Maybe it's less about the draw aspect of the match and more about only 12 games. Back when I was a lad I saw Gentleman Jim Corbet fight an eskimo chess player over 400 games before finally claiming the title. Of course back then if a match didn't last more than 300 games we demanded our nickle back!
best post of this thread. I read somewhere that Abe Lincoln, too, fought bare-knuckles chess matches in the early part of his career and sometimes gave broadaxe odds.
Two games were drawn and we hear a chorus of "boring" and "not fighting hard enough" but I will bet most of those who make the claims of "boring" and "not fighting hard enough" had little idea what was going on in the two games.
For those with little idea what was going on, here's Anand to explain:
"Today it's my turn to tender a slight apology. The position we got after move 12 is a very sharp one. I have studied it in the past, it's very very complicated and I had not really expected it. That's clear."
"I had to decide whether to fly blind because it's clear that he would have been into more details. I decided to go for a slightly solid line, a slightly prudent decision today, essentially after the queen exchange there is nothing much happening".
Got it?
It a draw and only 25 moves. Good for them, but I don't care.
If I agree with Somebodysson, it's really hard to imagine any rationale ground anywhere else. I do in this case agree.
Honestly, two draws to start the match mean that they're both playing really strong chess, which can't be exploited. No one has yet been even slightly outmatched in a single game. That's exactly what's to be expected from the very best. "Exciting", action-filled games usually, though not always, mean bad moves are being made, and I'd not want to see that here.
Today it's my turn to tender a slight apology. The position we got after move 12 is a very sharp one. I have studied it in the past, it's very very complicated and I had not really expected it. That's clear."
"I had to decide whether to fly blind because it's clear that he would have been into more details. I decided to go for a slightly solid line, a slightly prudent decision today, essentially after the queen exchange there is nothing much happening".
Anand's explanation is really dubious.... He could have pressed 20 more moves with little risk!
@ SmyslovFan. If you think that last year's match between Anand and Gelfand was thrilling, exciting chess, then you must find it fantastically exciting to watch cars rust over time! In addition, if you think that all world championship matches are exciting just because they are world championship matches, then you are seriously deluding yourself. You also draw the erroneous conclusion, as do some other chess fans on this website, that just because a chess player wins a title and then defends it successfully a number of times, that therefore it is perfectly alright if he or she routinely plays to draw and not to win, thereby screwing the spectators who payed expensive prices for tickets to watch the match in the playing hall or auditorium. Anand and Gelfand played disgracefully in last year's match by playing to draw and not to win, which most chess fans recognize but you and the other Anand fans do not! You are defending the indefensable, but you lack the decency to admit it because of stubborness!
...love watching metal rust over time. Much more interesting than instant-rust. Never could understand how people could defend those instant rusters. I think it might have something to do with conditioned limitations of attention span.
Passing judgement is not "demanding". Nobody is demanding anything; you're replying to something I never said. The simple fact is that if enough fans conclude that WC chess sucks, that will have consequences in and of itself. If anyone is a "beggar", it's the sponsors, not the viewers. As you said yourself, viewers' opinions affect sponsor behavior. You make money by keeping others happy. Produce a crappy product and you will suffer.
If you've merely been "passing judgment" this whole time, then why did you reply to my first post to begin with (on page 2)? More to the point, why was mentioning the fact that other players in the past were more "willing to fight for the title" relevant to what I said about Anand and Carlsen having the right to play as they want, unless you've been demanding more? I suppose you understand your own motivations better than me, but I can't make sense of your statement any other way.
And you still don't understand the beggar analogy and how it relates to the economic issue underlying this match. Yes, in practice, (good) sponsors follow the demands of their fans/audience/customers. But at the end of the day, it's up to them whether or not they want to listen to their audience. And you can't seem to get over the fact that even if they shoot themselves in the foot and "produce a crappy product" (to use your words), that's their decision to make. Not yours. Why? Because it's their privately owned funds on the line, not yours. Don't like it? Tough. Don't like what they're doing to the future public image of chess? Then sponsor your own chess championship match.
Or offer some constructive advice on what could be done differently. But merely implying that Anand and Carlsen should fight harder just because other players did so in the past does nothing useful at all.
