Where does Anand sit in the list of World Champions?

[Tristan Clayton]

I've always felt Anand to be a very worthy World Champion, and a fine ambassador for the game.

I miss the traditional longer matches and drama of previous cycles, and perhaps the current shorter format (and relatively lower profile) doesn't allow a champion to define his place in history as easily.

Still, his wins over Kramnik and Topalov were both impressive. The Gelfand match will, I doubt, do much for Anand's championship legacy, but hopefully we'll be in for an Anand-Carlsen treat at some point.

[LozCooper]

Loz,

I understand what you write, Anand has a very good record over the last decade. However, for myself, and, I imagine, for many others, Kasparov has only lent out his title; if he were to return to active play, unlikely as that might be at the moment, he would surely win back what is his?

If Kasparov is as good as many say and they may well be right, it seems very harsh to claim Anand's reputation is devalued because he had a poor record against Kasparov. Who knows what would happen if Kasparov were to return to professional chess? I certainly don't think it's automatic that it's his title to regain if he were to play Anand, Aronian or Carlsen and I do have a high opinion of Kasparov who undoubtedly dominated world chess for a number of years and was great to watch.

I also don't think any the less of say tennis players in other sports/games because they spent a large part of their career having to play Borg, Sampras or Federer.

[Paul McKeown]

If Kasparov is as good as many say and they may well be right, it seems very harsh to claim Anand's reputation is devalued because he had a poor record against Kasparov. Who knows what would happen if Kasparov were to return to professional chess? I certainly don't think it's automatic that it's his title to regain if he were to play Anand, Aronian or Carlsen and I do have a high opinion of Kasparov who undoubtedly dominated world chess for a number of years and was great to watch.

I also don't think any the less of say tennis players in other sports/games because they spent a large part of their career having to play Borg, Sampras or Federer.

Anand is the strongest player currently playing and has been for some years. That cannot be disputed. However, he doesn't dominate the world of chess in the way that Fischer did from 1968 - 1972, Karpov did from 1975 until 1985, nor Kasparov did from 1985 - 2005.

I wouldn't characterise my position as thinking less of Anand, than thinking more of Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov.

[LozCooper]

If Kasparov is as good as many say and they may well be right, it seems very harsh to claim Anand's reputation is devalued because he had a poor record against Kasparov. Who knows what would happen if Kasparov were to return to professional chess? I certainly don't think it's automatic that it's his title to regain if he were to play Anand, Aronian or Carlsen and I do have a high opinion of Kasparov who undoubtedly dominated world chess for a number of years and was great to watch.

I also don't think any the less of say tennis players in other sports/games because they spent a large part of their career having to play Borg, Sampras or Federer.

Anand is the strongest player currently playing and has been for some years. That cannot be disputed. However, he doesn't dominate the world of chess in the way that Fischer did from 1968 - 1972, Karpov did from 1975 until 1985, nor Kasparov did from 1985 - 2005.

I wouldn't characterise my position as thinking less of Anand, than thinking more of Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov.

It's diffcult to say if that's because Kasparov was a greater player which may well be true or that the competition is much more fierce now. Rating wise you could argue that players are stronger now but I realise others will say that ratings are inflated to prove otherwise. Personally I think Kasparov was fantastic and great for chess but equally I wouldn't want to see every player after him as merely not as good as Kasparov and judge them in their own right. I think it's unlikely we will see any long title reigns in the future due to the ever changing formats used for the world championship and the fact that the strongest players don't always compete in the championship eg Carlsen

[Thomas Rendle]

Anand is the strongest player currently playing and has been for some years. That cannot be disputed.

It can be disputed. I believe Carlsen is #1 in live rankings (as of yesterday) and has been as other times. For quite a while there has been little to choose between Anand & Carlsen, at least in tournament chess. Aronian has also threatening the number 1 spot on a number of occasions. What we need is an Anand vs Carlsen match, preferably before Anand is past it. If Anand beats Carlsen it will go a long way to securing him a legacy as a great World Champion.

Please don't take any of this negatively - I think Anand is a wonderful ambassador for our game!

[Paul McKeown]

I believe Carlsen is #1 in live rankings (as of yesterday) and has been as other times. For quite a while there has been little to choose between Anand & Carlsen, at least in tournament chess. Aronian has also threatening the number 1 spot on a number of occasions.

