Carlsen wanted to draw some line in the sand by beating Gukesh in Norway Chess: Anand
Stavanger (Norway) (PTI): World no.1 Magnus Carlsen's fiery reaction after losing to D Gukesh in Norway Chess here was probably because he saw his authority in the game being challenged by someone so young, feels five-time world champion Viswanathan Anand, who also indicated that FIDE could discuss the incident "very soon".
Frustrated by the loss to Gukesh in Round 6 of Norway Chess, Carlsen slammed his fist on the table sending the pieces flying all over before shouting "Oh my God" and leaving the playing arena in a hurry, as millions of followers across the world watched the spectacle – some bewildered, some bemused.
Anand, who is known for his calm demeanour and gentlemanly style, said the 34-year-Norwegian desperately wanted to win against the Indian world champion and "draw some line in the sand".
"But it (beating Gukesh) mattered a lot to him. Even if all the other games he's kind of going through emotions (here)… But in this game (against Gukesh), I think something he wanted to establish. He wanted to draw some line in the sand and tell all these kids 'hang on a few years', whatever. But this meant a lot. I think a 2-0 (win against Gukesh) here, he would have been very, very happy,” Anand told PTI on the sidelines of Norway Chess on Wednesday.
The fact that he lost from a winning position perhaps exacerbated the frustration, opined Anand, who is international chess federation's (FIDE) deputy president and is here for broadcasting commitments as well.
"Against any opponent on earth, he would have hated losing such a good position. I mean to miss that the knight comes back. I felt exactly the same way when I blew my game against Magnus three years ago in 2022 in Norway," added Anand.
Anand averred that several factors could have been responsible for the meltdown.
"Certainly, the game meant a lot to him and he came close and he slipped, but it could also be fatigue. It could be this new time control (in Norway Chess). Here we have this thing where we have Classical chess and then we have a sudden-death Armageddon tie-break (after every game in the event of a draw)…" he said.
The chess legend added that he had seen "enough anger" on the table during his playing career to call it an aberration.
"Yes, (I've seen) enough anger. All this has been around for a while, people screaming and cursing. I think it was in Delhi (2000 World Championship), where after his game with (Estonia's) Jaan Ehlvest, (Vassily) Ivanchuk threw a chair across. So, the only difference is the camera, not the incident.
"And, the other thing I would say is that this (game between Gukesh and Carlsen) was very intense. I mean, maybe Magnus isn't that excited about classical chess, but he's certainly taken on Gukesh (in the format)," Anand said.
"Or if not Gukesh personally… the person who is now the world champion… showing that he (Carlsen) can fight youngsters. I mean, a lot of stuff (was) probably going on in his head, and it came out. So, those two games (against Gukesh), he took very, very intensely and seriously. And that's kind of partially what brought it (frustration) on."
Anand said such incidents are not so common but once in a while they do trickle in and are mostly precipitated by a player losing from a position of strength.
"I mean, it's not that common… Well, you kind of see fragments every day. There was somebody who could barely bear to look at (the chessboard), because he blundered, mostly angry with himself… you're so suicidal, briefly… that you spoiled something that you had done so well."
Anand hinted that the issue will be discussed by FIDE, when asked if soft warnings might be necessary in the future for such actions.
"Laws means definitions. It gets tricky. I guess it will come up (in FIDE discussions), I think. But, you know, on the other hand, if you take someone like (American GM) Hikaru (Nakamura), he says, 'let's have more of it' (Carlsen incident). It gets attention. So, we'll have to balance these things out.
"But certainly, I think it will be discussed very soon," added Anand.
Chess in the Olympics?
On whether he foresees chess being included in the Olympic programme sometime in the near future, Anand said FIDE was "trying hard" to liaise with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and he hoped it could be there in some form or the other.
"Yes, I very much hope so. I don't know if, at some point, the IOC decides various forms of engagement, either through esports or through the regular games and something. But we are trying very hard in that area," said Anand.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
