I think the controvery over who is "really" world champion stems from the long standing belief that world chess champion was synonymous with "best chess player in the world."  To the extent it just means "guy that FIDE calls the champion," who that is is clear. FIDE has done the chess world no favors by using ever changing systems to crown their champion. When there was a regular 3-year cycle there was at least an appearance of regularity and order to the transfer of the crown. Hopefully FIDE can get back to something like regularity sooner rather than later.

Re Spassky as an 'accidental WC": No way. He was an enthusiastic challenger and a reluctant (perhaps) WC. In his time his reputation among his peers was special, someone who could play at a very high level in several styles.

Old WC hurdles v. Current ones: In the days of candidates matches and a long WC match using long tc and no rapid tiebreaks, it was like climbing a mountain. The challenger that got to the top was the one in best form. I can't think of an exception at the moment. The recent WCs we have Khalifman and Kaz.

As one who would like the best players to meet and settle a winner, I want the older formats. If the 24 (let's say) game match in the original commercial venue was tied up I'd move it to (as required by circumstances) to the Offical FIDE match site in the FIDE compound (which doesn't exist) and just have the players finish up there. Well, that's better than 12 game WC matches and rapid tie breaks anyway.

Anand reminds me of Fischer. Both have strategically tactical styles and both came up in a non-powerhouse chess country.

And I think in the same way that Fischer caused a boom in interest in chess in the US, Anand has caused a boom in interest in India.

Go for it Anand. We love u. Beat the pants off the russian chess politicians. Best way to shake them.