Why don't top players play more aggressive chess?

Why is there no tactical chess among top players? Ever sense Kasparov stopped playing chess there are never exciting games of Chess.(Ok, there are some, but not that many) No one plays tactical openings such as the Najdorf, the Botvinnik variation of the Anti-Meran Gambit, Moscow variation etcetera...

Why is this?

Maybe they are just trying to win and not dazzle people with their superior knowledge of chess tactics, which they implement in their openings.Could that be why.  I mean, do the tactical openings have weaknesses, and the top players don't play these openings because of these weaknesses?

I stand corrected.

top players as in super gms or just anyone above 2300 fide?

Probably because of short round tournaments were draws gives chances for a place.

Thank you for that, civilized gentleman. 

how do you know they are uniformed?

Was Karpov aggressive.

Today has some of the most exciting, aggeressive chess play I've seen in a long time. Young players like Caruana, Nakamura, Morozevich, Hao, and McShane, to name a few, are are ushering in a new era of no-holds-barred, win-at-all-costs chess. They are leaving behind the old snooze-athon chess that was so prevalent with the Karpov generation back in the 70's and 80's.

Now I will grant that the recent WCC match between Anand and Gelfand was terribly dull. Part of the reason for this is the difference in MATCH play and TOUNAMENT play. In a match, I only need to win one game, and draw the other 11 to succeed. The same result in a tournament would probably leave me in the middle.

Some argue that the top players are all boring because the more aggresive players aren't scoring as well. The chess pieces themselves are what rewarded the cautious, while punishing the risk-takers. The flaw therefore would lie in chess itself. Capablanca argued that 2 more pices should be added, just to make chess more complicated, and thus more interesting. (Apparently chess just wasn't complicated enough for Jose Raul.)

But as I stated earlier, things are improving. They have abolished the dreaded Grandmaster Draw, (AKA the Spassky Draw,) today requiring players to reach move 30 before a draw could be agreed upon. Grandmaster games used to result in a draw 66% of the time, often before move 9. Today that number is down to 50%. This has resulted in more exciting chess, better shows for the spectators, and in turn more badly needed sponsorship opportunities.

Furthermore, other ideas are being tested. For example, many tournaments are awarding 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw. Opposed to the old 1 point for a win, 1/2 point for a draw. This punishes the player less for losing the game. Another idea being toyed with is Fischer-random chess, also called chess960, a rather radical solution to get rid of the enormous amount of opening preperation top-level chess demands these days.

because losing means less money, and it's their job.

Average chess players like us have been asking this question ever since the decline of the Romance era. I think a few of the main reasons top players take fewer risks on questionable openings or moves is because:

1. The standard of defense has been raised at the higher levels, especially with computer analysis to help bail players out of tricky opening lines.

2. There is a greater emphasis on winning than creating "art". A loss is a loss, beautiful or not.

3. These are professional players who put food on the table through their results in the tournaments (unlike in the past where there really was no possibility of scratching a living even for the top players). Can you fault them for picking their chances of when to risk or not risk?

Anand at his best is an aggressive attacker. We also have Shirov, Nakamura, Judith Polgar, Levon Aronian, Ivanchuk, etc. It is not appropriate to judge a person's playing style based on his opening choices alone. You must look at their games as well. In addition, comparing today's chess aggressiveness to that of the Romantic era is plain silly. Reckless aggressiveness ala the romantic era won't survive in today's chess.

Exactly my point.

Aronian, Topalov, Nakamura and Carlsen will still trot out razor sharp variations like the Dragon, Botvinnik Variation, or exchange Gruenfeld. Didn't Naka just try the Polugaevsky variation of the Najdorf at Biel? But I do agree, there seemed to be more theoretical duels of sharp openings in days gone past.

I think the arrival of computers and databases is to blame. It's much harder to catch a GM by surprise these days. Look at what happened to Nakamura in the above example. Chess engines seem to be able find a way to defuse hyperaggressive variations. The top GMs probably figure they have better chances to win by playing sound, strategic chess. 

Naka still uses kings gambit in blitz . 

Naka is crazy man. He is giving his knight in 5th move. Awesome 

Its a pretty well known line in the kings gambit that is considered unsound.

No fighting chess???

Did you hapoen to see the 2012 Biel chess festival that just concluded?

Wang Hao comes out with a record of +6 -3 =1. That's right, only one draw after ten rounds. Leaving him in clear first, one point higher than Magnus Carlsen (who defeated Hao twice.)

If that isn't fighting chess, I don't know what is. =D

Make sure you watch the GB Team Pursuit though...