You are quite right, PircAlert!

Indeed, on the "list-ladder" of the all-time *best* and *strongest* top-level chess players, Garry Kasparov IS in "no way equal" to Viswanathan Anand...because, Kasparov is a distinct rung ABOVE Anand on the ladder of the all-time BEST chess players ever!


Chess Fan

Some people might consider the facts I consider mostly unknown are irrelevant even though those facts are very relevant. But let us keep them aside and discuss with whatever we have at hand known as facts. Note that when I mentioned fact, I also mentioned truth. Truth is what I meant by what the facts mean. But you clearly described what the expectations are or what is fair in terms of expectations.

Generally match is a good measure of comparison between 2 players. But it cannot be solely relied upon and we will try to see when it can be a good indicator of strength between a 2 and when it can not be.

Let us assume a chess player has a span of 20 years playing at top level from age 20 to 40. Take 2 players X and Y who are 10 years apart. When X is 20 years of age, Y is 30. There is a match between them at this age and Y wins. Y has shown Y is better at that point. But X and Y have another 10 years in common to compare the two. So this match happen at when X is 20 and Y is 30 is a good indicator of strength between the two provided such match happens throughout their normal playing years in common. That is, a match happens (not necessarily between the two but in a system where both can participate to play a match against each other) every 2 years until X becomes 30 and Y becomes 40. If it does not happen that way, the one match itself is not a good indication of who is better!

It is like when it requires 5 month of data to predict sales of the sixth month, all you have is 1 month data. And if that 1 month data happened to be from a festive season, no sensible store keeper would simply use that data to procure goods for his store for the following month. But still a supplier with a short term vision could try to convince the store keeper to buy things on that statistics basis but definitely would lose his customer in the long run!

So it is not like "tell me if you will take a match for comparison or not". The answer is not 1 or 0. Statistics are good. But when efforts are made in a way to fudge things, statistics becomes just useless! People who does such things think that they are smart but time tells they were just stupid!

Thank you Chess Fan!

Please read the second part of Gelfand interview linked here especially about the Kasparov's offer of help and please tell us what you think.

I'm trying to imagine Anand going up against Karpov during Karpov's peak years, and playing 5 different matches with him, and going +3 =1 -1 against Karpov in matches. This possibility isn't even entering my head for some reason. I am, however, remembering Anand losing a match to Karpov in 1998, +2 -4 =2. Now find anybody - ANYBODY - who thinks Kasparov wouldn't have destroyed Karpov in a match in 1998, when Karpov was clearly well past his prime.

I'll be the first to point out that some players have the hex on others, even others who may be stronger than them (ie. Shirov over Kramnik, while I think it's clear to anybody that Kramnik is stronger than Shirov overall). But for goodness sake, I can't conceive of any serious chessplayer of any level (even relatively weak players such as myself) claiming that Anand is better than Kasparov at his best. Nobody, anywhere, could possibly say this and be serious. I just knew, with certainty, that you were joking earlier. Either you're really getting one over on me by pushing the joke very far... or... well, I don't want to insult your intelligence by entertaining the alternative.

This was a very roundabout answer which I didn't completely follow, but as near as I can tell, you're agreeing with me that it's not a disagreement about what the facts are so much as disagreement about how to apply them. But you still haven't told us exactly what those facts are.

But if you got Chess Fan to abandon Kasparov, you must be doing something right.

Shirov has done a lot better than he "should" have, but Kramnik does have a winning record against him (+15-11=27 in classical games, and even a slight advantage in non-classical).


Well, if you'll read Pirc's post carefully, he's not saying that anyone else will agree with him on this. In fact, he says he doesn't know what they're saying. This is what HE thinks. And that other people would agree with it if they properly considered certain facts that he keeps resisting telling us.

I did see two posters in Anand's forum on another site post their rankings of all the world champions right after the recent match concluded. I don't completely agree with either one of these, but both are more or less reasonable:





Both have the same Top 5. Their biggest disagreement was about Steinitz. I think one was judging him by his achievements and the other by his quality of play. I don't think I'd put Anand ahead of Botvinnik yet, but would put him ahead of Kramnik, on the basis of their match.

For comparison, here's Chernev's "Golden Dozen", which is from 1975, and so leaves out the last 4 world champions. The biggest difference in his list and these two is that he puts both Alekhine and Lasker ahead of Fischer, which is probably justified just because each one gave the world so much time to adapt to their styles after they hit their peak, and the world couldn't do it. Botvinnik I would put lower than Fischer just because the world DID adapt to his style, and made him only a first among equals champion. Anand is the same kind of champion, only not as first and not as long, which is why I'd still rank him lower than Botvinnik. He'd probably agree.

