why do chess players root for carlsen or anand?

I have never understood why most people feel a compulsive need to take sides in a chess match or any other sporting event. Right now there is a tiresome thread going on about whether Anand is past his prime and has any chance to beat Carlsen. Why take sides? I estimate Carlsen's chances as much better, but I have no preference. I will cheer for them both. I hope they both play at their very best and give us outstanding chess.

i agree

Human nature loves to win, even if it's vicariously through local sports teams. Personally, I hated the high school pep rally scene.

Because I have a crush on Magnus Carlsen

Carsen made me interested in chess, not hard to get a favorit :)

most people love to win, however i know people who don't care, i have never felt that feeling before.....

Ah well. I personally liked judit polgar. Not just for being cute but for her wonderful aggresive chess. That lady could attack!!

Superqueen500 wrote:

Because I have a crush on Magnus Carlsen

I'm an Ivanchuk fan... partly because he's so insanely frustrating to root for.

This is the guy that defeated both Carlsen and Kramnik in last year's Candidates, but also lost five games by overstepping his time limit and finished near the bottom.

On a good day, Chucky is the best player on Earth. On a bad day, he's the best player on Planet Ivanchuk.

They are called "fanatics".  In sporting events, it often has to do with location.  For example, I was born and lived the first 13 1/2 years of my life in New Jersey, about 30 miles southwest of New York City.  I have been a fan of the Mets and Giants all my life!

When it comes to chess players, it could have to do with nationality (I doubt you'd see many Norwegians rooting for Anand in the world championship match), or playing style.  For example, an amateur that plays the French Defense would rather have seen Nigel Short win in 1993, whereas a Najdorf player may have gone for Kasparov.

My rule of thumb is - If I'm a fanatic of one of the players or teams, I hope they pound their opponent into the ground.  Nothing like seeing the New York Giants beat down the Washington Deadskins, Dallas Cowgirls, or Filthadelphia Eagles by 50 points!  If it involves a player or team I really hate and can't stand (see the 3 teams listed above), then obviously I go for the opponent.  If it's between teams I don't care one way or the other about, like when Seattle played Denver in the Superbowl last year, while I might go for whichever team is in the NFC (in this case, Seattle, and I do tend to favor the NFC over the AFC unless one of the 3 thug teams listed above is in there, then I must go against them), the main thing I'd want to see is a close battle and a game worth watching!

I agree that ivanchuck is quite a piece of work. His best attacking games are a joy to behold!!

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1406152

Beautiful. What a player!

blueemu wrote:

patzermike wrote:

I agree that ivanchuck is quite a piece of work. His best attacking games are a joy to behold!!

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1406152

Because those are the two players facing each other in the next WCC match.

Hadn't you heard?

No. Last I heard Capa and alekhine are going at it again.

varelse1 wrote:

Because those are the two players facing each other in the next WCC match.

Hadn't you heard?

Maybe this time, everyone from India should cheer Carlsen on!

Carlsen ftw!!

I thought Alekhine was still drunk?

Even his name sounds a bit like ilikewine.

A witty master once said: when I play Alekhine I never know what he will do next. When I play Capablanca I always know what he will do next, but there is nothing I can do about it.

Warning: Sarcasm to follow,

I completely understand. I don't know why people take sides in anything really.  I try my best to apply this to everything I do as well.  Even when I play chess I don't take sides. Sometimes I move the pieces assigned to me, sometimes I move my opponnents pieces which really seems to upset them.  I guess they just don't understand all these old fashioned ideas of taking sides or having a preference.  I maintain that I am super enlightened and have no need for preferences or choice or anything that involves making decisions in either direction.  I simply exist and this whole notion of competition is really an archaic practice holding humanity as a whole back.  Why would I would root for my home town in anything when there are other people who have home towns as well that are just as home and town to them?  It would seem that taking pride in anything that has to do with my local area, which I may or may not have contributed to, is just silly a form of low thought.  And I certainly couldn't relate to someone from somewhere else, say Norway.  Everything they do over there is so foreign that there is no way I could have anything in common with them to form an opinion on whether or not I prefer them to succeed in anything.  Ultimately, I hope Anand and Carlsen just move some pieces on the board to strengthen their arm extending reflexes. Life is all about personal improvement, so as long as they can each get their coordination down through piece moving exercices without winning or causing discomfort to anyone else, then I say we should have a very good world championship match!