Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Carlsen: "#1 player should be world champion"


  • 11 months ago · Quote · #1

    btickler

    Interesting to see in the most recent interview posted here that Carlsen said that the best player should be world champion and that this had not been the case for some time.

    This might highlight the difference between match play and tourney play + rankings.  If Anand held the championship a few times while not rated the highest or winning the biggest tourneys...was he still the best player for beating his challengers anyway?  Interesting question.

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #3

    btickler

    Petrosianic wrote:

    when anand got his title he was the top player in the world, but he hasn't been for years now.

    I agree, but that's what is fun to discuss.  Suppose Anand had won this latest match...many would say he was not the best player in the world, but if he beats all comers in matches, is he? 

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #4

    r_k_ting

    btickler wrote:

    Interesting to see in the most recent interview posted here that Carlsen said that the best player should be world champion and that this had not been the case for some time.

    Actually, what Carlsen said was a bit different. He said that the world champion should be proving that he his the best player in the world.

    In defence of Anand, he has had to defend his title in back to back years, and his age probably didn't permit him to participate in as many tournaments as Carlsen. When Carlsen is Anand's age, he probably won't still have the same appetite for tournaments. If Carlsen was criticizing Anand, it was somewhat unfair.

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #5

    btickler

    Well yes, but that is even more damning and I did not want to characterize it this way.  I am not sure Carlsen meant to imply that Anand had been hiding out as world champ with the #8 ranking...and what should Anand have done, thrown a match to lose the championship if he did not feel he was the absolute best? ;)

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #6

    r_k_ting

    It's not like the old days anymore, where world champions could simply refuse a challenge just because he was not shoved a large enough suitcase of 100 dollar bills. With such regular matches nowadays, and with an improving candidates cycle, the world champion has rightfully earned his title if he is able to best all challengers.

    Carlsen has no reason to be aggrieved that Anand was not toppled sooner, since he withdrew himself from the previous candidates cycle.

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #7

    TitanCG

    btickler wrote:
    Petrosianic wrote:

    when anand got his title he was the top player in the world, but he hasn't been for years now.

    I agree, but that's what is fun to discuss.  Suppose Anand had won this latest match...many would say he was not the best player in the world, but if he beats all comers in matches, is he? 

    That's what happened to Karpov when he was given the title from Fischer.

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #8

    fabelhaft

    btickler wrote:

    Interesting to see in the most recent interview posted here that Carlsen said that the best player should be world champion and that this had not been the case for some time.

    This might highlight the difference between match play and tourney play + rankings.  If Anand held the championship a few times while not rated the highest or winning the biggest tourneys...was he still the best player for beating his challengers anyway?  Interesting question.

    Anand wasn't the best player in the world just because he won a rapid tiebreak against Gelfand. The problem with matches is that it makes it too "simple" to just pronounce the latest winner of a match between two players the best player in the world (regardless who the participants in the match are). It is after all only one event between two players. Anand may have kept the title after two very even matches against Topalov and Gelfand, but these players have all been quite a bit below the top three the last three-four years.

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #9

    Mersaphe

    The fact is before the match Carlsen was #1 in the rating list and Anand was #8 in the rating list. Carlsen had far more impressive tournament performances recently compared to Anand. There was no doubt that Carlsen was the superior player. However, if Anand defeated Carlsen in a match, he would have legitimately defended his title. And I would have no problem saying that the #1 rated player in the world and the world champion are two different people

    Short matches are not good indicators of skill. They often are decided by who has the more flexible match strategy or better preparation. For example, Anand in 2008 caught Kramnik in opening preparation twice, therefore I don't believe Anand was so much stronger than Kramnik as the score might lead one to believe. Similarly Anand was in Kramnik's shoes and Carlsen was in Anand's shoes during this match. Carlsen won by 3 points with no victories for Anand, but I don't believe Carlsen is that much stronger than Vishy. Also Anand's mental and psychological collapse contributed to the lopsided score


Back to Top

Post your reply: