Carlsen's opinion on Vladimir Kramnik

Magnus doesn't open up to the press all that often, but when he does, he tends to speak the truth as he sees it. He can be brutally honest about his own play, and he is just as honest about other payers. He doesn't seem to have much training in diplomacy, but he think he is giving his honest thoughts.

Typical Carlsen. That is why even his mum doesn't like him

Actually, Carlsen seems to have been lucky in having a very close, totally supportive  family. But he does have the habit of saying what he thinks without employing many diplomatic euphemisms. But anyone who has seen Kramnik interviewed is familiar with his customary "I stood much better in the opening," and "Of course, I was absolutely winning" routine. Even when he lost 

Magnus pisses me off so much, with this dumb attitude and thinking he has the right to trash talk every other player. Even if he is a very good player, HE DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT!

I myself have met Magnus in real life, and he ignored me completely when I wanted a picture. Another thing he did in the same tournament when I was watching him and the other players, (Norway Chess, which is extremely close to where I live) is that when he sat down to talk to NRK (news), he said "Jeg gidder ikke mer av dette!" (I can't take this no more!) Where you goin' with this bratty attitude sis?

As Michael Jordan once said: "It ain't braggin' if you can back it up."

True. The unvarnished truth is often not diplomatic. Still, it si not always flattering to the truth teller. 

handsome player !

Champion Chess egos  have few humble  members.

I had underestimated Carlsen's arrogance.

Nice Post!

"Magnus pisses me off so much, with this dumb attitude and thinking he has the right to trash talk every other player. Even if he is a very good player, HE DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT!"

And who is SisterWigSnatched, who thinks that they get to say what rights people have? 

Magnus Carlsen may not be a world class diplomat, but anyone who has ever seem Kramnik try to dominate post-game analysis, even interrupting or talking over his opponent, recognizes a germ of truth in Carlsen's description

What Carlsen said is simply his opinion, and everyone has a right to their opinion!

But does Kramnik trash talk people over Twitter? Last I checked interrupting wasn't near as bad as trash talking and being a brat. Also I don't have the right to say what rights people do have, but I completely have the right to say  that trash talking is bad.

I don't understand where attacking one person's bad behavior is defense of another. Is it possible for us to condemn both players bad behavior without condemning them as people?

I'm sure Carlsen and Kramnik are both decent people. I don't condone Carlsen's remarks about Kramnik's retirement. I don't see how attacking Kramnik's behavior excuses Magnus Carlsen's lack of class in the matter.

I get what you are trying to say, but this thread is about his behavior.

First two names popped into my head were Euwe and Spassky. (Boris once began a standing ovation for Fischer, Bobby beat him so beautifully.)

Next two were Anand and Smyslov.

Some softer-spoken champions were Karpov and Capablanca. Arguable if that translates as "humble" or not.

If you read Jan Timman's great book "Timmans Titans," he describes how extraordinarily self-confident and assertive Karpov  was in post-mortem discussions, even before he became world champion. And Capablanca was famed for his tremendous self-confidence. Some called it arrogance, but everybody remarked on Capa's confidence 

Near any WC will inevitably have an ego, near any successful person will have an ego... some cover better than others? you think Federer or Nadal don't have huge ego?

kramnik does come across as smug and pompous... and i agree the wild card should be dropped... the naka stuff is mostly banter?

Carlsen can't win perhap... if he doesn't comment he is boring robot... if he does he is spoilt brat?!

dum indeed...