why are carlsen chess perceived to be boring

i dont get it....

is it cause he plays all the good moves most the time (computer moves) that it looks boring 

while others, arn't able to have that blistering accuracy so it creates a perceived "creativity" when they dont play the perferred move

anybody?

I enjoyed the game where he moved his Queen to his back rank in the corner next to his castled King and then won the game.  

In tribute, I have won a 5 minute game against a 1200s player using the same move.  It is a thousand times a worse game than any Carlsen game, but even a poor player who misses a lot can enjoy using a style that has some similarities.  

My answer to your question is that people are not used to watching grandmaster chess carefully, and expect more fireworks.  It's easy to get wrong expectations since the games that are often written about are the ones where something dramatic happens, while the games that don't get written about so much are the majority of them where the dramatic finishes are avoided by the would-be victim.  People get to be very good at defense at the high levels, and keeping the position balanced. 

For people who really appreciate chess, the games weren't that boring I think.

In Anand-Gelfand there may have been more interesting decisions through the middlegames.

Carlsen very often makes moves that are really solid. Anand had no desire to make the game "interesting" if it meant weakness for his position. Carlsen played so well that there weren't many opportunities for the game to get interesting for Anand's side.  He really does have a formidible style.

Move a piece backwards once in a while, people!

Maybe I can figure out how to blog it.

good point

anyone else