Yeah we're veering off, and I think the thread will probably die soon.  Regardless of how good of an analogy a football coach giving a post-game interview is, I used it as an example of how to politely respond to difficult questions.  Anand could certainly have done better.  

Probably tennis is a better analogy; it's (usually) a 1 vs 1 sport, and the coaches are more trainers as in chess.  Football is a little different because the coaches are actually involved during the game, calling plays etc., whereas in chess the players can't communicate with anyone during play.  

In any event, perhaps the format was more to blame than anything else.  For one, the players were actually seated right beside each other in the press conference, and it might have been better to have them sit on opposite sides of the moderator, for instance.  Maybe the emotions wouldn't have been as high then, and perhaps it would have been better if the players had been given more time after the completion of the game before having to talk to the press.  On the other hand I can see that they don't want to sit around too long after the game is over.

A well-coached quarterback will often give the same sort of speech I paraphrased above after a loss, praise his opponent, praise his teammates, and take a large portion of the blame himself.  I'm just really surprised that someone of Anand's stature, who has been the World Champion for years now, could not have been briefed and prepared a little bit more on what to say in interviews.  No snippy sarcastic comments, praise and thank your fans, etc.  

Maybe it's a cultural thing too; I don't know.  But sadly, my opinion of Anand dropped a bit watching the interviews.   

Once he scored his first win, Carlsen appeared very confident in post-game interviews, and his body language may even have suggested some cockiness.  But his actual words were all very respectful and polite, he wasn't baited into answering the question about a new era, etc.  He seemed prepared to face the press while Anand did not.

For the record, the young woman in question is a WGM (which is of course comparable to FM).

Have you ever even *heard* of Sir Alex Ferguson, for example? Honestly?

IMJohnCox wrote on 11/25/13 at 10:18:20:

I played (american) football when I was younger. I trained some Division 2 athletes (football players, lacrosse, and even a pole vaulter) as a personal trainer, and talked to them about their experiences both in-season and off-season. That includes how wins and losses affect their psychology versus how their teammates, coaches (position and head) handled it. It is utterly asinine to believe a loss affects a coach worse than the players. Find me an olympic athlete who has a coach that takes their loss harder than the athlete does, team or individual sport. If you have ever coached anyone in ANYTHING you have competed in you would already understand this. I have coached a number of powerlifters through competition, something I compete in myself. I understand what it feels like to miss the third attempt in deadlift and fail to PR in the meet because I have lived it. When my lifter fails I do not experience anywhere near the frustration they do, and neither does any other coach. Knock off the nonsense, thanks.

...because bland trumps rude? Because the match is over, so there's nothing much to talk about?

The coach is much more stressed than the players, as he has ultimate responsibility, but very limited control, which is pretty much the definition of workplace stress. 

Back on topic, Anand sounded frayed and careworn through many a press conference, judging from his snippy responses. It's simply the case that if you're playing for the big bucks by virtue of being a part of the entertainment machine, you need to learn to deal with the press (and try to play some proper chess - no shambolic grandmaster draws, but that's a topic for another day). Some elite chessplayers seem to believe that their job is just to play chess, and hang the rest of it, and that the monetary rewards are merely just recompense for their brilliance, a view which seems somewhat misplaced and doesn't do themselves or their peers any favours. That high-minded road leads to Khanty-Mansysk, playing for peanuts.

BPaulsen wrote on 11/24/13 at 22:49:06:


In that case I'm afraid you're just massively ignorant. Do you know *anything* about football?