Regarding the strength of Anand relative to Carlsen, who has been number one for longer periods than the other (or anyone else since Kasparov resigned)? Of course, Carlsen will probably win out in the end, as Anand will get too old whilst Carlsen will continue to improve, but that is a different point.

What we need is an Anand vs Carlsen match, preferably before Anand is past it. If Anand beats Carlsen it will go a long way to securing him a legacy as a great World Champion.

Yes, Anand - Carlsen, is what everyone is looking forward to.

Please don't take any of this negatively

I don't, why should I?

[Thomas Rendle]

Please don't take any of this negatively

I don't, why should I?

No reason, but other people might (given past experience I thought I'd head it off)!

[Paul McKeown]

It's diffcult to say if that's because Kasparov was a greater player which may well be true or that the competition is much more fierce now. Rating wise you could argue that players are stronger now but I realise others will say that ratings are inflated to prove otherwise. Personally I think Kasparov was fantastic and great for chess but equally I wouldn't want to see every player after him as merely not as good as Kasparov and judge them in their own right. I think it's unlikely we will see any long title reigns in the future due to the ever changing formats used for the world championship and the fact that the strongest players don't always compete in the championship eg Carlsen

I think the question is not so much about how long Kasparov was champion or the value of ratings then compared to now. Kasparov dominated not only by holding the title of champion for a long period, but he simply thrashed everyone in sight in tournament after tournament with only a few exceptions. His rating was for extended periods way, way above those of his contemporaries. I suspect that for many people, the world championship became a rather less interesting institution when Kasparov retired.

Anand is primus just slightly above pares.

[LozCooper]

Isn't being world champion and being the strongest player totally different? The world championship is just one of many events and you have a situation where a player is world champion without winning any other events over a year or more.

[Paul McKeown]

Isn't being world champion and being the strongest player totally different? The world championship is just one of many events and you have a situation where a player is world champion without winning any other events over a year or more.

Of course, although the greatest champions, didn't just sit on their titles.

[LozCooper]

Isn't being world champion and being the strongest player totally different? The world championship is just one of many events and you have a situation where a player is world champion without winning any other events over a year or more.

Of course, although the greatest champions, didn't just sit on their titles.

That certainly doesn't happen nowadays as it's up to FIDE when and how the champion defends his title.

[Paul McKeown]

Sorry, Loz, I'm not sure what your point is?

Karpov and Kasparov defended their titles and ultimately lost them. Whilst they were active players at their best they won tournament after tournament, sometimes by enormous margins. Their ratings relative to their peers reflected this superiority.

[LozCooper]

Sorry, Loz, I'm not sure what your point is?

Karpov and Kasparov defended their titles and ultimately lost them. Whilst they were active players at their best they won tournament after tournament, sometimes by enormous margins. Their ratings relative to their peers reflected this superiority.

All I am trying to say is that from time to time opinions may exist which differ to yours but are not therefore automatically wrong. I was trying to offer the alternative point of view to yours to give a balanced argument but I fear I am fighting a losing battle.

What I was trying to offer as a reasoned point for discussion was that a champion who has been dominant may have been so because the competition at the time was weaker and that the healthy competition between Anand, Carlsen, Aronian etc who are all over 2800 could imply that it is tougher than ever at the top making it harder for anyone, even Kasparov, Karpov or Fischer to dominate now as they did in the past.

I don't expect you to agree with my suggested reason but all I am asking is you briefly pause for reflection before insisting you are right when it is a matter that is at least open to debate.

For what it's worth I would rate Karpov and Kasparov as greater than any of the current players but I'm equally aware of how competitive it is at the top and how hard it is for one player to dominate. Carlsen is probably the only player who could but even he will find it hard with the names I have mentioned as well as Ivanchuk, Kramnik etc

[matt_ward]

I think I would personally vote Anand stronger than Magnus Carlsen,, just purely based on his experience and he's faced all kind of oppositions.

Matt.

[Paul Cooksey]

What I was trying to offer as a reasoned point for discussion was that a champion who has been dominant may have been so because the competition at the time was weaker and that the healthy competition between Anand, Carlsen, Aronian etc who are all over 2800 could imply that it is tougher than ever at the top making it harder for anyone, even Kasparov, Karpov or Fischer to dominate now as they did in the past.

Actually, this is close to my reasoning for considering Botvinnik a great champion which I saw was controversial. Staying at the top for a long time in the age of great Soviet grandmasters, and influencing professional chess deeply, counts for a lot in my opinion.