You didn't answer the question. Who would win if the Hulk fought Batman?

Anyway, the fact remains that you haven't come across with any of those facts you promised to counter chessmetrics view that Anand belongs around the middle of the pack of world champions. A little higher than Kramnik, a little lower than Karpov. Chessmetrics seems to have it about right. And Anand did far worse than you predicted in this match. You were even hoping that he might finish it off in the first 7 games, if you recall.

This is news to me, by the way that you consider Kramnik better than Kasparov. In 2005, you considered him so weak that his title could be safely stripped from him and San Luis could be considered a world championship tournament even without the defending champion present. Now you think that three years later, he was better than Kasparov. Somewhere along the line, you had a major epiphany and didn't tell us.

Here's something from another site: capsule descriptions of the match as they might have been told by various people. Some of them you won't know, but most you will:

The defending Fide champion was present. It was Kasimdzhanov.

I may have missed it, can you post the link to chessmetrics view? Do you sincerely think chessmetrics will put Anand on top? Come on! Also, is it a debate tactic that you keep telling that someone said something, with no proof or whatsoever, even after that someone denied about what you were telling?

Why would I say when someone is weak his title be stripped? I could have said his title is not legitimate. I only remember telling something like for someone to be considered a real champion when a title is under dispute if he could stay on top of the rating list. along this lines. We cannot make that as a rule though. Because then you will split the title and buy rating to go top.

OK let me ask you this. It is not too long ago, the chess world considered Carlsen and Aronian the best and that the best players are not playing the title match. Moro seems to be the best now!!!! ;);) And now you are willing to take the same chess world's opinion for Kasparov as the greatest? Should it matter even if I bring facts, cause you are giving me an impression from the arguments we had lately that what matters most is world opinion and not facts??

As I recall, you said that too. The problem was that so many people didn't agree with it. That was when you popped out the argument that even if Kramnik had been champion, he was so weak that he could be considered to have lost it. At the time you wanted San Luis to be a true undisputed world championship because you thought Anand was going to win it. You must remember this. It went back and forth for well over a year, and didn't really end until Kramnik unified the title.


I think the chess world still thinks that they would have been tougher challengers. As for their being "the best", I don't know. Officially the World Champion is "the best player" and the rating list only tracks recent achievement.


Not to me, although there's no denying he's played 5 good rounds in a tournament. But he hasn't even won this one tournament yet. Anybody who's pronouncing him the best based on half a tournament needs to take a chill pill.

Sorry, are you saying that Moro seems to be better than Anand now? I don't think he's proven that.



Not just me, the chess world as a whole. But the difference shold be obvious. Morozevich has looked great for 5 games. Kasparov looked great for 25 years. Moro has never been world champion, Kasparov was world champion for 15 years. Moro has never been World #1... well, you get the idea.


When discussiing opinion, then yes. What matters is opinion. That's what this whole discussion is about. The fact that the world seems to place Anand somewhere in the middle of the pack of world champions, while you think he belongs on the very top of the heap. It's all opinion, on both sides. But you said you had facts that would change other people's opinion to match yours. I'm starting to doubt that.

And you are all wrong....Ljubomir Ljubojevic was the best chess player ever!!

But he wasn't world champion. This conversation is about ranking the 15 world champions in some kind of order of greatness. (I'm not sure if it's necessary to do that at all, but that's another question).

Chessmetrics says Ljubo peaked at World #5 in 1983.

Actually he was #3 per FIDE Elo ratings..but I think that was actually tied for 2nd.

Chessmetrics isn't any better than Elo. Both systems are flawed. They just manipulate statistics differently.

And, yes, I know what the topic is and that Ljubo was never WC. But he was better than all the World Champions!

Oh, and when Fabiano becomes World Champion, he will be the best one of all.