Just how great is Anand?

Like that's ever stopped anyone around here!...lol

Still, I'm afraid your statement is only likely to lead to that most dreaded of all things:  the posting of dictionary definitions.

Or pictures of Mohamed Ali

To me Crazychessplaya's assessment sounds about right, even if I'm least certain about placing Anand ahead of Smyslov. As for Anand vs Kramnik the difference is rather big to me. Anand has a plus head to head in classical and rapid (10-2 in the latter!), won their title match clearly as well as the other World Championship where they faced each other (in 2007) and had much better results also in knockout World Championships.

Add to that Anand's in general much more impressive match stats, higher number of wins in Wijk (5 while Kramnik won once) and Linares (3 while Kramnik won 2), that he usually has been higher rated, and that his achievements have given him 6 Chess Oscars vs Kramnik's 2, and it's hard to see them as all that close. Kramnik does have the 10 Dortmund wins though and (even if he never did well in qualifications) the Kasparov match, but that's not enough as I see it to place him equal to Anand.

"Jabbar was best!"

"Oh no way, Chamberlain was!"

come to think of it, when you wrote that thread I was thinking of when I heard someone was saying Harry Potter's novels is a classic, huh ? how come or when and how does a novel become classic ?  I thought it was too early to call it a classic.

It's a modern classic.

Pipe down, kco (or you'll be writing Pilgrim's Progress). 

Well, that settles that then.

Personally , i rate Kramnik's career achievements higher , and contribution to chess theory (which is immense by Kramnik ) higher as well than Anand ..

Sure , Anand won that 10 games "match" against Vladimir Kramnik in the worst form of his career ... But is that really means Anand is greater ? 

Would Anand even contemplate to beat Kasparov in his career ?  Is he superior in endgames than Kramnik ?  

I highly respect Anand , but from an objective point of view , he really blossomed as a world champion contender fairly late IMHO   ,  his  preparation is probably second to none ( amazing computer preparation  , like Topalov )  , his creativity and sense for initiative is incredible  , but i don't rate him higher than Kramnik personally  , even though i admit he's on great form since a few years  and  probably the strongest match player currently although i'm pretty sure Carlsen is the next "big" man since Kasparov 

And that settles that.

Not really , it's just my humble opinion among many , although this one has the merit of having arguments  in it 

Greatness in chess is difficult to  be measured other than looking at the amount of victories ,  Anand is a great champion in an era that had several players comparable to him and where nobody really dominated since Kasparov retired .

It depends what criteria people focus on , for instance Ivanchuk may not have had the same sort of success as Anand and Kramnik  , but his creativity is  amazing as well , Topalov for quie some time  was seen as the best player on the planet  before Elista , as the best attacker     .  Carlsen is the highest rated player on the planet  currently , so when i see people claim Anand is one of the 3 best ever , if  rating is the criteria, then  he is not  . 

Anand will be remembered as one of the best player ever  , no doubt  , but again  , i think if you look at  the contribution to chess  theory  , the duration of domination , and personal achievements  , Kramnik compares favourably or at least equal to Anand IMHO  ,   but its true that since 3-4 years Anand has taken another dimension  , maybe if he dominates the chess scene for a few years more , i could change my opinion , but i suspect Carlsen and others will push hard because with computers prep , things change quickly with modern chess and both Anand and Kramnik are not young anymore 

lol

And how does one get one's greatness noticed if one does not stand out?

Anand has a sort of hidden greatness, all the more prominent for being kept out of sight.

Hiding as World Champion. What an ingenious idea!

The downside is that, if he ever does lose the title, everybody's sure to find out about him.

I don't think anyone ranks Anand ahead of Kramnik just because he won the 12 game match between them, but he didn't only win that match, also the World Championship in 2007 where both competed, as well as the knockout title Kramnik failed to win.

