SyobsgniK: Rook endings are notoriously nearly always drawn (with best play), and especially so when all the pawns are opposing each other on the same side of the board. It's just completely equal, with no way for either side to make any progress.

I'm not very good at this.. why was this a draw?

I suppose they're both happy with this result.  Kramnik needed to draw today, and he did.  On the other hand, Aronian is still a point ahead.

Go Kramnik, you can do it.

The reaso why Kramnik didn't play 29...Rxf2 is this:

I'm deleting my comment as to why 29...Rxf2 was not played in favor of the other comment posted within a minute of mine -- same conclusion

As for drawn games being boring you might want to consider the following classic from 140 years ago and do some re-thinking:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1250160

drawn games are boring.

In this match ,psychological factor is most important.If we look at pure chess-factors,i think Kramnik is little bit better (about 100 to 90).But if we look at psychology-better is Levon (LION)-i think about 100 to 70.It means Aronian must to win .Only Carsen is little better in "PSY" -i think 100 to 90-he is unique personality in chess (chess-terminator),but Aronian is little better in "pure chess"-the same 100 vs 90...

@postal expert based on my understanding it is not an even exchange after 29 ...Rxf2 and Rxc6. The minor pieces are different and this is an imbalance in the position. R+B is considered an advantage over R+N especially when there are pawns on both sides of the board. While a computer might consider it = its something that humans can play with. Look at game 1 yesterday and you can see how this advantage can be nursed along into a win. 

That would have been a good question for the commentors though...

The chess.com TV live coverage was really good in round two, no computer analysis was performed, all analysis was made the old fashion way: by moving pieces on the board the different posibles moves were analyzed and evaluated (both positional and dynamic play were considered in the evaluations). Excellent job by IM Rensch.  

@ Daeru - thanks, corrected!

In the article's 3rd sentence, Kramnik's unusual move is Be6 not Bxe6.

As for why Black didn't play 29...Rxf2 White can then play 30. Rxc6 so each side wins one of the other's minor pieces, so an even exchange not unlike that of pawns in the game.  Likewise if 30. Rxc6 then 30...Rxf2, another even exchange of minor pieces.  I think these lines and the way the game went were all very drawish

PS...I didn't use my computer for that ;)

some tips for the commentators. most of the people watching are using a computer anyway so suggesting what the computer "thinks" is irrelevent. Please talk about how you would assess the position, the imbalances, what advantages/disadvantages you see and how to play against them. Also basic/advanced threats and positional blunders is good to help players watching get a grasp of whats going on.

they could have agreed to a draw earlier, I think that they waited the extra five minutes just to avoid a rapid game!

NaNaNaNaNaNa... BOOOOOOORING!

the live commentary is bulls**t btw, one of the worse i've seen in livebroadcasts in a long time. Especially when they keep on talking all the time "computer this, computer that"... *shakes head*

 I don't know why black didn't just take white's bishop at move 29 or white white didn't take black's knight at 30 (or 31).  I'm curious to know what they know and I don't...