Anyone who finds Kramnik's chess boring doesn't understand the subtleties of
the game, the difficulty of winning with seemingly nothing. It's far more
exciting than, say, seeing Polgar come up with two-move cheapos.

....

1. I understand the subtleties of Kramniks game fine, if not at a GM
level.

2. It's insulting and untrue to J Polgar to describe her games as
full of two-move cheapos, and I never said she was my favorite player
anyway.

3. It's all well and good when Kramnik conjures a win up out of a
stale boring position that's had no real play for 40 moves or so.
Fine, he's a genius. But why wait 3 hours for a brief bit of
excitment when Shirov or Anand, let's say, provides action and
interest from the opening move?

Maybe your idea of a good date is a kiss on the cheek at the end...but
some people prefer a little more excitment.