Magnus Carlsen is an embarrassment

True, but I don't think there was anything unsporting or dishonorable for either player here, and I wasn't a party to the event to begin with.

The guy is GREAT!.....Period!  Deal with it!

Magnus is great, but the system isn't.

Agreed,but it's certainly not his fault....Imagine how much time he's put into chess....He has my admiration.

Magnus is a great player who obviously knows what he is capable of.

Kasparov and Karpov had about 1/3 of decisive games in their matches - in fact the majority of the fourteen 24-game matches played between 1951 and 1990 had nearly 50% decisive games or more.

There's no doubt that twelve games is short at this level (that was Lasker's view back in 1910 when he played Schlechter), and that very fact encourages a certain caution from the start. It's not just a matter of players now being so much more well-prepared (I think Carlsen is perfect testament to the opposite, that you can avoid the well-trodden paths and live and thrive). But if a player is determined to avoid risk, it's very difficult to crack their defences (to quote former world championship candidate GM Henrique Mecking: 'The difficulty doesn't lie in achieving a draw. I can still do that against almost anyone. The difficulty lies in trying to win, because it inherently involves a certain amount of risk.'). Furthermore, you don't have that many games with each colour to probe openings, which makes preparation even easier, because it's quite simply too risky to hope to spring anything by way of an opening surprise on your opponent (like Fischer's Alekhine Defence against Spassky). You play it safe.

The reason Magnus Carlsen's draw offer in game 12 was an embarrassment and a travesty is two-fold. Since some of you have very poor reading comprehension skills,  I'm going to explain this to you all in big bold letters.

1. The first is for moral reasons. Carlsen accepted nearly a million dollars to play in this world chess championship. In return, all that was asked of him is that he play 12 games to the best of his abilities. He did not do that in game 12. Instead he couldn't handle the pressure and took the easy way out. Magnus' refusal to honor his side of the agreement, which he received nearly a million dollars for, is disgusting and unethical. It was fundamentally unfair to the sponsors and viewers who paid him for a service he refused to provide.

2. The second reason is more philosophical. When there is a championship for any sport we expect champions to exhibit a relentless passion for competition and an unrelenting desire to win. Magnus demonstrated neither of those traits with his pathetic draw offer. A true champion like Kasparov or Fischer would never have offered a draw in that position. They would have bled the position dry trying to win it. Like it or not though Magnus Carlsen is the world champion, and as such he is the face of chess. Chess needs and deserves a strong leader to represent it to the public, and Magnus with his lack of competitive drive and pathetic draw offers does not inspire anyone to be interested in chess. The chess community deserves a better champion than Carlsen. He is an embarrassment.

The chess community deserves a champion who strives to win at all costs, who is willing to handle nerves and risk, and to represent chess as best as possible. Magnus Carlsen is either incapable of or unwilling to do so. Chess enthusiasts deserve better than him. He is an embarrassment 

Magnus is not an embarrassment. What's more exciting then overtime in a sports event?

You are entitled to your stupid opinion. 

And so are you.

Magnus is great, the system isn’t.

Kasparov also offered draws in positions were he was better. If you're not at the top of your game, if you're not seeing the way to proceed, pushing for a win when all is on the line just to please fans is plain and simply foolish. Moral victories means nothing when the list of World Champions is written. I can't find Keres or Bronstein on your lists. Why? They didn't win. To be the man, you have to beat the man. The field was level, they both agreed, let's hope the format changes to make it so they don't have to go to tie-breaks. That said, Carlsen made a tactical decision and it was correct. Let's have the champion stands at draw back. Many of the WCs on the lists took advantage of that rule. Carlsen said Fabi had just as much right as him to be adressed as the worlds best classical chess player. That's something Kramnik or Kasparov would never have done.

1. Moral reasons don't matter.  He accepted the money to play for the world title.

2. Philosophical reasons don't matter.  A contest has rules and the aim is to win the world championship, not one game.  If the easiest way to do that is to draw and then win the rapid it's what you do.

Are the rules bad?  Maybe, but once they are there players play to them.  People trying to enforce their own ideas of morals and etiquette and all the other rubbish on others is pointless.  Change the rules if they are bad, but whatever they are players will play within them to win the title and not within someone else's imaginary rules.

Idiots! I was going for Fabiano but even I realize Magnus was smart! How is accepting a draw to play fast chess where you are clearly better a bad thing? Tiebreaks are part of the game, Magnus was fully within his rights to utilize them!

Fischer didn't even bother to defend his title, so he should be grave rolling over to a chessboard and give Karpov his match.

^

True. That would of been a great match too...

No blitz period in classical titles. I can see that argument as a valid one. 

Carlsen might of played very differently if he couldn't fall back on his blitz skills.

Caruana beat Carlsen 3-0 in the blitz tiebreaks and then he woke up.

What was he thinking taking that draw in the first place. He must of been overconfident in his prep. 

I whole-heartedly disagree with you.

1. Carlsen's task was to play the championship as a whole (including potential tiebreaks) to the best of his abilities. If he wants to preserve his energy for the tiebreaks (which he was bound to win), so be it. Besides, he didn't know how strong his position was. He played to prevent one result (loss) in one game because even a draw was enough to retain the title. Due to that mindset (and not having an engine to evaluate the position) he probably didn't even see how strong his position really was.

2. I think Magnus did show the qualities you want from him, just not how you wanted him to. He did whatever he could to win. However, the individual games do not have priority over the championship as a whole. Part of trying to win a tournament is picking your battles. Magnus made a decision that's controversial, but it made sense to him. He had every right to do what he did.

3. Since Magnus is so heavily favoured in rapid/blitz, the tiebreaks are similar to the champion retaining his title in case of an even score. Would you have blamed Magnus for his choice if this were the case?

4. I actually liked the result. It demonstrates two problem within the world championship format, namely the low number of games and the incentive to go to tiebreaks if you are superior in faster time controls. The players should not be blamed for an outcome that is stimulated by the tournament format.

ghg