Boring World Championship

I really wish at least a few of these World Championship games would be played in Chess960/Fischer Random format.

I don't really find it boring at all. Actually, I feel the tension growing. As the players both said in the press conference at the end of round 2, they were just settling in. I'm sure we are going to see a few antology-quality games and a lot of action in the others too.

Too much is at stake for a mere 12-game match.

But no worries.... It  is very possible  Anand is setting Carlsen up   by taking the early draws.  

I don't need to have read your other comments. Because quite honestly, they're irrelevant to the context of your words I responded to.
Which (in part), were these:

"...so the FIDE should reinstitute ''The Fischer Rule'' requiring players to play a minimum of thirty moves before they can offer a draw. Fischer was right to recommend that rule and the FIDE should not have rescinded that rule after they instituted it."

If that's not suggesting that Anand or Carlsen should have been forced to play an inferior move in their games (or gone back and forth mindlessly until they hit move 30), then I don't know what is. Now I suppose technically, claiming a draw by three-fold repetition isn't the same as offering a draw. But in that case, why would you have brought up restrictions on draw offers to begin with?

And you're right, I am suggesting that Fischer was stupid to make that suggestion. He was also stupid to be an Holocaust denier. So what? Just because Fischer made a statement about something doesn't therefore make it true or wise. Albert Einstein (you know, that big time physics guy who up-ended the scientific community with his notion of how time works) insisted that "God does not play dice with the universe". Guess what? He was wrong. He was also wrong about some of his other ideas in physics, despite obviously being brilliant. In other words, appealing to authority is not necessarily a valid form of argumentation.
Furthermore, are you even aware that FIDE (eventually) took some of Fischer's other match suggestions, such as not counting draws? In other words, play however many games it takes until one player has accumulated 6 points? They tried that with one of the Karpov vs. Kasparov matches (I don't recall which one) and I can sum up the result of that: not good.

P.S. If you want to respond to someone's comments more directly, hit the 'Quote' link next to their post.

I think the reality is that chess just isn't a big spectator sport. It doesn't have the excitment of the unkown or is less controllable like a sport on a field does, so the very best are always going to play games to get the best possible results, even if it makes for a lot of short draws.

This means that it only really appeals to those who understand the game well, which is often limited based on ability (whereas the average fan can sit in the stands and understand their favourite sport, without being able to play at the same level themselves). Depending on where you are from, soccer may be a major sport which has draws often, but they do not mean that there were no shots on goal. Other places follow sports where there is no draw possible, or it is unlikely; they aren't really going to be attracted to sit down and watch a chess game that ends in a draw 80%+ of the time.

Simply put, these games will interest the chess lovers, while they won't attract anyone else, which could be a reasonable way of describing any high-level chess games. 

No. I'm saying that if a viewer hasn't paid, then he can have any opinion he wants of an event in question. Just as you do in this case. Just as I do. It's just that those viewer's opinions won't be worth a hill of beans, except insofar as they affect sponsor behavior. But if the sponsors choose to ignore their audience reaction anyway...that's their choice to make, not yours.

Put another way (and to quote a trite adage): beggars can't be choosers. Taking your TV analogy, you're basically saying that you have the right to watch a show, complain about it if you don't like it, and then demand that the producers must change their content to suit your desires (as opposed to you just choosing not to watch and letting the producers decide for themselves whether or not they should listen to their audience). That's entitlement mentality at its core, and it's utterly selfish.

If you get more bets than you can handle, I'll help with the overload.

How many hours til game 3 starts?

I have a PDF of the Kramnik-Leko match, but essentially I stopped buying match and tournament books when I started buying databases.

6.5 hrs

I'd like to see you elaborate on this point. I know that Crow Indians believe (or some nineteenth century Crow Indians believed) that individual powers could be linked to gambling up above. Is this belief the basis of your claim that Einstein was wrong about the dice?

Now 6.2 hours.

2 games then have a break ? Better would be play 6 games then have a break.

Yes. after he went for the queen exchange there was nothing much happening. Before that there was a whole lot going on.

Do you think nothing is wrong and expect 12 games to be short and draw? Then there is nothing to contest.

So, Do you admit Anand - Carlsen is of the quality of the matches you mention above? I would say it is much less of some quality.

Indeed, They are not here for your amusement, nor do they care what you think. They are here for theirs, and they still don't care.

That's why we are there to watch them, but they are not eye-candy, are they?

Defeinitely we will shut up but we are not wineybabies. It's all about their match and they can play anyway they want. But we are not wineybabies.

BTW, who are you to tell us to shut up?

I like instant coffee and I don't mind draws.  Whoa.

Ponz is really seeing things that mere mortals do not see. No wonder we keep getting stories about past memories all the time.