Magnus Carlsen is an embarrassment

Haha! Every top chess engine could beat him easily. And it will become easier all the time.

Pretty simple solution:

12 game classical match - first to 6.5 wins

If players tie at 6, classical matches continue until a player amasses a clear 2-point lead in classical format

Chess has a long and interesting history. The World Champion title was not invented yesterday and has always been a title to be won by the Challenger. Traditionally a drawn match left the Challenger to crawl away and lick his wounds and allow another young upstart to make his challenge. Time is always on the side of the Challenger, since the Champion is getting older all the time. 

Yes, good thing, WC is getting older! Dead is even better!

That seems to be what all these comments are all about. Computers. I'll bet almost no one is going to argue that the challenger is not as good as the champion. I think everyones concern stems from how the games were played, very computer like. It seems both sides just memorized as many computer moves as possible. The one that memorized the least had the small disadvantage which all ended in draws. 

It seems to me that game 12 is where things really changed. That's where it went from "lets get rid of this copy computer moves tournament and get on to the human vs. human tournament". 

The main problem is that on some positions White has a big advantage in FischerRandom. I guess you could remove some of the worst positions though.

And I believe the answer to your question is: Magnus

Fair point!

You guaranted it...... 3 - 0 Carlesn with the crown 

Well, Maggie has guaranteed himself another two years of hot endorsements, willing chess babes, and the gravitas and dignity that attend a FIDE chess title.  Raise your hand if you are eagerly waiting his Book of the Match, where he goes into explicit detail on each one of those twelve totally awesome and high-level draws. I know *I* will be curling up with it, nestled by the fire with a glass of sherry. 

Is he an embarrassment? Well, yeah, but the Magster has always been a bit of a wince.  He's not exactly the guy who is swinging on the chandeliers at your local Swiss system beano.  Kramnik - now there was a partier.  I admit it, I didn't think it would happen, but I miss the crazy Russians owning the title.

I have decided to list the World champions in order of greatness.

1. Fischer- the most dominant player of all time

2. Kasparov- Dominant, inspiring, and decorated

3. Lasker- 30 year reign or something crazy

4. Karpov- Almost as good as Kasparov but not quite.

5. Tal- beautiful chess

6. Capablanca- Boring but solid

7 Steinitz- revolutionized the game

8. Kramnik- dethroned Kasparov

9. Spassky

10. Alekhine- he once had quadrupled pawns. This has been my goal since

11. Botvinnik- Who?

12. Anand

13. Euwe- no idea who this guy is

14. Smyslov

15. Petrosian- greatest defender of all time

16. Magnus Carlsen- the most undeserved world chess champio of all time 

I didn’t claim that Fabiano deserves to be champion

Fischer was clearly #1 in the world for about 3 years (1970-1972). I don't think that qualifies him as being "the most dominant of all time".

Capablanca is boring? I guess you haven't bothered looking over any of his games.

Botvinnik is a nobody? So people like Kasparov, Karpov, Kramnik, etc. are all wrong when they call him the father of Soviet chess?

Anand beat Kramnik who beat Kasparov. I'm not suggesting that he's better than Kasparov but this achievement deserves a mention. Sure he later lost to Carlsen twice, but so far nobody has been able to beat Carlsen so I suppose he isn't a terrible player after all.

Euwe might not have had an impressive chess career but he was FIDE president for a while (he was actually in charge of FIDE during the Fischer-Spassky 1972 match).

I had never heard of Botvinnik or Euwe until I looked up the world champion list ten minutes ago.

I dont think too many people are complaining that he offered a draw in game 12. I think it's more of an observation. The complaint, it seems, is about the format that motivated the game 12 draw. I think in a way it was good, for the same reason other people think it might be bad. The point of the draw was to hasten the end of the regular tournament and move on to the faster time control part.

I think that was good because it made it more interesting. Others think it was bad because it intentionally put more emphasis on a few fast time control games and less emphasis on 12 long time control games. It's a fair point that both players are good enough to basically force a draw out of the other person. Which literally makes the world chess championship a fast time control tournament.

Of course the two players can do whatever they want, but they might both be missing the bigger picture. They, and all professional chess players who play in tournaments, make their money from sponsors and viewers. 12 draws in a row isn't going to get more sponsors and viewers, it will get less. If copying computer moves for half the game is the future of professional chess, professional chess will end up like the world rock, paper, scissors championship.

I don't get it.He played by all the rules and won! I won a tennis tournament on a "drop shot".I got ridiculed by fellow players for the wimpy last point,but the trophy is behind me,as I keyboard this.