You cannot say the match is boring before it is finished
Today it's my turn to tender a slight apology. The position we got after move 12 is a very sharp one. I have studied it in the past, it's very very complicated and I had not really expected it. That's clear."
"I had to decide whether to fly blind because it's clear that he would have been into more details. I decided to go for a slightly solid line, a slightly prudent decision today, essentially after the queen exchange there is nothing much happening".
Anand's explanation is really dubious.... He could have pressed 20 more moves with little risk!
Beardogjones: "Hey Vishy, your explanation is very dubious, because there was no risk"
Anand: " And who are you"?
Beardogjones: "I am Beardogjones from Chess.com
Anand: "Hahahaha"
A spade is a spade veedeevee.
Let's not get too judgemental two games into the championship. I think Anand and Carlsen are going through a short "feeling out" process to see what they may or may not be able to get away with in the games to come. Atleast, I hope so. I'm ready to see Carlsen become the new champ. 
vill0236 wrote:
You cannot say the match is boring before it is finished
Lou: the first two episodes of this series were boring and they will lose their audience. You finish a boring book? You continue to watch a boring series until the end?
We're well aware they can do what they want. Just be aware that a lot of people don't want to see it. And the fact that there is applause after 1.e4 is a testament to that. And people can pull the niche card all they want. The fact of the matter is that if the championship of your sport dissuades exploring unknown situations then it won't look good.
vill0236 wrote:
You cannot say the match is boring before it is finished
Lou: the first two episodes of this series were boring and they will lose their audience. You finish a boring book? You continue to watch a boring series until the end?
You're missing his point.
He's saying that the whole match is not boring yet, as it's only 2 games in. You're implying that he's saying that it can't be boring, because it will continue.
Carlsen most destroying weapon : 3 perpetual check. Come on, Calsen, bring it on. And hope you both guys get a quick draw by 3 times perpetual check again in 22 moves. What a boring game.
why????
@ Vease. Although a draw by three-fold repetition of position can occur as early as right after White's fifth move (e.g., N-KB3, N-KB3, N-N1, N-N1, N-KB3,N-KB3, N-N1, N-N1, N-KB3), games drawn by three-fold repetition of position where the games lasted less than 30 moves are rare compared to the overwhelming majority of chess games played, so the FIDE should reinstitute ''The Fischer Rule'' requiring players to play a minimum of thirty moves before they can offer a draw. Fischer was right to recommend that rule and the FIDE should not have rescinded that rule after they instituted it.
There is a difference between 'offering a draw' and playing out a threefold repetition which is deemed to be a draw by the rules of chess,the rules would have to be re written but then theres nothing to stop players making a twenty move repetition to get to whatever arbitrary move is decided as the cut off point. Draws are a huge part of chess between equally matched players but the short match format makes them more likely unless a really agressive player like Morozovich or Topalov is involved.
(I am sure the crowd were delighted to see Morozovich go down in flames to Gawain Jones yesterday at the European Team Championships, his team mates would have been appalled however - and thats the difference between chess fans and the people who actually play the game.)
Fischer once said that chess is now pre-arranged thus there is less creativity.I may have to agree coz moves nowadays are analyzed 20 or even up to the 30th move straight out of the opening.
Guess everyone has their own idea of what constitutes or doesn't constitute an boring match. But only after 2 games, though? If it hasn't been said already, Carlsen seemed slightly awestruck by the enormanity of his first title run: Afterall, isn't this the moment of Truth? To prove that he's worthy of being the Champ? Obviously he didn't play like it, first game. Anand showed he still had swagger as the Defending Champion, and not just "somebody" keeping the seat warm til the Wunderkind showed up on his doorstep. Game 2 clearly showed Magnus getting over his game 1 anxiety and sitting on the position, which although drawn...was still tense. Now, going into the third...i'm feeling kinda nervous, as this could be the point where either one or the other will set the tone from here on out...no matter the outcome. And that's one reason this match isn't boring (to me) til the last game has been played.
Ponz is really seeing things that mere mortals do not see. No wonder we keep getting stories about past memories all the time.
ponz is quite the authority. And this is not an appeal to authority. Just sayin'. He knows his stuff. In a world (the world of chess) where accomplishment means something, we should let accomplishment speak for itself, and listen when someone like ponz speaks. seriously.