Is it a disaster if Anand wins the candidates tournament?

:) Well, I hope for a close and exciting match. But I expect a continuation of last year.

I would bet on Carlsen too but I think it will be tighter this time.

Just as Anand can have a performance rating higher than his rating, so too can Carlsen (in fact, Carlsen has done so many times).

Actually they are all over rated. Rating inflation has given GM titles and high #s out like sands on the beach. The late Larry Evans and many other Grandmasters agree with this.

Rating inflation is a rather contentious issue. People put too much faith in their intuition and don't realize how it can mislead them -- for example, just "feeling" that the players of the past are as strong as the players today. Some research by IM Ken Regan was cited on this blog: http://www.chess.com/blog/SamCopeland/how-strong-were-fischer-and-morphy

Well, I find it convincing, but the point is that people should not jump to conclusions before really looking into the issue.

Really fascinating article; thanks for posting.

The main problem of evaluating chess strenght with Regan`s method is that it does not take into account opponents strength. It`s more than obvious that:

1) it`s easier to make less mistakes playing against weaker opposition.

2) great players of the past like Morphy, Capa etc. have played with much weaker opposition than modern top GMs usually have to play.

While I agree with you that the strength of opposition has to be accounted for, Regan is absolutely right that an intrinsic rating system is needed. I disagree with his method for trying to create one, in the following article, http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/ReHa11c.pdf , I found this article, http://en.chessbase.com/news/2006/world_champions2006.pdf%20, that does not only consider the opponent's strength but, also their playing styles, as well.

The latter article doesn't focus on the rating system as much, but, simply creating a point by which they can all be measured, regardless of playing style, or era. BTW, don't let the title of the article fool you. Some have knocked the engine used in the study and the fact it doesn't have the best players of today in the study, for an updated view but, the point is to show a more thorough and unbiased comparison. If comparing the method used in the latter article, it will become clear that the things most people point to, are clearly biased.

 "Some have knocked the engine used in the study and the fact it doesn't have the best players of today in the study, for an updated view but, the point is to show a more thorough and unbiased comparison. "

The thing is, his results have been verified by others who have analysed games played by "the best players of today". His method works, and running the computers at greater depths just confirm his findings.

My only concern with more powerful engines is that they tend to be biased toward tacticians and would knock the choices of positional players. The greater depths, if deep enough, would offset that problem. I think that is why the weaker engine was chosen in the first place, simply for a point of reference, if I remember the article correctly.

How "unbiased" is comparition between results of GM vs masters and GM vs GMs?

You have something specific in mind that I am perhaps not keying on. I can see how such comparisons could be made, fairly and for good reasons.

If you'd be so kind as to elaborate on your point and get rid of any intended rhetoric, I'd be glad to try and give you the best answer I can.

The only thing that seems to me, that you might have meant for sure was to be making the point that some of the GM's of yesteryear, would only be some lesser master, in todays chess world. If you look at the study in the latter posted article link, it makes a point to account for the accuracy of play by both sides and their playing style, so that the era the player played in and theory of the day, is irrelevant.

The difference between strong and not so strong master are not only "accuracy" but also making the moves which set more tasks to opponent, "helping" him to make more mistakes.

Also "theory" is more than opening moves - it`s also knowledge of middle game and endgame positions, evaluation of which has progressed.

So it will be easier for Capa to play more accurate vs masters of his time than against modern GMs.

In general, I completely I agree that it is easier to pick good moves, with winning chances, against weaker players because, they make more mistakes and don't always play to intentionally limit your options.

However, against someone as strong as Carlsen, in many positions, he is likely only going to give you a few options, once the game gets past a certain point. In evaluating this, it will help a player to see what his options are for certain moves but, they are less likely to completely understand the entire line required, to make a move that is more obvious, be worthwhile.

no because if he wins that means is better than any other player in the candidates!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No bids to host the rematch.  I think this officially qualifies as a disaster.  The chess world knows that Anand winning the Candidates was a sham and he has no business in a rematch and they've now spoken.

http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/7951-world-championship-match-2014.html

I sent in a bid but I'm not on the approved bidders list.  Such a list really limits the number of potential bids.  Not that my offer was very comptetitive, but lets say that Donald Trump wanted to sponsor the next WCC.  He probably wouldn't be able to submit a bid either since he's (probably) not on the approved bidder list.  (Although he could use a proxy i'm sure).

Are you claiming Anand cheated by calling it a sham? Who do you think should be playing Carlsen?

No I didn't say that.  I strongly admire your work in the real world, by the way, Mr. Despres. 

Ouch!