GM Navara (2719) – GM Svidler (2728) [A05]
Corus Wijk aan Zee, Netherlands, 15.01.2007
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Qa4+ Bd7 5.Qb3 dxc4 6.Qxc4 a6 7.d4 b5 8.Qb3 Nc6 9.Bg5 Be6 10.Qd1 Bg7 11.e3 0-0 12.Be2 Nd5 13.Ne4 h6 14.Bh4 f5 15.Nc5 Qd6 16.0-0 Bf7 17.Nb7 Qd7 18.Bg3 g5 19.a4 f4 20.exf4 gxf4 21.Bh4 Ndb4 22.axb5 axb5 23.Rxa8 Rxa8 24.Bxb5 Qd5 25.Be2 Rb8 26.Nc5 Nxd4 27.Nxd4 Qxc5 Game drawn 1/2-1/2
I have no idea why draw? Black is better and there are still so much play left on the board.
Click here to replay the game. 
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
I love to see the answer when it comes. I thought the same 🙂
Bh5 followed by Qg4 and Nf5 seems strong I think. But I am a lowly Class E player.
nevermind that doesn’t work.
maybe Svidler has respect for navara’s win at olympiad 🙂 but I also don’t get it why? But I’m glad for Davidek 😉
I think the two bishops are so strong in defense here, that white could never attempt an attack on the king. Am I correct in saying that?
This seems to be typical of the top GMs these days. They seem to be willing to accept any draw with the Black pieces, irregardless of their position. Modern day chess has become very dissapointing….
hey anon – irregardless is not a word
The white knight is in an awkward place but with white to move, Nb3 fixes this problem. Black still looks stronger, but not that much. I think it’s close enough to justify a draw, especially if Svidler was afraid that Navara could turn the tides.
However, you are entirely correct that it’s very soon to draw with so many pieces still on the board. Probably both were afraid to make a mistake that decides the game, but that’s how chess works. I agree with the people who say that if a draw was only worth 1/3 of a win, players would try a lot harder.
the last move was done by black, wasn’t it? – so Peter offered the draw – if i were Navara – in this position with white – and my opponent would be PETER THE GREAT (i like Peter a lot – but i’m not Navara) – without any doubt, i’d have accepted the draw, too … ^^
besides, chess is hungry work, and there are still “tons of rounds” left to blunder away positions like this (especially if you are low on time – was any player low on time? i suppose Navara – or am i wrong?)
Blah! Again and again this useless babble about draw offers. Who are the pros? You or them? They are participating in top tournaments regularly, they know all the ropes, they know how to play these tournaments successfully. If Svidler offered a draw, he certainly didn’t see any realistic winning chances. If you don’t understand it, that’s probably because your understanding of the game is highly limited compared to a Super GM like Svidler. You better accept this and stop criticising people you are not on par with.
I also thought this position was way better for Black. But positíons with a lot of minor pieces are hard to play.
What about this?
28. Nf3 Nd5
29. Qa4 Rxb2
30. Bc4 e5
31. Qa8+ Kh7
32. Bd3+ Bg6
33. Bxg6+ Kxg6
34. Qe8+ Kh7
35. Nxe5 Re2
36. Qg6+ Kg8
37. Qf7+ Kh8
38. Ng6+ Kh7
39. Nxf4 Nxf4
40. Qxf4 Qe5
41. Qf7
Anonymous said…
Blah! Again and again this useless babble about draw offers. Who are the pros? You or them? They are participating in top tournaments regularly, they know all the ropes, they know how to play these tournaments successfully.
++++++
Besides, they still have to convince me that this is the chess. But if they don’t care about that – it is still fine. I can watch something else.
The difference between chess and football (or soccer) is that in football you always start from point zero if you have the ball. In chess you cannot say let’s go back to the starting position. You have to deal with the position you have. And if you think it is a draw you offer draw. Your opponent may disagree, and the game goes on.
“Blah! Again and again this useless babble about draw offers. Who are the pros? You or them?”
Er, Susan Polgar is saying the blokes should have played on. I believe she’s qualified to make comments.
I respect chess professionals for their brilliant skill at playing chess. And you certainly can’t fault them for leveraging the currently legal option to agree to draws. It’s all part of executing a smart tournament strategy.
But for those, including chess-playing professionals, who bemoan the lack of earnings opportunities, they have to accept that this ability to prematurely stop games is a deterrent to effective promotion of chess to a wider audience. Who’s going to pay for alleged professionals to engage in such anti-competitive behavior?