Ok, I am late for writing my reflections on this year's chess world championship tournament. After all it is old news that Viswanathan Anand emerged from the tournament as the new undisputed world champion. Undisputed? Well, of course there are still quite a few people who are of the opinion that you have to win a match against the old world champion to become the new king of chess instead of "just" winning a round-robin tournament. Here, I don't want to argue for one side or the other (feel free to write a comment with your opinion on this, though). Nevertheless, I had a poll on the site asking my readers about their preference: match or tournament? 60% seem to prefer the two player battle over the multi-player event. Instead, this post is about my personal impression of the tournament, in particular of the old topic of quick draws.

If I counted correctly, 70% of the games played in the Mexico City tournament were drawn. This looks awfully boring to a patzer like me whose games almost never end in a draw. But then, these top grandmasters are much better players and simply do not make the kind of mistakes me and my opponents make. Therefore, it is natural that more games are drawn on the top level, particularly when the ratings of the participating players are within a close range. So what about comparing the world championship to the average event? My personal chess database contains close to 500.000 games between players rated above 2000, so no queen-dropping patzers there. Still, only 37% of the games are drawn, significantly less than at the world championship tournament. My first conclusion was that the large number of draws is because none of the players wanted to take any risks in this high-stake round-robin tournament. In contrast to that, a match presents a player with only one opponent, so strategies like "if I lose this game against Bob and Paul draws his game against Peter..." are obsolete. So getting back the match format should make things more exciting, right?

Wrong. Well, at least from the statistical point of view. My first look at the Kramnik-Topalov match in 2006 seemed to prove the point, because "merely" 50% of the games were drawn. However, looking further back, many matches seemed to have much higher drawing rates than that, in line with the 70% seen in Mexico City. The format of the championship seems to give no guarantees for more decisive play.

Aside from the numbers, what are the reasons behind all these draws? One day saw a particularly short game - only 13 moves were played before Alexander Grischuk and the former world champion, Vladimir Kramnik agreed to a draw. Kramnik in particular faced tough questions about this in the post-game press conference. If I understood his answers correctly (the video sound is not very good), he (playing the Petrov's Defense with Black) thought the position was equal and he saw no chances to win other than waiting for a mistake by his opponent. He said something along the line that he wants to play "good chess". Does "good chess" mean that you draw whenever you do not get an opening advantage because you don't want to rely on your opponent making a mistake? There is so much talk that top-level chess is very different from the stuff I play. But to me the game is about winning, at least about trying to win. I can understand that all these players are professionals who have to keep their paycheck in mind and thus cannot just push for some unjustified attack like me. However, I have to say that sometimes I feel really lucky that I am "just" a patzer playing chess for fun - I'd rather lose than draw after 13 moves.

Comments (4)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

...
written by Thomas David Baker, October 11, 2007

Well, there's always the chance that the result of chess when played perfectly is a draw and these super-brilliant chess players are getting closer and closer to the perfect game. I have no idea what the current theory is on this, or if there is one.

Or perhaps it's to do with the pressure. Fear of failure. Or in a long-running round robin about taking 1/2 point in some places to conserve your will/stamina for other games.

Just guessing!

...
written by Trooper, October 12, 2007

Chess has become too cautious at the high levels. The old games of 100 years or more are so much more interesting. They might not be perfect, but at least they're entertaining. In the tournament I played in recently, 40 players, there were only a few draws.

I guess for the average player like us, there is so much to chess that we can't truly keep up with it. We're not devoting our lives to it, and are happy with simply playing and not worrying about such exact play.

I agree with you, it's much funner to try something risky and see how it turns out. That's why I really like opening gambits and such. They create good attacks, and an active board. On the other hand, I do also appreciate good positional play, but only after things have been battled out!

I think that with a few minor adjustments to the game, a lot of the draws could be eliminated. It's unlikely anything like this would ever happen, but it's a thought. One in particular I like comes from Chinese Chess, where the King's can never be on the same file... they basically can check each other across the board. This would really affect endgame play, and likely create situations that are more winning than draws. In effect, you'd have half a rook more in the end.

I don't know, I just have ideas which won't go anywhere, but might be worth trying in a few casual games.

I think it's best to not pay too much attention to what's going on at the high levels of chess and just play for learning and enjoyment. That's what it's all about really, in all sports. Only the very few play at such high levels.

Thanks for the posts, I enjoy your blog.

...
written by Sciurus, October 12, 2007

Thomas-
you've got a good point there. I don't think that one should really blame the players. However, for me as a chess player who enjoys the game in general it is sometimes hard to see a point in these draws. I admit that that is due to my lack of analysis skills - I simply wouldn't dream of announcing a draw there, but then I don't even recognize the won position in many cases when GMs resign.

However, I feel that the reason for the top players are able to make a living from chess should also be that their games actually matter to chess fans like me. But may be I am asking too much there.

Anyway, I am wondering if a slight change of rules wouldn't make a change here. Like the anti-draw point system proposed by Clint Ballard (see here for an interview with him).

...
written by Sciurus, October 12, 2007

Trooper:
yes, I've found recently that I am enjoying master games played a century ago much more fascinating than the games played at the world championship. But I also find it kinds sad that current top-level chess seems so incomprehensible to me. I actually don't agree with the comparison you made to other sports. I can still enjoy a top-level football game even though it is beyond anything I could achieve (in fact I never played it myself). However, in today's chess may games just end leaving me behind with the feeling "hey, is that it?".

The opposing king rule you mentioned sounds interesting. That would make chess quite a different game, though, so I don't think it would take off.

Show/Hide comment form