Who do you think deserves to win the Candidates Tournament?

RibEyeRichards wrote:

I've watched most of the commentary and interviews. Carlsen restrains himself from being an out-right ass at times. Its not that he is young, its that people have been telling him he farts roses since he could walk. That messes with your ego. I would say his attitude correlates to his age, but that his age is not the cause of his attitude.

You must have been watching a different commentary to me Ribeye, he always strikes me as excessively modest and unassuming.

Kramnik deserves it.

The winner will deserve it, as they will have played best in the tournament.

Deserving has got nothing to do with it - no one deserves anything really.

+1

i agree

Many votes for Kramnik deserves it.

I think the winner deserves to win the tournament. The winner really earns that win.

I do not think the losers derserve to win. Losers do not make worthy winners.

[Rarely had the words flowed from my pen with such feverish fluidity. -- Ralphie, from A Christmas Story]

If the winner has won the competition playing by the rules, then is the winner the winner because he has won. All the other ones have lost, because they have not won enough. The winner needs them to win, otherwise was there no competition which could be won by the winner. Someone who declares himself a winner in a competition without any other contenders is a loser.

With regards to the Candidates tournament. Who am I that I could say who should, could, would or ought to win? I now know which seven might have won and who has won. It was an amazingly strong field. Anyone who would have won, could not be but very strong. Whoever might have won, how could I consider it wrong?