Easy World Championship for Carlsen!

I believe FIDE made it easy for Carlsen to win the world championship.

For example in the past there were at least a couple of matches to win against another world GM in order to qualify. This time FIDE made it through a tournament (in this sense Kortchnoi likely had the most difficult times, since he had to qualify through tournament and matches over and over, while being ostracyzed by the Russians).

Then the format of the World championship, just 12 games, compared to the 24 that Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, etc had to go through.

But let's notice also the difference always made by FIDE, Botvinnik maybe wouldn't qualify over and over, but every time he lost, after a year he had the chance to challenge the new world champion, and take him down.

The same happened for Karpov, that before with Fischer didn't want the challenge rule, but when he lost obliged Kasparov to defeat him over and over.

So, also if Carlsen is a formidable player, I believe FIDE made it easier for him than for others.

Carlsen is a manufactured world champion. He played against arguably the worst world champion in history

hmmmmmmmmm

The latest World Champion to win the title after qualifying through matches was Kasparov 30 years ago, so I don't think Carlsen got an easier route than his predecessors did.

Carlsen is the World Champion. He won it fair and square. While I despise the 12 game format, those are the current rules. Now comes the hard part. KEEPING the title. Success can be a danger. Will it go to his head? Will he slack off working on his game? Only time will tell if he's the great champion some believe, or a one hit wonder.

The problem with playing candidates matches is that there is no Fischer or Kasparov figure who is confident enough to go for wins in each and every game ( 6-0 anyone? ) This means there is a very real chance that matches will go down to rapid deciders - and imo NOTHING to do with the world championship should go down to rapid deciders. But I agree the 12 game format is good for no-one.

If this match had been 24 games I don't think the last 10-12 games or so would have been particularly exciting.

Right, so to beat Karpov and draw Kasparov when you are a 13 year old boy doesn't really indicate that THIS GUY IS AN AMAZING CHESS GENIOUS? 

+1 on that. I could clearly see Carlsen broke his opponent with pressure, he won the championship with his chess. Nothing to say more about that.

I think that rapid play rule is bad, but I also think 12 games is fine. For example if the matches are tied 6-6, then whoever gets 2 extra point wins. The disadvantage of this rule that it could lead to a seriously long match with 50 or more games, like in the days of Capa. Advantage is it being more fair than rapid play and sudden death. And it would be exciting for us the watchers .

Why does everyone think a long match is a bad thing?  Because it's not as marketable?  To sit through a chess match for 6 hours probably isn't something the casual chess fan or non-chess fan is going to do at 2AM in the US or even any normal time elsewhere, no matter how "marketable" you try to make the product.

Three types of people watch this.  Chess lovers, Anand lovers and Carlsen lovers.  These three groups probably would have watched 100 matches.  If it takes 50 or so games like in the day of Capa to decide the world champion, then let it be, I don't see the downside to it.  Much better than hastily crowning a champion after some fluke win (not saying this was a fluke win, just saying that's a real possibility in 12 games when most games are drawn at this level.)

I feel for you, I really want what you want, believe me.

Its hard to say.  I think we would have seen many more Sicilians.  But I guess we will never know.  

2 lost games might be breaking for a 12 game match but its not for a 24 game match.  If kasparov Karpov 1984 was a 12 ame match it would have endedearly  2.5 to 6.5 in favor of Karpov.

That would have been pretty misleading don't you think?

"If it takes 50 or so games like in the day of Capa to decide the world champion, then let it be, I don't see the downside to it."

One downside is that no players want it that way, another that no organizer wants it that way.

Great endgame technique, cool nerves, and youth.  Very Simple.

Now he can supplement his earnings from modeling, too.  Nice combination.

The other candidates got the same opportunity though... it's not like Carlsen played a tournament while Kramnik, Aronian, and Svidler had to play matches.

Is this supposed to be easier or harder?  Either way, his opponent got the same 12 games.

Yeah, the rematch rule was bad I think.  In any case it has no effect on becoming world champion... obviously.

Name any 3 other world champions... that's what I thought lol.

Well he proved with his tournament play and especially with the win in the Candidates 2013 that he is the real champion, regardless what was the performace of his opponent.

Thanks for the clarity, IM @Pfren.

Anand actively and repeatedly defended his title, unlike some of the earlier WCCs.

Not even Karpov? 

FIDE making this WC easy for Carlsen to win? Utter rubbish! Next you'll be saying FIFA made the World Cup easy for Brazil to win everytime they entered the competition..... There is simply one person to "blame" for making the WC easy for Magnus Carlsen. Thats Magnus Carlsen. He was simply the better player. Lengthen the format for all I care, he would still win but by a greater margin over a longer space of time. Arnand, a worthy WC in his own right, had no chance against Carlsen. And neither will anyone else for a good few years I feel.