FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
I have to go with Carlsen as well. However, if Anand manages to defend his title, then Anand gets my vote in the history books as one of the greatest champions ever along with Kasparov.
I think Anand is one of the greatest champions regardless of the result of this match, but there is only one guy thats in the same category as Kasparov and thats "KARPOV" ..... However the result of this match could mean that we will mention Carlsen alongside Kasparov and Karpov.
I don't give Anand that nod just yet because let's be honest, when Kasparov was still playing, he WTFOWNED Anand on a regular basis. It was like a whole other level of playing strength, and Anand couldn't touch him. But as I said, if Anand can survive Carlsen, I will give him that nod.
perhaps true, but i will never be an anand fan. I also don't believe that he is worthy to be world champion although he is very good
You surely are joking, right? I think you might need to educate yourself on the games played by Anand. He is a 5 time World Champion! Not just some random FIDE champ from the late 90's(no offense to Ponomariov, Khalifman, etc).
You're right about those non world championship tournaments that name all those non world champions, they were simply tournaments. Beating the world champion in a match in my opinion is the only real way to to be called a real world champion.
Anand is fully worthy of his title.
Anand, like Karpov, was unfortunately born in Kasparov's era, knocking him out of the running for greatest of all time.
Yeah, but if he beats Magnus (who is the youngest ever to be #1 even if he hasn't won the title) at Anands age he WILL be looked upon as one of the all time greats even if he was in Kaspys era.
Yes Anand is good, but look at Kramnik Carlsen aronian. Surely you can't forget that Anand lost miserably to Carlsen. Ok so that is not a fair comparison, but still if you look at even the accomplishments of say boris Gelfand in tournaments anand looks pretty bad. Yes Gelfand lost to anand in the championships, but i would still think Gelfand is better. Others will have different opinions but i think that Gelfand is stronger even if he did lose to anand in the 2012 championships. I hope that i haven't offended anyone but probably have. that is just my opinion you can have your own opinion.
Also Gelfand VS Nakamura the last two times he has played nakamura he won.
Chessplayer 6033: I don't see how you can claim Anand is an unworthy champion. He's been among the world's super-elite now for over twenty years, and is still the world champion at the same age that Kasparov retired. Not who many who can claim that kind of longevity.
As for Gelfand vs Anand, in the match, you can possibly argue that Gelfand played better, and in recent years, Gelfand has achieved better results. Over the span of their entire careers though, there's no comparison: Anand has been the better player of the two, whether we go by world championship or tournament records. Finally, if we look back to his early years as world champion, Anand pretty handily outplayed Kramnik in 2008, and beat Topalov within regulation two years later.