Here is the whole problem. I say past great players will refuse because they are afraid losing, you bring an argument for Anand's possible refusal due to some other reason, that is his refusal due to enhanced possibilities of foul play. Is it possible to keep all second's under surveillance for an unlimited match? If someone can pay for and/or guarantee that, Anand will definitely play unlimited match. Having said that, there is some randomness in rapid play, I don't deny that, but the chances it favors the greater player is so great that the real great player need not worry about it. After all, the rapids are only being used in tie breaks after you are given enough chances in classicals.

Times are changing. It is no longer 50 - 60 years averaging age is playing in top level chess and someone younger shows up in the scene to dominate. It is no longer a time when it takes only 15 minutes for young Anand to beat Russian GMs. Or we are not in times where 1 person has the luxury to have 10 seconds and another has hardly one and for the one with 10 seconds to dominate. Or it is not mostly one country plays chess, mostly from government funding, and their national champion is world champion. Competition is extremely stiff nowadays as can be seen from so called champions quitting at the age of 40 or so. Computers are levelling up the field and letting the best win. The new precision high games starting to make chess look like a new sport altogether that old generation chess masters and fans alike don't even understand what is going on in the board. I wonder when the fans of old masters stop trumpeting the kind of dominance I described before as result of weak competition and learn to appreciate the super precision high quality chess!

Dominance is not when one beat the other with 2 points margin, real dominance is when one makes the other (opponent) or others (people in general) think that the other cannot beat this one player. Anand has proved in all the world championships!

Anand is truly the chess champion of champions!

How can they refuse? Most are dead. If you're saying Anand has a conjectural advantage over past champions, that's okay. My point is just it's not likely that history or chess writers outside of India will draw the same conjecture. History shows that Kasparov dominated better than Anand did, was rated higher, won more title events, and beat him head to head. I don't see history deciding that Anand actually scored higher on the basis of a theoretical greater willingness to play Rapids. I do see you doing it, but that's not the issue. Especially since I remember you saying the exact same thing in 2005, before Anand had won the title at all.

But, this is easily settled. Find me a URL to a non-Indian writer who thinks that Anand's place in history is higher than Kasparov's. Or even Karpov's, for that matter. If you can find one, then there will be at least one.

kasparov retired when he realized that computers had neutrlized his soviet bag of tricks. wise man indeed. what with the legacy protection and all that. now he is a miserable old man who realizes that a lot of people will look at his reign as the champion during the 90's questionably.

anyway anand had this to say about kaspy today.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sport...ow/13779095.cms

Absolutely.

But still he is misleading people. Like for instance the Times of India reporter is made to believe it was Anand who sought Kasparov help whereas in reality it was Kasparov who went to help Anand (or to steal some preparation??!!) to be on the limelight.

I don't read that many chess URLs to know what they say about Kasparov. Why don't you produce some links here? Here is what one guys posted in chessvibes recently about Elo objectivity how your "non-Indian" writer URLs mislead people. Elo objectivity debunked

*****

Let me ask you a simple question. Take 2 greats. One has won the world championship but the other hasn't. But compared to the first one who has won the title, the other has won more title events. Who in your opinion is the better between the two - the one with the title or the one with the more number of events won?

@George and PircAlert:

Please do not let your negative feelings about Garry Kasparov affect your responses concerning the "Anand-Kasparov chess playing strength debate" here.

In my opinion, both of you, George AND PircAlert, **truly know deep down in your heart of hearts** that Garry Kasparov was a better and a stronger chess player than Viswanathan Anand EVER will be!

Although you might NEVER admit to it here on this Message Board; I think that BOTH of you, (George and PircAlert), DO know that Garry Kasparov DOES rank ABOVE Viswanathan Anand on the all-time list of the very best and the very strongest top-level chess players who have ever lived!



Chess Fan

Chess Fan, please do not pretend you are sincere in what you say about Kasparov here. Tell us how Kasparov is better than Anand. I don't mean to be rude here, I consider myself better than IK in chess. I don't know what IK thinks personally here. But if you take individual scores, IK has 2 nothing lead over me in TONC. Who is better between the 2 of us in your opinion? You just recently posted "nation under surveillance" article in the religion thread. How then Anand was kept out of the radar when he played in NY for the world championship? Who does phone tapping and internet tapping? Yet you take the one event run under non-official supervision and use that to compare between Anand and Kasparov?? Come on! Kasparov managed to scrape through against Karpov. Kasparov was winless and Kramnik thoroughly dominated Kasparov. Kasparov dominance is only over Nigel Short and I don't know where Nigel would stand in all time list. Whereas Anand has won the world championship alone in three different Knock-out, Tournament and Match formats. Anand has won against Shirov, Topalov, Kramnik and Gelfand in WChs. If Kasparov's floor in simul is 2000, Anand floor is 2200! Nothing stage managed in Anand's case. Of course we will have to consider super tournament victories because people have won it and it shows their performance. But you cannot give as much weightage as it can be given for a title win due to the nature of such events. If you sincerely believe Kasparov is greater than Anand, please bring your points in favor of him for us to see.

Btw, I have nothing against Kasparov except that he is allowing himself to be moved like a pawn.

Do you not know a day or two ago Gelfand pressed panic button when the unattended trolley with his computers and discs are taken away by security in the airport?