I agree completely. The best "chess matches" usually have at least one boxer-puncher ensuring that there's actually action.
I would have rather watched a chess match than that snooze-fest. At least a player taking someone's pawn would show some aggression and would be more violent.
Young vs. Norton Holmes vs. Truth Williams Hearns vs. Benitez Hagler vs. Duran Arguello vs. Escalara I & II
both guys have to turn up for a chess match to break out. Fury did his part but what tactics or sequnces did wlad impress you with?
Perhaps you require watching a Leonard v Benitez or a Napoles vs Lewis to first gain hold of the definition of tactical brilliance.
totally irrelevant. in the boxing context the term chess match indicates a fight, usually occuring between fairly evenly matched guys, where both guys have their moments and employ a variety of tactics in a effort to get on top. fury was on top for 12 rounds predominantly using his physical advantage and both guys fought the same throughout = not a chess match.