I do remember one time when he was the highest rated player who had never played in the Candidates. Not sure when that was.

"OK, under Garry's system I couldn't qualify but he was picking up the challengers"

Somebody please take Mr Kimovich to the doc to get his bleeding ass bandaged. Knocked out.

There's little doubt that Anand is not yet there with Kasparov, Fisher and Alekhine. Just not enough drama, opposition, domination, etc. Somewhat lack of signature games too. Good guy though - he's like the Winky Wright of chess - good boxer, great technician, just not enough story to him.

Actually Mr Kasparov has already hinted on an improvement in his system to "pick both champion and challenger" for the title fight! Hence the statement "best players (Carlsen and Aronian???) are not playing in this (Anand-Gelfand) title match". A chorus joined his prelude. His aiming to run FIDE president is to implement his new system and to strip Anand of his title. Because the numbers that consider Kasparov the best are shrinking slowly but steadily and Mr Kasparov has much to be worried.

Here is Part I of post match chessvibes interview with Anand where he talks in detail about the match.

Of course Kramnik was weak compared to Anand. But saying me of telling "Kramnik could be considered to have lost the title" and "Kramnik should be stripped of his title" be the same?? I think it is misleading a lot when you rephrase it. I still stand by what my earlier position that Kramnik's title was not legitimate due to reasons of hand-picking. If hand-picking is legitimate, will you consider say Anand hand-picking Sasikiran for a title match a legitimate one? Do we have to organize such a mock championship to straighten the thinking of chess world? Please tell.



According to Kasparov statement, Anand was not best either. He was fancying a match between someone other than these two, possibly between Carlsen and Aronian.

Nice try! But I followed it up with double winks. Therefore I don't consider Moro best either! The point to be noted is, efforts going on to downplay champion title by promoting some rating favorites.

Smart answer! "Looked great" for 25 years. Bubble also looks great until it bursts!

OK but you will find new facts in the process of discussing and hence opinion can change.

Here is what the world do not know or probably would not want to know. From Anand's interview.



And the world consider Kasparov the greatest?? In terms of quality his play is so inferior and no way comparable to Anand's play!

Yes, I would. If Anand played and lost such a match, it would be ridiculous to say that he was still champion because he shouldn't have played in the first place (it's too late to think of that).

But maybe you're right, I may be misremembering that part. I think it was someone else (like Kasparov and Danailov) who thought that Kramnik should be considered to have had the title and then lost it due to general weakness. Now that you say it again, I think that you did in fact take the position that he never had it at all, because of hand picking. It still seems silly to me (pretty much every championship match before 1951 was the result of hand picking), but I do now remember having this discussion before.



Kasparov says whatever he wants at the moment, with no regard for what he's said before. He also said that he was the 13th champion and nobody could become the 14th without beating him. That's still true (but change 13 to 15).

That's still why I have absolutely no interest in a tournament championship, except maybe as a very occasional necessity. If you're going to take away the requirement to beat "The Man", there's no point even having a championship title. I'd rather just say that the World #1 is World Champion than have a tournament championship. The only reason they get away with tournament national championships is because everybody knows that a national champion isn't THE best in the first place.

Right, and I don't like a tournament for the challengership. It appears that even Carlsen and Aronian may not make it in Tal memorial. Take top 4 from the tournament or from Grand prix standings, 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3 for six games, winners against each other 6 games, play the champion 12 games. A good viable solution, wonder why not implemented or players are not for it.

I probably wouldn't. But I understand you want to be consistent.

We can nitpick anybody but context and what he wanted convey all matters to judge someone. Generally Kasparov bluntly tell what he feels. But of late he is making some statements for political mileage. It is those type of statements is what I don't concur.

Anand:"But I did think Garry would offer his help. Not to get into details, but I think it's not a big secret that Garry and me are not the best friends anymore."

This looks interesting to me! It seems to me like an attempt was made from Kasparov's team to have some arrangement to work with Anand before it went to Gelfand??? And Gelfand annoyed by it was not him who was approached first and rejected the offere??? Who can throw light on this? (Because Kasparov is in politics, and I don't see a valid reason for him to go and help Gelfand against Anand! People might see some obvious reasons like stopping Anand's reign but if you go a level deep it only looks that there is no reason Kasparov should approach a non-favorite against a overhelming favorite to unnecessarily antagonize Anand fans.)

Now people might think Kasparov is unethical. He has some good heart. So I would say Kasparov should just leave politics and play chess or do some useful chess activity.

Hey PircAlert, the *only* probable reason that the number of people who think that Garry Kasparov was the best chess player of all time is shrinking at all is because they are slowly dying off!

And, Garry Kasparov probably has nothing at all to be worried about concerning his chess playing legacy.

Indeed, Kasparov's place in chess history seems to be quite secure!


"WHAT?!"

PircAlert, you ARE joking, right?



Chess Fan

Interesting topic. I understand why people think Anand is better now because Kasparov is so far in the rear view mirror.

Let's say a really wealthy person (harkening back to James Slater in Fischer vs. Spassky in 1972) said: "I am offering 2.5 million dollars for a 12 or 14 game match between Anand and Kasparov. Sofia rules. 1.5 million for the winner. 1 million for the loser."

Questions:

1. Who would answer first?
2. How would each player answer?
3. Would it be the chess equivalent of Pacquiao vs. Mayweather?
4. Would that match be good for chess?
5. Is there a better match out there right that would more interesting?

I don't even want to ask who would win because it is irrelevant unless the event actually takes place. I think the 4th question is almost the most important. Even if this were a non-sanctioned non-title exhibition match, would it be good for chess? I would see Anand having the most to lose from the match, but I'll bet at this point he would love to cross swords with Kasparov.

I would love to see this match. I wonder if there is someone willing to put up the coin, and in the same breath, who would blink first? Would Anand accept? Would Kasparov? I am of course assuming a venue acceptable to both parties could be found. Maybe a bad assumption, but I am assuming it could be done.