A 12 game match for a World Ch is frankly a disgrace. I suppose it all has to be about money and sponsors or the like but a proper World ch match should be much longer than that. Well 16 games at the very minimum.

I was not referring to the members here or to the poll when I remarked about the disrespect. I was referring to the obvious fan pages that have gone wild with dialogue along the lines of "worst challenger ever" "omg where is Carlsen" "How did Gelfand qualify?!" "Anand +10 or better" fanfare that we would never have seen on any other WC match ever. 

I believe Anand is a slight favorite here... I would not be surprised +2 in either direction. I voted +1 Anand But if someone (anyone) somehow insinuates that Gelfand is not a worthy or rightful challenger just because their favorite (xyz) is not the challenger than that is a huge sign of disrespect.

I believe at one point someone on this forum even raised the question if Gelfand could even be considered a "legitimate" world champion if he managed to beat Anand. Now that was an absurd question.

Edit: found it
http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1297106328/225
nimzo5 wrote on 05/25/11 at 16:15:35:

I voted for Anand to win by one. 

I predict we'll see quite a few Semi-Slavs when Anand is white. If I were Anand, I would look seriously at 5.e3 instead of 5.Bg5. Gelfand will almost certainly be ready for the Moscow and Anti-Moscow lines. Still, it'd be poetic to see a great novelty in the Moscow variation in this match.

I doubt we'll see Anand play 1.e4 unless he's ahead in the match because Gelfand will almost certainly play the Russian Defense.

When Gelfand is White, I expect to see mostly Catalans, with an occasional Grunfeld thrown in. Despite Gelfand's success in the Candidates, there's definitely room for improvement for Black. Gelfand has covered that up to some extent recently by playing 1.Nf3 and 2.c4. So there's at least a chance for a few Englishes.

I expect Anand to take a few minor risks in the openings, but otherwise play fairly conservatively for the first 6 games or so. He just seemed to be rusty this last year, and I am not convinced he's confident enough in his game going into this match.

Gelfand played some fantastic chess during the Candidates, especially against Kamsky and Grischuk. But since then, he too hasn't been playing stellar chess. At least in his case, it's fully understandable that he would suffer a bit of an emotional down time after the high of winning the most important tournament of his life. 

Having said all that, the 12 game match is just too short to determine the better player. Kramnik thought that adding just two more games would make a tremendous difference. I remember somebody did a statistical analysis and concluded that even an 18-24 game match wouldn't necessarily determine the better player if the two were very close. So maybe all this complaining about the length of the match is just my preference to preserve some sense of tradition.

My favourite is Anand, but I made a bet of 95 euro on Gelfand, because Gelfand is also pretty strong and has some chances to win =), the chance to almost quadruple the money I bid is definitely worth it to take the risk =).

Willempie wrote on 05/09/12 at 09:51:23:

For example, +11 for Anand would be quite disrespectful for Anand

It would be nice to see Gelfand do well. I enjoy his book of memorable games, his style is very diverse. Of course, so is Anand's.

6-6 from me, Anand on tiebreaks.

I've a sneaking idea Gelfand might win, as Karpov said recently the difference between the two is not as great as it once was and Gelfand will be highly motivated.

I hope that Anand wins but I voted for Gelfand +1 win.

It's not disrespect, especially for people who voted for +1 (disrespect may have been 3+!). It is just that Anand is the clear favourite.

But people should always be prepared for a potential upset, e.g. anyone remember Kasparov-Kramnik? or Anand's good start in Kasparov-Anand? 12 games is a very short match..