Carlsen: "#1 player should be world champion"

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.

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? 

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.

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? ;)

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.

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

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.