♡ 77 ( +1 | -1 ) Linares a Failure?Only eight wins in thirty games. Only round 7 had more than one win. Frequently all games were drawn. You can actually see the fan count dwindle on chessfm live as the games progress. The fighting draws were great, but combined with "short" draws, it makes the tournament look like an exercise in futility. Is chess turning into a sport/game without spectators? A harmless mental pastime, like crossword puzzles and croquet? In my opinion, only a change in scoring will help, for the same reason the scoring in soccer/football in Britain was changed to 1pt for a draw, 3 for a win, because it is so much more difficult to win and because so many teams were striving only to draw it was destroying the combatitive soul of the game.
♡ 60 ( +1 | -1 ) I think linares should look at bringing fighting players, those who dont take quick draws. Get rid of the spanish kid and i think radjabov (sorry if i mispelt it) should go. I would like to see polgar and anand back. The change of score system is one possible incentive for attacking play but im not sure it keeps with history of chess, and i dont think it would go very well with the players. I have been disapointed with kasparov's performance this year, i think this has shown his best is now behind him, he also has taken some quick draws.
♡ 28 ( +1 | -1 ) I could never understandThe reasoning behind making a draw count as a whole point and a win as 2 or 3 or whatever. You're still going to have the same results, just with higher point counts. Make a rule where there are NO draws before move 30 or 50 or whatever.
♡ 49 ( +1 | -1 ) Fischerused to make the same complaints against the Russians...only with a conspiracy twist. One of his answers was to create a system that awarded the championship to the first player to acquire 6 wins. Thus, creating an environment where players had to press for wins when they felt their position merited the attempt. Draws would become less attractive then and players would gain little strategic advantage by not playing to win.
♡ 195 ( +1 | -1 ) I believe Fischer proposed a match format that awarded a championship to the first player to win 10 games. Fischer also made the proposition that players not be allowed to make draws before move 30 due to Soviet collusion in tournaments like Curacao, but after FIDE implemented the rule he quickly forgot about it and began making short draws himself ("that rule is for commie cheaters, not me!").
The 6-win system was implemented in the first Karpov-Kasparov clash in 1984, but everyone knows how that ended, so you can probably expect to never see the "first to 6" wins-system again. Likewise, you probably won't see the "no draws before move 30" rule again, partially because of its collapse in the 1960s and partially because there are a number of other ways to avoid it: players can create a 3-fold repitition or just do nothing for 30 moves.
The weighting of draws as 1 and wins as 3 (or wins as 1 and draws as 1/3) would lead to fewer draws, but I don't agree with such a system because it changes the nature of the game.
I wouldn't say that Linares is a failure, although it's not as exciting as one would expect from a Category 21 tournament. Wijk Ann Zee was very interesting. If you were looking for a good spectator Category 19 tournament, you should have watched Wijk Ann Zee. In my mind the beauty prize for Linares comes down to Shirov-Radjabov and Topalov-Shirov, which is generally fewer games than one would expect from such a tournament.
I think Kasparov's best days are behind him; his technique has clearly suffered in Linares. I was surprised that Leko didn't make a more serious effort to win today against Vallejo after his loss two days ago against Kramnik. I would have liked to see Anand in place of Vallejo (what happened to Anand?), but I don't agree with removing Radjabov. Radjabov is a young rising superGM, very strong, and will probably be in the top 10 in the next few years.