Is it a disaster if Anand wins the candidates tournament?

Anand looks set to win these Candidates, and meet Carlsen for the next WCC. No doubt, most predictive models will have Carlsen retaining his crown...but, Anand has the opportunity to prove them all wrong.

Uhuh, I don't see any Anand "hating" or bashing. But his "recent slump" is about as recent as Obama's first presidential election. And of course for everyone who followed super-tournaments since then his win in Candidates 2014 must come as a surprise, because he did not come close to winning any in that time. Quite often he did not even win a single game.

Look at Anand's rating chart on Fide.com.  He had a low in the early 2000s (down to around 2750) and a high in 2011 (2820 ish). Other than that, for the past 14 years he has been in the very high 2700s, where he is now, among the top handful of players in the world. 

You say Anand hasn't won anything since 2008 (Obama's first election)? He hasn't won tons of tournaments, but he has won Linares at least once, and, um... he retained the World Championship a couple of times in there....

Again, my point is that people (like you) wildly underestimate Anand.

In Sports, anything can happen. The outcome of a chess game does not only depend on knowledge and skill, but a great many other internal and external factors ranging from motivation, health, rest, distractions, etc. So even the highly favourite can and does come crashing down sometimes.

Well, the candidates tournament isn't over yet. There's still time for Aronian or several others to take over the lead.  

NO!!!!!!  SHOWS HE IS AT WORST #2 IN THE WORLD!!!!!!!!

What is this nonsense, Anand knows what were his psychological mistakes from the previous match. He knows that he has to stay fresh even after long hours of play, and not sacrafising pawns against Carlsen, and if anand would apply only these things in the previous match, after 12 games it was a draw, so we got what to expect from a second Anand vs Carlsen match.

possible...but not probable. Anand would need to die of a heart attack on the board to loose this one.

Performance statistics can be applied in games of luck (e.g. poker), not in chess. Please do not ignore the pure fact chess is game of skill. Although other factors also exist, none of them are random.

Kramnik and Topalov in bad form or prepared poorly? Maybe, but that's their problem. They knew in advance this tournament will be crucial.

Well, I may not be a good chess player, but I do know this..Anand is the best from the East, and he was d first and till now, only one to challenge Western domination in chess...to all Westerners who can't stomach this simple fact, I have just this to say...chess is nobody's monopoly...can't be a disaster just bcoz one amongst you isn't able to get a shot at the biggest prize on offer...show me one player amongst your lot who is as modest and humble as Anand is...and no, he shouldn't get a shot at d biggest prize just because he is humble...but he is going to earn it by making a spectacular comeback in the toughest tournament on the planet that there is to offer...just accept this fact...and also d fact that in sport, all are equal, West or East...proud of Anand's comeback...let's wait to see carlsen's reaction and the way he carries himself after he loses the title..and let's look at Anand when he wins it and compare it with carlsen's attitude...you will come to know what a true human being is, not just what a true champion is...waiting for d moment...

An interesting, if mildly racist, rant.

Bogus explanation. If the imprecision of the model was the reason, someone would win more often than predicted, most likely the house, which means they have a good model, after all, since they are taking bets the good way.

If the average player loses on the long run on those betting websites, it's because the house is only taking a percentage, while making the players play between them ; the odds are modified so as to balance orders coming from each side : if more gamblers are willing to bet on Anand winning, decrease the pay-off for Anand winning and increase it for Carlsen winning, more people will eventually take a bet on Carslen.

The technical term for this is arbitrage. The link is a good start if you want more technicalities than the superficial explanation of the previous paragraph.

So what ? Ratings are a hoax ?

Nothing is 'random' about a throw of dice, after all ; it's just a chaotic system with uncontrolled initial conditions. But it's still a pretty good description to call it "random".

It has absolutely nothing to do with race, and that we can't somehow bear someone from outside western culture! WTF is wrong with you.

It's all about Anand getting crushed in the world championship rematch to happen later this year.

We know he has no chance honestly. If Anand was from France, or some European country, it would not change my opinion.

You're just a hysterical and paranoid westernphobic human.

Besides, Magnus and Anand are both very likable. Someone is just butthurt that his hero lost last November.

Here's a game I've come up with:

Who can make the most angry Anand fan(anatic) forum post?

Here's how you score:

Play the racist card:  +5 Points
Grammar/Spelling/Punctuation mistakes: 1 Point each
Abbreviating multi-syllable words with just one letter:  +10 Points.
Fantasizing that Anand was simply caught "unaware" by Carlsen in Chennai: +20 points
Confusing Anand's truly "nice guy nature" with "his practical chances of beating Carlsen" + 25 points
Irony Bonus:  Showing none of the class, humility and good nature of the player you're rooting for by being a consummate jackass in your post.  +100 points.
 

As for Anand getting crushed in a rematch, I think he would do better in a rematch, if this candidates tournament is any indication. But he's still obviously not the favourite. 

Agreed, I think both Anand and Magnus are fairly likeable. There do seem to be a fair number of Indian fans who post rah-rah-rah-Anand messages, but I guess that's understandable in a fan. 

Ratings show past performance level.  But I think a lot of people want to apply ratings as a deterministic indication of future performance, which is also not very valid.

If ratings somehow determined future performance, Aronian would have run away with the candidates tournament. There are a lot of other factors at play.

Of course there is luck in chess. Yesterday you played against genius god of chess Chucky. Today your main rival plays against patzer not-able-to-manage-time-properly Chucky. Tough shit!

Random factors also do exist in the game of chess itself because the calculation of humans and even of computers has a limited horizon. Means: Behind each player's horizon there may or may not be resources for either side that they can't possibly know about, provided there's no forced win or draw in sight. The better calculator and tactician may be able to spot them earlier on, but if the tactics just don't work out for him, he can't capitalize on it. Simple example that everyone has seen dozens of times: Player goes for a sacrificial line because he sees he has at least a perpetual check. When the position appears on the board he works it out. Good luck: There is a win. Bad luck: No win, he has to go for the perpetual.

Well, don't forget he didn't have a chance in the candidates tournament as well...and he doesn't have a chance in d championship as well...it's all sport guys...and well, I'm no racist..but I thought this thread had a racist mindset about it..so I had to jump in to post..well, to be honest, cant just stand by and read when obvious bullshit is going on in front of me...

Ratings do predict with outstanding precision the expected or average outcome. It's not a deterministic thing, but a statistical one.

Of course ratings are based only on previous performances, but previous performance is a good indicator of future performance. And of course there are other factors in play (how much preparation since the last rated game, for instance).