Look at it from the player's point of view. They may be in the last round of an exhausting tournament. They just want to try leaving "in the money" to cover their trip. The last game is a slug fest that looks very drawish. Why wouldn't they offer a draw?  Perhaps the draw is enough to place in the money for one player.  The other player maybe gains some points on his or her rating. They both can go home early. It may not produce great chess but it does make sense.

Look at the humor value of someone's statements before you assume that it is a personal attack.

I remember the WC matches between Kasparov v Short and Kasparov v Anand.  My opinion was Short was weaker than Kasparov, but stood in the middle of the ring, fighting all the way.  Maybe the most exciting chess ever played for the WC.  I had the opinion that Anand was in awe of Kasparov and didn't put up much fight.

Topalov is a fighter, Anand I believe has more talent.  If I had to pick one--I'd like Anand to win, but I wouldn't put money on it.

My opinions are free, and worth every penny.

One of my few chess books is by Nigel Short, his games are very interesting to go over and the analysis he gives is easy to follow. Definitely these games helped me with my tactical skill, although he never managed to convert me to taking up the French defence. I was only just born when he challenged Kasparov for the World title, so I am not too well acquainted with the match, but the games I have seen are excellent. They both like playing aggressive chess, and it made for some good games. I'm not a great fan of Anand, but then again outwardly his games have less appeal I suppose.

 This is rich coming from a sub 1600 OTB player ! 

Lol yeah I thought Fiveofswords opinion was pretty cute.

Two other young players I'm predicting will become chess tourists are:

Illya Nyzhnyk (All hype, no substance.  From what I've seen his play is sterile and lackluster)

Ian Nepomniatchi (Imo, already an established chess tourist.  In the next few years, he will further cement his status as "draw master" and fade into obscurity where he belongs.)

ONE more chess artist I want to add is Maxime Vachier Lagrave.  I've enjoyed his games and feel he has potential.

Two players that gave me enjoyment were Shirov and Nunn (too bad he retired).  I think Carlsen is the promise of the future (he plays to win).

I would watch Nyzhnyk and Nepomniatchi just to hear the announcer stumbling over their names.

I recommend you work on your chess skills then, maybe play through Nyzhnyk's games from Groeningen. It might help you see more.

But I will agree that it appears Nyzhnyk is being pushed to outperform in search of the "youngest GM crown" - which these days is carried for about two weeks before another comes along. But you really don't know his games, which is quite evident from your "sterile and lackluster" comments.

He's got games that any GM would be proud of, already. He does have a weakness, he doesn't like cramped positions, and a fellow Ukrainian exploited that when he played Nyzhnyk in Iceland. Up until that moment Dril was on his way to his third norm, but his compatriot showed the remaining players what to do to hamper Nyzhnyk's style.

And do make certain you catch Nyzhnyk's two games in Iceland where his opponents lost their queens. You might learn something.

Opinions are like rectums. Everyone has one and most of them stink. FWIW

Ur brain is really infected

I learned to play chess in 1956.  This was the time of Botvinnik and Smyslov.  Solid positional chess that I really didn't understand at the time.  Along comes Mikhail Tal with his slash and burn style.  Wow, this I could admire, even if I didn't understand it much either.  Now, 54 years later, I confess that I want to win games like Petrosian, Karpov, Ulf Andersson or Alek Wojtkiewicz.  Their style was to slowly crush their opponents.  Dull yes, but they played to win.  What I think we're complaining about are the GMs who are content just not to lose.  For pure fun I play over Alekhine, Marshall, Tal, Bronstein & Nezhmetdinov.  But Karpov & Petrosian were fighters too.

Yeah I hope you are. The guy lost to Kramnik fair and square in a WC match and you think that... strange.

I'm a huge fan of Kramnik.  As far as an understanding of chess  I believe he outstrips Anand, Topalov or Carlsen.  He beat Kasparov in a match.  But for some reason he didn't reach the height that Fischer, Karpov or Kasparov hit.

I think you're overestimating Fischer and Karpov, I think Kramnik has already passed them.

Being a huge Kramnik fan myself, I also put Kasparov in a different place because he did dominate the chess scene like no one else did, I consider him the best player to have ever lived, but as the london 2000 has shown, he was still beatable.

If Kasparov had retired without losing the title in a match, I would understand the statement "no one was strong enough to be WC after that", but given that he has lost the title already, it doesn't make sense to me.

When Kramnik was younger, he fought to win with both white and black.  When older, it seemed to me he would try and grind out a win with his Catalan (he did grind out some great wins), and play for a draw with the Petroff.  I have no argument with grinding out wins, I try to do that myself.  A World Champion should do better than that. 

 I dont agree at all here. Fischer and Karpov both have won more matches than Kramnik and Kramnik has lost how many matches ?  I think he has lost 4 or 5 matches. Take away his match with Kasparov and what impressive match wins does he have ?

I was talking in terms of chess strength, that's my opinion of the levels of those players taking into account blunder rates calculated by strong engines and my own engine analysis. I'm aware it's difficult to be objective here.

About your question, the ones I know of are the qualification match against Shirov which he lost, then he beat Kasparov, beat topalov, defended against Leko by drawing the match, became 2nd in Mexico tournament and lost against Anand in the latest match.