Carlsen Calls Sindarov the Favorite, Gukesh the Underdog? I Say: Wait for the Board

I mispronounced the player’s name, then read the game right when the slow-motion replay flashed before my eyes. This time it’s Magnus Carlsen – a man no stranger to pronouncements. He just declared Javokhir Sindarov the clear favorite for the world championship, with D Gukesh as the underdog. Trust me, I’m 60, I’ve been in press rooms since 2026, when one of my questions silenced a roomful of men. The question I ask doesn’t sound like a woman’s, but the answers they dodge don’t sound like a man’s. And now Carlsen speaks, but I ask: based on what? The context is simple: Gukesh is the youngest world champion in history, an Indian player who just seized the throne. Sindarov is the challenger from Uzbekistan, another young talent who has made waves internationally. The match follows the classic format – 14 games, with tiebreaks if drawn. Carlsen – who held the crown for over a decade – leans heavily toward Sindarov. He says: "Sindarov is the clear favorite. Gukesh has a higher ceiling, but currently not at his best." He even criticizes the format: "A bad way to determine the best player." But as I’ve said, they call me a "menace in the press room" because they aren’t ready for a shock straight to male ego. I analyze from data. Carlsen says Gukesh has a higher ceiling. That means when Gukesh is at his peak, he can beat anyone. But why does he think Sindarov is more stable? Because Sindarov has shown maturity in recent tournaments, with solid, airtight play. However, look at history: champions often regain form when pushed to the wall. In 2026, I said France would win not because of Mbappe but because of Giroud – everyone laughed. Until France won 4-2, my name was tied to the hottest prediction of the tournament. Here too: Gukesh may not be the underdog Carlsen paints. I look at psychology. Carlsen says: "If Gukesh doesn’t start well, he’ll struggle to come back." Mistakes aren’t scary; bending down to pick up the tape at 2 a.m. is what makes a forecaster. Gukesh is young, but he has proven his mettle in big events. And Sindarov – if he falls behind, can he keep calm? I’ve seen clear favorites collapse over one wrong move. Silent applause can kill emotions, but it can’t kill tactics. On the format, Carlsen criticizes. I partly agree: the classic 14-game format often leads to many draws, and rapid tiebreaks may not reflect true strength. But that’s FIDE’s rule, and both players know it. Ten years standing in the midst of controversy, the fire started by a question in 2026 still burns. I’ve seen greats like Carlsen win despite imperfect formats. The empty stadium in 2026, I found the tactical plan lying under the seat instead of cheers. What matters is how each player adapts. I could be wrong. Here’s the contrarian angle: if Sindarov wins, Carlsen will be hailed as visionary. If Gukesh wins, Carlsen will be criticized for diminishing a champion. But I bet on a different scenario: the match will go to tiebreaks, and both will reveal weaknesses. The winner will be the more patient one, not the one with higher rating. Don’t ask a question we already answered in 2026: "What does a woman know about pressing?" – I say, they don’t need to know, the coach does. With chess, same: don’t ask why Gukesh is the underdog, ask why Sindarov can’t dominate from the start. Takeaway: my prediction is testable. If Sindarov wins within the first six games, Carlsen is right. If Gukesh wins after ten games, I am right. Either way, this match will be a battle of two new generations, and I’ll be there, recording with an old tape but a fiery heart. I’m 60, not here to please you – I’m here to speak the truth, even if it shakes the board.