the number of wins are decreasing because of more theory and better defensive techniques so what can anand do if he was born in this generation 

maybe he could have defeated people the same way morphy didnt

MAYBE ALL GREat PLAYERS WHERE THE BEST OF THERE TIME  

or  you guys got any suggestions???????

I dont even know what you are trying to say??

I think he's trying to say that it's not Anand's fault that GM games tend to be so drawish.

I'm just not sure why he's trying to say it.

what i am trying to say is that people say morphy or capablanca were better then anand Because they were dominant unlike anand BUT WITH DEFENSIVE TECHNIQUE at its best ,because  with advance in time defensive technique  becomes better

In an era of drawish chess, you can become world champioin by eking out more wins, and suffering fewer losses than everybody else.  Do this every year, year in, year out, and you get to be considered the dominant player of the era.

Anand isn't considered a tier below the great champions because of his W/L/D records.  He's considered a tier below them because for a large chunk of his prime, he was clearly a tier below Kasparov.

He's still a great champion, just gets ruled out of "greatest of all time" talk because he clearly wasn't the greatest of his own.

So, great players like Anand would have more flashy wins to their credit if their opponents were less skilled defensively, like in the days of Morphy? Yep.

And yes, great players are either the best of their time, or really fat.

My suggestion would be croquet on the royal lawn at 7. I'll bring lamingtons.

Much more clear the second time around.

You mean the historical greats stand out more compared to the rest of the pack in their day whereas now there's many players clustered around the elite level with not a whole lot between them. Yeah, it's pretty tough like that.

And that the cause is that play is not as sharp as it used to be with perenially advancing research and discoveries continually adding defensive resources to known theory.

(By the way, isn't "known theory" a bit of an oxymoron?)

hmmm ur correct