Is it a disaster if Anand wins the candidates tournament?

I think motivation has been an issue for Anand. Being WCC and taking home  $millions for every defence, having acheived so much in chess. At his age, it may have been difficult to muster your best at each Tournament. This is why I admire Kasparov, after he became WCC he won every Tournament he entered for 8 years...unbelievable. 

@jesterville, Kasparov was fortunate enough to become the World champion at a much younger age. Anand had been winning many major tournaments(Corus, Linares, Dortmund etc. multiple times) from the late 90's to 2008, but never could have claimed to become the undisputed champion because of the sorry state FIDE was in at that time. By the time he became the undisputed champion at '08, he was 38 years old already. I guess, sadly, Kramnik shared the same fate at that time, to some extent. Otherwise, both their chess careers would have been much more richer.

Yes, but he didn't play 29...Bxb2. Missing such opportunities, making easy mistakes, that is part of one's playing strenght. If chess games were merely decided by knowledge, understanding and creativity, then the world's three top players might easily be Ivanchuk, Kramnik and Anand.

I think it's interesting how people interpret sport history as a series of inevitable events, when it in reality is all a matter of statistics. If this candidates tournament were repeated 20 times, it would probably lead to 8-10 victories by aronian, 4-5 wins by Kramnik, 1-2 wins by Karjakin, Topalov and Anand each, and maybe one by either Svidler or Mamedyarov. This tournament shows Anand playing his best chess and the main contenders for first place out of form, so he will (most probably) deservedly win the event - and qualify for the match. But this doesn't make him a stronger player than he is in his mid-fourties, no matter what the live ratings say. In future super-tournaments he will struggle to score more than 50% again, as he mostly did for the last five years.

It is impossible to predict what will happen if this Tornament was repeated 20 times. The outcomes you predict assumes many things, based on previous stats, but statistics only tells us about the past, not the future. Try flipping a coin 20 times and see if you get 50% heads and tails. While statistics is used to predict the future, it is never 100% correct because there are too many uncontrolled variables...in this case motivation may be a big one for Anand. If statistics were so much of a great predictive tool we would not have as much losers in Vegas....I once witnessed a guy playing against Black on the Roulette Table...Black was played 27 times straight...he lost a lot a lot of money on those rolls.

Uhm, I think I did use the word "probably". Of course in sports there are too many uncontrollable variables to deduct anything that would come close to precise statistics. But our inability to control these variables doesn't mean that a probability distribution does not exist. In fact everything you say supports my argument. Yes, this roulette strategy of betting on the same colour every time and doubling the stake in case of a loss is quite a bad one, for exactly the reason that such a series can happen and the losses statistically outweigh the wins. Just as it would have been possible (even more likely) that Andrejkin wins the tournament. In an interview for NIC magazine before the candidates started, Aronian said:"To win such a tournament you need a little bit of luck." It's not just about being the best player, you also want to be in good form, and have your rivals blunder - preferably against you.

It's a tragedy for crying out loud (col) :D.

Unless there is a vast difference in ELO like Magnus has above others chesss ratings don't tell much IMO..

What  is  needed  in  USA  National  Basketball  Association  type  administration   where the  fan  favored   bigmarket    teams  were  given   referee  advantage...refs  told ,  "Make  it  happen ..it  is up  to  you!!"  But  then  free  lance  referees  decided  to  'make it happen'for  their   bet  upon  favorites..forcing  at  least some improvement..

Well, 3Kush, in the opinions of statisticians, ratings do tell quite a bit. They can indeed be used as predictive markers just as Rumo did. Ratings are statistical evaluations of how players have performed in the recent past and as such are useful in predicting how they will perform in the future. 

Statisticians have analysed past tournaments and past world championships to figure out the chances of the strongest player winning. Some of this analysis has been published in chessbase (you can search for these articles yourself there.) 

Rumo's basic point is right, though I think he may have made up the numbers for Aronian, Kramnik and others.

Of course statistics are used as a predictive tool...the biggest on-line betting provider "Bodog" even provides all the tools and statistics you need... they will go so far to tell you who the majority of punters are betting on...and still you will loose in the long run. Why? Because when it comes to human behaviour none of these models can stand up to the test. Human behaviour cannot be always accurately predicted. What do you think this same model was predicting before this Tornament? I would imagine Aronian and Kramnik at the top, with Anand in the bottom half. And after this Tornament, this same model will have to make adjustments..because it's original prediction was wrong.

Yes, I just made a guess. You can make a better prediction using the players' average ELOs during the last 12 months, and even a better one including factors like willingness to take risks and past indicators that the player showed good/bad nerves in games of crucial importance.

rdecredico, you clearly have seen a roulette table. On the European tables there are 37 possible outcomes, and on the American tables there are 38 possible outcomes. 

The prediction isn't wrong when it says 5-10% winning chance for Anand, and Anand wins.

FM Rumo75, as I indicated, the only tool we do have currently is statistics...but my point is, in predicting human behavioural outcomes, this tool is severely lacking.

FM Rumo75, you are correct, the prediction of 5% chance of Anand winning...still means that Anand has a chance of winning. But the difference between expected outcomes and actual outcomes, is what makes the model a poor tool for behavioural predictions.

Actually Aronian`s performance in previous World championship competitions (in 2007, 2011 & 2012) was always worse than others did expect. That`s the reason, why I`m not surprised by his failure in this tournament.

I guess his nerves will never allow him to become World Champion.

A lot of Anand-haters seem to be over-emphasizing his recent slump. This is a guy who has defended the World Championship several times. Won at Wijk an Zee five times. etc etc etc etc

Another point... after Kasparov became world champion, Karpov won the next 2 candidates tournaments. Was that somehow a disaster? 

Despite his recent slump, Anand has been one of the strongest players in the world for almost 20 years! It is neither surprising nor bad for chess if he wins this tournament. 

I'm REALLY tired of people who say or imply that a WC-loss to Carlsen somehow means Anand sucks.... 

I mean, I'd be just as happy if Aronian or Topalov or Kramnik win, but really... why all the Anand bashing?

Nobody can be of the same standard for all of their lives but I have to say that this performance  by Vishy Anand is remarkable considering where he must have been psychologically following his WCC loss. Anand is obviously a big match player and I think he will do much better in the Carlsen rematch.

rdecredico, If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that one's ELO rating can be used as a highly accurate predictor of chess results?

Yes, and I'll go so far as to say that it would be GREAT for chess if Anand wins candidates, then recaptures the WC title. It would almost create a new Karpov-Kasparov rivalry, and would get a ton of mainstream media coverage.  It's a much more exciting story than "boy genius retains title".