Carlsen a good chess ambassador?

Oh, and on topic, I was definitely surprised by Carlsen's demeanour at the press conference. I thought it reeked of arrogance which was disappointing. Is it just me or does Magnus exhibit the same sort of awkwardness in his interviews as the late Bobby Fischer?

To be fair though, Kramnik said that he lent Anand the crown after the world championship tournament. He has been magnanimous in defeat once Anand had beaten him in a match, saying that Anand's game had palpably risen to a new level.

I think chess takes itself too seriously in these matters. And I'm pretty sure the other champions were more interested in playing good chess rather than becoming figureheads.

Carlsen's first WC match and his age displayed his tension during the press conference. Probably he thinks that being friendly with an opponent reduces killer instinct etc. There could be many reasons but I have to say that he was very uptight and was not willing to answer many questions. Anand has been there many times and is mature, so he was more relaxed and charming.

A lot of people say that Carlsen will be (a prediction) a good ambassador actually mean that they want to see a young face as champion and it is time that Anand should vacate his throne. It is their personal opinion and has nothing to detract from Anand's fine qualities. People outside India should say if they think Anand was a good ambassador and compare him with Carlsen. Will Carlsen be a better ambassador than Anand?

By the way this has nothing to do with who you support in this match.

The definition of an ambassador has to be clarified before we make any comments. Some of the key qualities of a sports ambassador are (1) He attracts public attention and increases the popularity of the sport (2) He earns more money from sponsors than from the game itself

Carlsen qualifies on both counts in Norway. When he expressed displeasure about the location then he would have offended many people in India. So it is a mixed bag. Does Carlsen have the same magnetism of a Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik or Anand? Only time will tell. His current behaviour and demeanour suggests a person who wants to be left alone. He is not comfortable in front of the press or hosts. At the moment he is not a good ambassador but what about the future?

He may change and mature after this match.

Kramnik said after the tournament that Anand as always had been a little lucky, that he as usual never had a winning position against any of the top players, and only won against the players in the bottom of the field, and that he didn't play any better than Kramnik did himself. After losing the match he was a very gracious loser, but not so much after the tournament.

Anand is a very sympathetic person but I don't know if I would say that he (or Karpov or Kramnik) have some sort of "magnetism". Maybe Fischer and Kasparov had, but then both had many negative sides as well.

There is a thread here about the mother of all magnetic chess boards: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/the-mother-of-all-magnetic-chessboards.

You have to arrange a game played by Anand on that board and the issue of magnetism will be decided by test.

I wonder about the importance of being a very nice guy when it comes to being a good ambassador for chess. I mean, no one would say anything bad about Leko as a person, but just how exciting would he be as an ambassador for the game compared to a stronger and more exciting but maybe less sympathetic person?

Carlsen is marketable, that's for sure.

I do not personally know him, so I'm unable to judge his personality in any qualified way and can only say, that from what I have seen so far, I am not his biggest fan.

Anand for example seems like a decent guy and I sure like Kramnik. But both seem boring, when compared to Carlsen. I watch Kramnik because I want to see him win, but when I watch Carlsen, it is usually because I want to see him lose.

Comparing it to pro wrestling might not be possible really, but if you think about it, the "heels" (=bad guys) are more important for buy rates of their PPVs than the "faces" (=good guys). A bad guy everybody loves to hate will generate a lot of interest. More than a relatively boring good guy.

To me, here in chess Anand is the good guy and Carlsen the bad "heel". As much as I root for Anand, future World Championships will be more interesting to me if Carlsen wins, just because I so much want to see him lose the title to a player I like better (Kramnik would be my first choice!).

Does this make any sense at all?