franki u actually have a point there, with carlsen dominating chess (whether by cheating or not, we can't be really sure) but bcz he is dominating, its not very interesting anymore, like there is no real competition.
Is it a disaster if Anand wins the candidates tournament?

franki u actually have a point there, with carlsen dominating chess (whether by cheating or not, we can't be really sure) but bcz he is dominating, its not very interesting anymore, like there is no real competition.
Yes, you are right, but so did Kasparov. He dominated the chess world; played against players like Leko, Short and a young Kramnik in World championship matches. Nobody thought these guys have any chances of beating Kasparov, yet none complained and those matches were financed .
Kasparov never played any match against Leko, and his title match against Shirov was never played because of lack of funding, and neither his Candidates matches against Ponomariov nor Kasimdzhanov were played. If Aronian or Kramnik had won the Candidates there would have been many interested sponsors, as it is now the same opponent as he won very easily against just a few months ago isn't something many want to pay all those millions to arrange.
"whether by cheating or not, we can't be really sure"
Is there any reason to suspect Carlsen of cheating?

True, fabelhaft, Kasparov never played against Leko, but a young Anand in the mid-90s. I had the Kramnik-Leko match on the back of my head while typing that.
One problem with Norway as organiser is probably that they don't have that much money and already spend many millions on the Olympiad just before the title match is supposed to be held. They would probably prefer to hold the title match instead now, but with funding problems having both seems impossible.

If this becomes a relentless game of chicken, Kirsan will cough it up himself to prevent ridicule / risk the election.
I'm not opposed to government funding of chess champions and chess in general. These recent problems with sponsorship and hosting the WCC shows that chess is a sport that cannot survive in the free market.
Chess arose to the prominence it achieved in the twentieth century directly due to Communistic government support. You see how quickly the financial support crumbled once chess became more free market dependent.
The problem is the world political climate is so anti-socialist now that government funding for a chess match would be quite controversial.
It can survive but they have to take a pay cut?

I'm not opposed to government funding of chess champions and chess in general. These recent problems with sponsorship and hosting the WCC shows that chess is a sport that cannot survive in the free market.
Chess arose to the prominence it achieved in the twentieth century directly due to Communistic government support. You see how quickly the financial support crumbled once chess became more free market dependent.
The problem is the world political climate is so anti-socialist now that government funding for a chess match would be quite controversial.
It can survive but they have to take a pay cut?
That's the obvious solution. Honestly, I don't know why there's any market for chess at all. Anyone at the IM level and above could make 10x as much money playing poker and would rarely have to leave their house.

What makes you think that any chess IM would be guaranteed to walk into "10x as much money" by playing poker?
Is it that easy?
One problem with Norway as organiser is probably that they don't have that much money and already spend many millions on the Olympiad just before the title match is supposed to be held. They would probably prefer to hold the title match instead now, but with funding problems having both seems impossible.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Norway probably has the money. It's more a question of how much will there is to actually fund two large chess events in one year. From what I've heard the Carlsen-Anand match was broadcast on national TV and recieved great response, but chess is still small in Norway and they just might not be ready to host the Olympiad and the WC in one year.
It's even three large chess events within a few months, considering that there is also the super tournament in Stavanger.

What makes you think that any chess IM would be guaranteed to walk into "10x as much money" by playing poker?
Is it that easy?
I think he meant a poker player who had the poker skill equivalent to an IM would make 10 times as much money. In other words, a player who is really good at poker has better hopes to make money than a person who is really good at chess.

No, it's been widely reported that chess players make excellent poker players, and many professional poker players were once chess players with ratings starting with a "2".
He said what he meant to say.

Is it? I know of two with any real success. Any evidence chess players moving over to poker are more successful than bankers, as a random example?

It's a lifestyle choice as much as it is a money-maker. I know quite a few players who have turned to poker to make money. It's easier to get a job as a poker player than one as a banker. Generally, banks like credentials such as Business degrees and the like.

A tiny proportion of poker players make a profit, much fewer enough to live on.
I've never seen any evidence that chess players are any better at poker than the average person.

http://chess.about.com/od/chesscommunities/a/Chess-And-Poker.htm
Just because you haven't seen evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

That's not evidence, it's opinion. There's absolutely no substance to the article, and the word chess could be replaced with any number of pursuits without drastically altering the article.

No, it's been widely reported that chess players make excellent poker players, and many professional poker players were once chess players with ratings starting with a "2".
He said what he meant to say.
Looking for an argument? I would imagine they correlate, thus I agree to an extent, but I don't think a strong chess player would just immediately be good at poker without work :)
But sure, it may be that he did in fact say what he meant to say. Or maybe not.
Franknstein, the Gelfand-Anand match had many problems getting organized.
If I remember correctly, that match got multiple bids, with chennai being outdone by moscow( one of the reasons why chennai got it in 2013). Besides, my point is the Carlsen fanboys were blowing the trumpet exclaiming about how great Carlsen is for chess popularity, and there would be money flowing into chess now. If Carlsen is so marketable, why isn't there any bids? Why is Anand held responsible and not Carlsen?