World Chess Championship : Anand Vs Kramnik

[biased indian]

hope he finish it of in this game
he has never lose to karmnik with white in classical chess

 

[G.I.Joe]

Hope Anand doesn't pull a South Africa here...

 

[Indipper]

i don't think fischer was afraid of him, and i think kasparov was a far better player than him...karpov's greatest rival during his heyday was korchnoi, who while he was an excellent world class player was hardly a chess legend...the same could be said of others in that era like timman, smyslov, polugaesky(sp?) etc...i think kramnik is a more evolved version of karpov and anand is much more brilliant....the elo ratings and the heightened competition at the top of the chess world also reflect that...a lot more players who have the potential to be world champions, topalov, ivanchuk, aronian, carlsen, leko etc...

Either he was afraid or he was nuts, I accept both versions.

The Elö rating is a bad tool to gauge inter-era quality. All it shows is that the structure of chess has changed and that top-level players play each other more often now in a few big bucks events like Linares whereas they would go through National, Zonal, Interzonal and Candidates tournaments back in the day.

Your comparisons are sorta dire. I don't recall Karpov ever getting mated the way Kramnik did at Bahrain. He was generally not as prone to mistakes. Korchnoi was a strong player and Karpov had some tough battles with him. Does that somehow prove Karpov to be inferior to another player? If so, how? If your point that superior players should never have close matches with inferior ones stood and if I would concede that Karpov was just a good not great guy who was given the title because there was no one decent around, why was Kasparov unable to defeat him decisively? On four occasions?

And why is a guy like Leko, who is a can and obviously was handpicked in 2004 by Kramnik, a viable World champion? The fact that more guys can win it usually reflects a lower quality of competition. No one excels.

 

[Anil]

Either he was afraid or he was nuts, I accept both versions.

The Elö rating is a bad tool to gauge inter-era quality. All it shows is that the structure of chess has changed and that top-level players play each other more often now in a few big bucks events like Linares whereas they would go through National, Zonal, Interzonal and Candidates tournaments back in the day.

Your comparisons are sorta dire. I don't recall Karpov ever getting mated the way Kramnik did at Bahrain. He was generally not as prone to mistakes. Korchnoi was a strong player and Karpov had some tough battles with him. Does that somehow prove Karpov to be inferior to another player? If so, how? If your point that superior players should never have close matches with inferior ones stood and if I would concede that Karpov was just a good not great guy who was given the title because there was no one decent around, why was Kasparov unable to defeat him decisively? On four occasions?

And why is a guy like Leko, who is a can and obviously was handpicked in 2004 by Kramnik, a viable World champion? The fact that more guys can win it usually reflects a lower quality of competition. No one excels.

ok this is my opinion, i think fischer and kasparov were both much better players than him, i believe anand was better than him while karpov was still playing and was still a strong player...i believe kramnik is better than him as well...again in my opinion kasparov was the greatest chess player ever, and outside of fischer and kasparov, and i would have only kramnik and anand above karpov...i think this current generation of top players is better than anyone else in that era...and unless they have changed the way elo ratings are done, a higher rating is an indicator of better quality across eras...there are some but not that many new top-level tournaments for classical chess, a lot of the new tournaments are for rapid and blindfold varieties that don't factor into elo ratings...the first kasparov vs karpov match that was a 4 month marathon was the only one where karpov stood toe-to-toe with kasparov, the rematch was won handily by kasparov and in tournament situations, kasparov was really obviously better...karpov is a chess great and had his great moments but in my opinion timman, smyslov, belyasky, korchnoi et al don't compare to the current bunch and they were his main competition until kasparov came along...

 

[Indipper]

ok this is my opinion, i think fischer and kasparov were both much better players than him, i believe anand was better than him while karpov was still playing and was still a strong player...i believe kramnik is better than him as well...again in my opinion kasparov was the greatest chess player ever, and outside of fischer and kasparov, and i would have only kramnik and anand above karpov...i think this current generation of top players is better than anyone else in that era...and unless they have changed the way elo ratings are done, a higher rating is an indicator of better quality across eras...there are some but not that many new top-level tournaments for classical chess, a lot of the new tournaments are for rapid and blindfold varieties that don't factor into elo ratings...the first kasparov vs karpov match that was a 4 month marathon was the only one where karpov stood toe-to-toe with kasparov, the rematch was won handily by kasparov and in tournament situations, kasparov was really obviously better...karpov is a chess great and had his great moments but in my opinion timman, smyslov, belyasky, korchnoi et al don't compare to the current bunch and they were his main competition until kasparov came along...

Ok, you can think whatever you like. It would be a long and pointless argument if I kept going. I actually agree that Kasparov and Fischer were better players, but you're seriously underestimating Karpov, he stood toe to toe with Kasparov throughout those matches and if you don't believe me, it's all on record. I know he wasn't much to look at, which is why people tend to favour guys like Kasparov, but he was the best pure position player ever. And just in case you hadnt realised, Karpov started out in an extremely tough environment, facing some of chess' most brilliant players such as Bronstein, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Geller etc. They were on their way out alright, but he trounced them all. So don't give me guys like Timman as being his peers and I won't say Leko or Judit Polgar are Anand's peers.

 

[biased indian]

i will put anand and karmnik above karpov any day

 

[Anil]

Ok, you can think whatever you like. It would be a long and pointless argument if I kept going. I actually agree that Kasparov and Fischer were better players, but you're seriously underestimating Karpov, he stood toe to toe with Kasparov throughout those matches and if you don't believe me, it's all on record. I know he wasn't much to look at, which is why people tend to favour guys like Kasparov, but he was the best pure position player ever. And just in case you hadnt realised, Karpov started out in an extremely tough environment, facing some of chess' most brilliant players such as Bronstein, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Geller etc. They were on their way out alright, but he trounced them all. So don't give me guys like Timman as being his peers and I won't say Leko or Judit Polgar are Anand's peers.

'k we'll agree to disagree on anatoly karpov...

 

[Anil]

anand wins!

 

[Burgey]

Thought this said "Andmark vs Kweek" when I looked at it.

 

[Precambrian]

Well done Anand.