tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post970832905956161050..comments2023-12-28T02:11:22.501+00:00Comments on The Streatham & Brixton Chess Blog: Repetition, repetition, repetitionTom Chivershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09850710685193416732noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-90820766996172474162007-09-29T09:10:00.000+01:002007-09-29T09:10:00.000+01:00Anand is leading the tournament. There is no onus ...<I>Anand is leading the tournament. There is no onus on him to take risks</I><BR/><BR/>Mmm, but isn't there this argument being put about that Kramnik's under some sort of <I>duty</I> to play more aggressively? Nothing to do with tournament position <I>per se</I>?<BR/><BR/>Whereas if we're talking about tournament tactics, isn't Kramnik just as entitled as Anand to think that playing for a win with Black might in given circumstances not be the right tactic?<BR/><BR/>After all, a team that's a goal down doesn't necessarily shove everybody up front when the other side has a corner, does it?<BR/><BR/>Of course it's reasonable to ask - <I>had</I> Kramnik given up the ghost? He may well have, but I don't think we can draw that conclusion on the basis of him selecting the Petroff in that particular game with Black.<BR/><BR/>In a way, that's again what I mean about the interpretation suiting the narrative. Because everybody thinks ah, the Petroff, that's a boring cowardly opening. Well, it's a draw if White wants it to be. But then again - Kramnik had a ding-dong battle with Gelfand last night and everybody will think that that's better, the Semi-Slav is a real opening. But suppose White had played 3.cxd5?ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-63284526056520928452007-09-29T08:39:00.000+01:002007-09-29T08:39:00.000+01:00Whilst trying hard not to take a specific position...Whilst trying hard not to take a specific position on the "is Kramnik a coward?" debate, I really don't think your general line, Justin, holds up. By that i'm referring to equating Kramnik taking quick draws and Anand (I fully agree that if you criticise Kramnik, you've got to criticise Gelfand, and incidentally IMO Aronian in his black game against Anand).<BR/><BR/>Anand is leading the tournament. There is no onus on him to take risks. Wrt to whether he was "courageous" in his game against Morozevich really depends on the extent to which he personally felt he was taking a risk. Which is something only he really knows.<BR/><BR/>Comparing a non-risk taking approach from a leader compared to one who is chasing is akin to comparing a team in football who take all their strikers off when 1 or 2 goals up to a team who do so when 1 or 2 goals down.<BR/><BR/>In both cases they are potentially denying the audience but in a results oriented world, only the team chasing damage limitation can really be justifiably criticised in the generality.<BR/><BR/>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-32196453163439332922007-09-28T10:43:00.000+01:002007-09-28T10:43:00.000+01:00I don't doubtr that the fact that Kramnik has anot...I don't doubtr that the fact that Kramnik has another match available to him may well have made a difference to his approach. But I'm not sure how far it's justified to have one approach for him and a completely different approach for everybody else. As far as I can see they're all competing in the same event and face the same problems of tactics and psychoogy.<BR/><BR/>Of course it may very well be that anybody could or should have tried a more aggressive approach: it's a fair suggestion. But I think people should take into acount that it's not just entertainment, it's a desperately hard struggle for the world championship and people really aren't going to play coffeehouse chess for our benefit. Short draws happen in top-level chess and happen for rather better reasons than laziness or cowardice - something that Leontxo GarcĂa, for instance, knows very well, which makes his comments particularly objectionable to my eyes.<BR/><BR/>And at this level, it really does matter if you're White or Black. <BR/><BR/>Incidentally, how many moves did Anand play last night?ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-34281152145710186162007-09-28T10:10:00.000+01:002007-09-28T10:10:00.000+01:00Hi Justin,a don't necessarily disagree with a lot ...Hi Justin,<BR/><BR/>a don't necessarily disagree with a lot of what you say but perhaps we have a difference of emphasis.<BR/><BR/>I would say the KEY difference between the Anand draws and the Kramnik one was that Kramnik was world champion and he chose not to go to any lengths to try to defend the title. I was hoping for better - though I'm not sure why when you consider, e.g., Kasparov giving up in 2000 with a succession of micro draws with White (and, now I think of it, Anand limped away from a title challenge in 1995 with any number of non-event draws).<BR/><BR/>one other key difference we haven't touched on yet. A short draw is a short draw but Grischuk - Kramnik was a total non-game with no fight what so ever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com