his points and does not get hit often, but he never gets into a typical slugfest. This means many of his matches are just not that spectacular.
We should consider Anand and Carlsen aren't natural heavy weights. The matches will be technical and the players will try to gather their points the best they can.
I don't mind about draw. In fact, I think that chess is a draw with best play for both sides, so a draw is a logical conclusion to a game.
But there are different kind of draws :
- there are sharp draws full of sacrifices, surprises and suspens. Those are the best to see and the most interesting.
- there are long games without much happening, with one player pressing a slight advantage and the other defending precisely. Those may seem boring, but they are often full of hidden subtilities. They are not as eye-catching as sharper games, but there are often more correct.
- there are draws, where the game seems to collapse in a drawn endgames after a bunch of early exchanges. The typical patzer that I am don't understand why and may think it is boring, but GM can explain that any other choice from one player would result for him in a worse position.
- there are draws where one player only need a draw to win a tournament or a match, and chose an opening which lead to a drawn position. He don't want to fight, but hey, those guys are playing to win, they won't take risks to please the crowd if they don't need to.
- and then there are draws where both players are not in a mood to fight. They agree to a draw in a position that is probably equal, but still complex, and left chances for both sides. Those draws are justified when they are part of a match strategy - go to the rapids - or when one of the players has just played a hard 113 move long game the day before and needs a rest day.