Kramnik said that the 2008 match would decide who had the greater career of the two, but that was of course before Anand won also against Topalov and returned to #1 on the rating list in 2010-11. The last eight years Kramnik only had more points (two) than Anand in 2012, when the latter dropped a few points ahead of his next title match. Also when Kramnik was given the match in 2000 Anand was asked first since he was higher rated, but declined.

Add to that Anand's going through qualifications successfully more than once while Kramnik lost not only to Shirov in 1998 but to Gelfand, Kamsky and Grischuk in other cycles. Anand qualified for the 1995 title match and the 1998 FIDE match (as well as to the 2008 match, to those counting 2007 as a Candidates only). The last time Anand failed in a qualification for a title match was in a tiebreak 18 years ago. Anand was also voted best player of the year six times vs Kramnik's two (and last year he was an inch from going 7-2 there when Carlsen edged him out with the smallest of margins by winning four top tournaments).

As for Anand not being a World Champion contender until fairly late, remember that Anand qualified to play Kasparov by going 10-1 in his Candidates matches. Anand scored 3-1 in wins against the Kamsky that had beaten Kramnik 3-0 in the same cycle. When Anand won the knockout final in 2000 it was with 3-0 against the Shirov that went 2-0 against Kramnik in the latest Candidates. Anand was a title contender many years before Kramnik, it's more than 20 years since he won Reggio Emilia ahead of Kasparov and Karpov, and he was in the lead halfway through the 1995 match against Kasparov. Kramnik always played better against Kasparov than Anand did though.

Maybe Anand's legacy suffers from his not participating in the breakout cycle after 1995 and instead playing (and winning) the FIDE World Championship. After declining the title match that later went to Kramnik he also declined the Candidates Leko won, and didn't compete for the "classical" line until in 2007, and won it every time since then. If not for Kasparov it isn't entirely unbelievable to imagine Anand as World Champion 1995-2015, going by his results against Kramnik, Topalov and Leko.

Anand faced the player many consider the greatest ever in 1995, and he wasn't a Kramnik-Radjabov-Gulko angstgegner for Kasparov either. Still Anand was leading the match when the disastrous second half started. After that he was loyal to FIDE and declined all chances to win the "Steinitz" title until after the reunification. Since then his results have been very good in World Championships:

2007: clear first with a one point margin

2008: 6.5-4.5 against Kramnik

2010: 6.5-5.5 against Topalov

2012: Gelfand

2014: ?

If he beats Gelfand he has won four World Championships in a row, every time without draw odds or tiebreak (unless it will be needed against Gelfand), and there's no reason to assume that he won't be able to defend the title more than once again, so in spite of his only competing for the most "important" title outside 1995-2007 (a period during which he won four Chess Oscars, all of them while Kasparov was active) he could still build an impressive legacy as World Champion.

The Anand-Kramnik record (source: chessgames.com) shows that Kramnik has nothing on Anand:

Good post Fabelhaft  ,  thanks for having stayed respectful and having taken the care to put arguments in it 

You make interesting points  , all basically pointing to the fact that he was among the best players since 20 years (which i dont deny )  and is the only one to win the chess crown in various format 

Good points  , so no need to remember you the other side of the coin 2000-2006 , an ill Kramnik dominates the scene , the 10 Dortmund wins , the immense contribution to chess theory  , the 3 world championship matches etc ...

For me the greatest achievement of Anand is to have actually been part of the elite without being from the Soviet school  (before computer prep existed ) and having being so consistent over the years despite all the changes in the chess world 

But again , even though i respect your opinion , i don't think i can consider Anand above other contemporaries  ,  i like the man , the chess player  , but i also am admirative of other player  like Kramnik , Ivanchuk  or  Topalov  who played in his era and all had their fine moments  , I don't consider that we can suddenly say after 2008 , that Anand is the greatest  of our era   , but i accept that people may think differently  ,  it would be boring if we would all agree anyway  , there would be no point of  discussing ,  we need both white and black on a board right ? :)