OK, point 1. When people are not properly informed, their opinion or judegement does not count much. Point 2. So first make them understand in the way they should, then we can use their opinion. 3. Discuss and debate what is that they should understand.

But it will be challenge to make some sceptics like Josh understand. Say when 1 person who has just finished (or won) 400 meters is forced to compete in a 100 meter race. And that one person has again managed to tie for first but he lost out by microseconds revealed by video replay. Who is greater between the two? Either we can't conclude from this one instance. Or there is only a good indication for the person who tied but lost out by microseconds to be the greater as he started off with a disadvantageous position. If you don't supply evidences prior or if don't give enough time for someone to represent, even a court considers it a mistrial. Why? Why should the chess people's court consideration be different? OK Petro, this part is really for Josh anyway.

Btw, petro, those lists are useless unless the list preparers provide concrete details to support their claim. It is quite obvious people are trying all sorts of tricks to dethrone Anand. This seems like one other trick to make the perception of Anand as the greatest ever to take a hit.

Yes, but you have no idea if they were or not, since I didn't tell you their names, or any reasoning that their lists were based on. I'd like to see your list, but only if you also show these numbers that you admit are essential for the list to have any credibility.


Site Note: I don't know if you've noticed this, but you've spent a lot more time praising the act of arguing with facts than actually doing it.


Neither list dethrones Anand. Both list him as one of the 15 World Champions. Neither lists him as #1, but it's hardly possible to dethrone him from that spot, since you admitted that you were the only one who put him there in the first place. Neither of these guys is denying that you like Anand best. In fact, they've probably never heard of you.

Still, I like the idea of a list with numbers behind it, so chessmetrics seems like the first place to go there. For that, we're going to have to differentiate duration of peak performance.











So far we're seeing a remarkable consistency. Anand comes in 8th place on every list, ahead of Kramnik, and behind Karpov. Kasparov finishes first on every list except the 1-year high, in which Fischer edges him out by 2 rating points (which he got either from Taimanov blowing that draw or Larsen eschewing that perpetual check, take your choice).

Let's keep going.



Anand's longevity is starting to pay off now. It's brought him from 8th to 7th. And Karpov has shot up to 3rd, so we're finally starting to see his strength.



And now Karpov has shot up to #2. His longevity was one of his greatest strengths. Fischer is still fading, and not surprisingly. 15 years is the length of his entire career.

But in Anand's case, it doesn't seem to matter which numbers we use. Short term medium term, or long term, he seems to belong in about the middle of the pack. And Fisher belongs right behind Kasparov, except for that one glorious moment when he shut out Taimanov and Larsen.

First, it is tough to judge a career before it is over. Chances are we will have a better perspective on Anand once he has retired and a few years have passed by.

There is also a tendency for the great champions to be defined by great matches and great opponents. The drama and visibility of the big fight creates the aura of the next champion. Kasparov had Karpov, Fisher had Spasky and the cold war, Alekhine had Capablanca, Tal had Botvinik.

Anand just has not had this great fight where the drama, tension and quality of opposition takes him to another level. It's a bit like the Klitchko brothers - they keep beating up on people and dominating but no-one puts them in the same category as Tyson, Ali or Frasier becuase they never had their "Rumble in the jungle" or their "Thrilla' in Manilla."

Anand has to find a better opponent and a fight with a story to it in order to rise to another level of fan popularity.

Of course, Pirc, you are going to say - "I don;t care about fan popularity. He is the true, objective, scientifically proven World Champion of all times." To which the only logical answer is - "Who do you think will win if The Hulk fought Batman?"

Quasi, how soon can you forget Anand's thorough win over Kramnik that even made Kramnik admit Anand was better than him. Kramnik was none other than the one who completely dominated the so called greatest Kasparov in a 16 game match where Kasparov was winless! A 41 year old Karpov was clueless against Nigel Short in their 1992. I wonder where these people would stand in today's competition. Top 100, 200?? The fact that you cannot pick out just one person as your competition is that the competition is stiff rather than the competition weak. I think Anand has created the aura and spoiled the chess world with his title fights over Kramnik and Topalov. Today people expects all 12 games in a championships be fought over unlike olden Kasparov or Karpov days where when you seconds preparation is no good over your opponent's seconds, you go home, come back and try again. It is also becoming difficult for old players and fans to follow today's championship games due to high level of accuracy. Therefore they are unable to appreciate. Also today to win over your opponent it would require you to build upon move after move from the infinitesimal advantage you might get, nothing would be given in a platter. Check out the quality of games then and now to see what I am saying!