Anand is now amongst the all time greats in number of times winning the World Championship.
Consider the table in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship

Only Botvinnik (with 5) and Lasker (with 6) have won more undisputed championships (and that is not counting the FIDE disputed title he had).

He has not been convincing as a champion at all- and even his defences with Topalov and Gelfand are rather close, however looking at the bare statistics of how many times he won or defended the title- he is getting close to the top all time.

That's a statement of opinion, not fact. I have no opinion on the matter at all, because I'm not sure what it means. Anand has convinced me that he's the champ. What more convincing is necessary?

In your opinion, how many champions are "convincing" (and what does that mean?)?

Well I meant after beating Kramnik in 2008, he has not won a tournament and his title defences in 2010 and 2012 were not convincing- he is sort of first amongst equals like Botvinnik was.

He has been reasonable in becoming world number 1 while champion though- which Kramnik didn't do. Also his Mexico 2007 win was good and his win over Kramnik, so I perhaps should have said in recent years, and maybe not "at all".

If tournament performance is what matters, and the point of a championship is to see if it matches tournament performances, why have a championship at all? Why not have a Grand Prix of tournament performance and call that player the champion?

If you mean he hasn't convinced you he's played as well as he possibly could since becoming champion, well, that happens to most of them. It's called Champion's Disease.

He has been like the first amongst equals like Botvinnik was- he hasn't convinced me of his superiority. Not just tournament play, but his last 2 world championship title defences have not convinced me that he is better than his opponent at classical chess. Topalov and Gelfand were both equal to him, Topalov lost the last game more due to thinking that he had no chance in tiebreak so that a draw=a loss.

Anyway what do you think of him approaching the top of the all time great list in winning/defending the undisputed title?

He is already above Karpov there! (equal to kasparov but the split)

If Carlsen had not chickened out, there is a chance that he would have been in Gelfands place as the challenger and eventual loser and then half the Chess world would be calling Anand the greatest of all.

But hey, Carlsen chickened out. Perhaps waiting for an older, weaker Anand over whom he can get a walkover. Only time will tell if Anand comes back stronger or weaker in the next cycle.

And he doesn't need to, to be champion. It's amazing how many people regard these championships as a scientific experiment rather than a sporting contest. If you win the Superbowl, you don't have to prove that you would have won it 100 times out of 100 under laboratory conditions. You only have to prove that you won it on the one real day that actually mattered. It's a game.

If you find his performance to be so poor that you're personally convinced he'll lose it next time, that's fine. See you in 2 years.

Well, just for that matter, nobody other than Kasparov and Ivanchuk has beaten him in a classical match either. Neither Karpov, nor Kamsky, nor Shirov, nor Kramnik, nor Topalov, nor Gelfand now. And I think in one of the earlier exhibition matches, he had roundly beaten Ivanchuk too.

Therefore, looks can be deceptive.

And don't forget the ten consecutive years of Mainz rapid matches (8 games each) that he played in and won against every known player of repute today, until he was dethroned by Aronian.

Head-to-head Anand is very difficult to beat.

It's all irrelevant. Anand won the title, Anand retained the title. Anand proved he deserved to be champion, and no one, Carlsen included, has succeeded in proving that he doesn't. Better luck next time.

This whole idea that he's not a "real" champion or a "convincing" one unless, in addition to winning the championship, he proves something special to me personally (or whoever) is a foolish conceit. I'll bet very few Patriots fans are convinced the Giants were really a better team. Who cares? Their consent isn't needed to award the Lombardi Trophy.

Just thought I would throw out Nakamura's tweet:

"I must be a very bad chess player since I keep liking Anand's positions and he keeps offering draws instead of trying to win."

Interesting and snarky as usual.