Steinitz’s Legacy = Play anybody to prove himself the Champion.

Laskar’s Legacy= End Steinitz’s legacy. Risk your title only when you are in dire need of money.

Capa’s Legacy = End Laskar’s legacy (he had enough money!) Play the one who is deceptively inferior.

Alekine's Legacy = End Capa’s Legacy. Play the ones who are really inferior.

Fide Legacy= End all prior legacies Set proper road to Championship with Chances for all with proper Qualification cycle.

Kasparov Legacy= End Fide Legacy (for More money)Pretend to inherit Steinitz legacy from its coffin.

Kramnik’s Legacy = End Kasparov Legacy. Run away from the Strongest to "set things right". Stake the title to set his position right;but cry over the spilt milk that all is not alright.

Anand’s Legacy=Just play Chess against anybody as it comes. Accept the results and title as they come. Claimb the ladder to be no one. Stil claim no legacy for braking of any legacy.

See, the truth is, WE don't. That is a different issue. We are not talking about us here. We are talking about super GMs who knowingly makes that choice of the "practical" move in place of the "best" move. Kogi has neatly provided us an example for that.

I think I agree with you. I think you need both intuition and calculating ability. The intuition you need for seeing (calculating) many things, while the calculating ability you need for seeing deeper things. In case of Anand I think he sees the most variations but sometimes he doesn't strain himself to go deeper unless the position required it. In contrast Kramnik like players would pick a few variations and try to go deeper to find the truth, while Anand would simply pick another variation and would go up on the clock!! The more the complications, the better for Anand.

Ok
If we agree that a checkmate in 10 is better than a checkmate in 25 we have easy examples. Lets say each side has a queen 6 pawns and two bishops and a rook. You see your opponent hung his queen which you could take with check. Since you can take it with check it is easy to see you can then trade down the other major pieces and then use your queen to pick off his pawns very easilly. However you are also considering this very very tricky and long check mate pattern that involves sacrificing your queen and leads to check mate in 10 moves.

I think most people would say the checkmate is the better move but taking the queen and trading down is the more practical attempt.

I think there is a point when a game is totally winning that all players do not get too concerned with which is the best - shortest way to victory but instead which is the easiest and most practical.

NFM,
I think most of the times people would resign when you take the practical route. The position would get simplified. If you go the "best" route, there is good chances your opponent would wait. There is a possibility for miscalculation and your opponent is not entirely left with no chances.

I think what RB is trying to confuse us is, he is now saying the practical move is the best move, not the best move is the best move??

So this means things have come a full circle, and Anand has restored Steinitz's legacy!

I still wish for the "old " candidate matches system, it was before my time, but I simply relish recalling the grt games btn fischer and his candidate opponents, same for all the rest, portitch,ivkov,petrosian etc.... a truly glorious time ......
then all these "petty" aurguments as to who is better could be done with. :-)

What do you mean? Anand has never won a world championship match. Steinitz did.

Mohan's Legacy: Possess a pathological aversion to spelling, grammar and fact checkers.

This perhaps merits its own thread.

I've been reading Kasparov's "My Great Predecessors", which is a tremendous series of books. I sincerely recommend them to any ardent chess players and enthusiast.

We've discussed much about FIDE and their current structures to filter candidates to the World Championship Title. The KOs (World Cup), the past candidates matches, the new series of events, etc.

I guess there's many people supporting the past Candidates matches. I was quite surprised to read in Kasparov's fifth book the method for the 1975 match.

Karpov begins playing against Poluga. The first three games ended in draws, and in his book, Kasparov writes "By the new FIDE rules, adopted under the influence of Fischer, they now played to a definite number of wins; in the quarter-final - to three (but not more than 16 games)" (page 231).

Karpov beats Poluga 3 wins to nil, and he goes on to face Spassky. Kasparov writes: "They played up to four wins, but with a limit of 20 games" (page 248).

Karpov is again victorious, this time by 4 wins to 1. So on he goes to face Korchnoi. And what was the requirement in the Candidates Final? Kasparov writes: "The Karpov-Korchnoi match (Moscow, autumn 1974), which effectively became a clash for teh world championship, was played to five wins by one of the participants, but with a limit of 24 games (...)" (page 285).

Oh the good old times! Since then, not only the candidates stage has suffered many changes, but also the Final stage has mutated! In 1973-74 the Candidates stage was played with 16, 20 and 24 games limits, whilst in recent years, we've had WC Finals to 24 games, then to 20 games (Kasparov-Anand 1995 and Karpov-Kamsky 1996), to 6 games(!) (Karpov-Anand 1998; Khalifman-Akopian 1999; Anand-Shirov 2000), to 16 games (Kramnik-Kasparov 2000), to 8 games (Ponomariov-Ivanchuk 2001), to 14 games (Kramnik-Lékó 2004), back to 6 games (Kasimdzhanov-Adams 2004), then to a 14-game tournament (Topalov 2005), then to a 12-game match (Kramnik-Topalov 2006), back to a 14-game tournament (Anand 2007), then to a 12-game match (Anand-Kramnik 2008).

What a mess FIDE's created... :rolleyes: