Mainly because it is an opportunity for Petrosianic to get in a little "dig" on me outside of the "World Religions" thread, that's why!


Chess Fan

C'mon yaar, you wouldn't be such a passionate advocate of Anand but for the fact that he's Indian.

There is a grain of truth in every argument but it becomes a mountain of incontrovertible evidence in our minds only when subjectivity makes it so. And I think you're not being objective when you say that Kramnik's status as World Champion is dubious.

In the past, when the World Championship situation was a mess, many players lost their rights and could not get sufficient opportunity to become the Champion, Anand being just one of them. But to keep harping about it now does not seem right to me.

I asking you because nobody else made the claim that Radjabov had a better 2006 than Kramnik. I don't see how that constitutes a personal attack.


Clearly your feeling is wrong, as we can see from this example. I'm trying to get you to explain your viewpoint, while you're the one trying to suppress it. I assume that you've changed your mind and no longer hold to the viewpoint, which is fine, but just say so, rather than trying to blame me for the change.


No, there are not. That's what the word "opinion" means. I think you may have identified the root of the trouble here. You mentioned a language barrier, which I think is cropping up again. The word "opinion" doesn't mean what you think it means. Please have a look at the dictionary and don't take my word for it. You're using the word opinion to mean "fact". There are popular and unpopular opinions, to be sure, but not right and wrong ones.


Well, I explained that. Though you both hold opposite views about who the champion actually is, you both regard your opinions as fact. You just said so again yourself. And CF can be frequently heard talking about the "true Champion", or "one true champion", or some such. You both believe that Chess Kings rule by divine right, with yourselves as the bestowing divinity.

This is where we disagree. I DON'T see any "right" and "wrong" here. I have a certain personal affection for the Classical Title because of its antiquity, and hope very much that people continue to support that title, and regard it as the meaningful one, but there's no "right" or "wrong" about it.


Already read 'em. And told you what was wrong with them. The sticking point in this whole discussion is confusion about the definition of the words "opinion" and "fact". I don't blame you, since your English is obviously worlds better than my command of Indian (which is non-existent). But please look those words up before continuing.

I love Anand. I am happy he is #1. However, the reality is that he did not earn it thru great play; he earned because both Kaspy and Topa gave it up.

That does not mean that Anand has had a fantastic run, but he never once got by Kasparov; he never once got by Topalov. He has never once just said #1 is mine; I take it.

What do I recall about VA the horrible errors in the FIDE champ against Karpov; the numerous times he could have tried in Many super tournaments won by GK.

He needs to win Mexico AND a championship match. Let's compare that to Korchnoi and Karpov who lost but lost fighting

I think I'd take issue with that. The phrase "gave it up" suggests that Anand is the recipient of a kind of charity that doesn't really exist here.

Topalov didn't give him anything, he lost his spot through not playing as well as Anand. And went down kicking and screaming in the process.

Kasparov, sort of gave something up by retiring, and as you may remember, people didn't take it as seriously when Anand was the de facto #1 behind a retired-but-still-technically-active Kasparov.


He'll have gotten by Topalov in another couple of days. Since Kasparov is off the list, he's past Kasparov too. He may not be past their peaks, but he's the top-rated player right now. It seems a little unkind to rain on his parade on the grounds that he's not the #1 player of all time or that he's not World Champion (hopefully he'll get his chance). His #1 spot is still a great achievement that he did earn by great play. I'd take my hat off to him if I were wearing one.

May be, Rafique Mahmood and GeorgeK can help you with that. (clue: their 'avatars')

Guys... again it's not been confirmed. Indeed someone's mentioned in the Daily Dirt that Linares has not been submitted for the April FIDE rating list, with a link to the events which had been submitted offically to FIDE. And if you want to be really technical about it, you could argue that Kasparov is still number one because he has a much higher rating. Fischer still claimed he was number after years of not playing, and many people believed him. Especially in America.

Well said by Petrosianic! I agree with what he pointed out. CK,how can you claim that Anand got his #1 ranking because Topalov 'gave it' to him. Thats near silly, coz then Topalov was never worthy of it since he simply gave it away , you seem to be countering your own principles. People who dont hold on to their titles are as good as those who dont fight for them??

Just for observation sake, i'd like to point out that all your posts start the same way...." I love him, he's good...BUT. He doesnt have this, didnt do that..and so on" Its ok to not like Anand, I too find that he lacks somethings, but i think you gotta give credit where he deserves.

Agreed, Infact i am of the opinion that Anand was no match for him in any phase of the game, although i feel that he was unlucky, but even if there were the regular cycle, i think Kasparov would have prevailed again over Anand!..But to say that Anand didn't try is incorrect, Just because he doesn't beat his chest like many think he should , doesn't make him an unworthy of credit.

Do you have a definition of great play? I'd say that if a guy performed at 2816 in a category XX tournament, it has to be great, yes we didnt get to see pieces flying off the board , but who cares as long as one wins an event like this. He could have performed better against others in the field, but it looked like that was enough for him to win.

This is what you want to believe. Let me say that Topalov never proved that he is better than Anand while he was No1. Both have nearly even head-head in classical chess, and Anand has a much better match record and tournament record, and Anand took over the No1 spot from him.
Judge for yourself.
Topalov was too kind to Kramnik also in their match then, or Anand was too kind to give away the challenger spot to Topalov in San Luis. This is getting nowhere i think.
Yes, but so did Karpov, who was resting all the while Anand played 31 games remaining undeafeated, only to face Karpov immediately. He eventually lost in the rapids.

You can go on about Anand not meeting your expectations and nobody can change that, But Anand is what he is because of his consistency and Hard work. My hat is off to him as well!

IK:

Clearly VA deserves it. To clarify my point:
Kasparov actually went and beat Karpov head to head. Karpov was driven to expunge the memory of Fischer. Topalov felt driven to prove he was worthy; so, we have San Luis. I would argue that Anand benefited from a huge failure of Topalov at Linares.

It's more of a retreat by VT than it is new plateau by Anand

In other words, it more of VT giving up the top slot rather than Anand taking it