Yes, Anand didn't have much help in that respect. When India participated in the Chess Olympiad in 1980 (the first time they had a team since the 1960s) their only titled player was an IM rated 2305. India of the 1970s wasn't the best environment for talented chess players trying to improve, at least not compared to the Soviet Union.

A very interesting discussion above, I enjoyed reading it.

Personally, I think Kramnik's contribution to theory is much bigger than Anand's. The Petroff, the Berlin, the Catalan etc have immensely deepened with Kramnik. And also the fact that he beat the greatest player of all times in a WC match is probably as big of an achievement as anything Anand has done.

Chesswise, however, I think the peak of level of chess Anand has reached in his later world championship events might just equal to Kasparov in his best form. I mean that positively, he has arguably demonstrated the highest level of chess ever to have been reached in history in his WC games. I think he is the only player comparable with Kasparov and Fischer in that respect. He made it look easy on Kramnik and a lot of people supposed Kramnik was simply "not on form," well yes maybe he wasn't at his best but that's something you could add to Anand's list of pluses because he really has done an outstanding job taking Kramnik into his home turf there, playing d4 as white which has to take a tremendous ammount of work as he had almost no experience in it in serious encounters, and forcing Kramnik to play very sharp, complicated positions in which he excells. He beat him very convincingly. Let's also not forget that Topalov was also at his peak when he got beaten by Vishy and had access to a huge computer cluster with the latest version of Rybka which wasn't publicized. Anand only had the relatively modest Hiarcs cluster for a much shorter time.

I'm pretty sure Anand is the most talented of all champions, and when he combines that with serious preparation (which he does, for WC events), he becomes something out of this world, and he has done this in a surprisingly older age, which I'm sure would take a lot of discipline and professionalism.

I think he is also the nicest guy in the top level of chess. He never trashed talked anyone, never got into controversies. He is one of my favorite players with Botvinnik and Kramnik, I respect him a lot as a champion and like him as a person. A rare combination.

Winning the championship in all formats, and doing that very convincingly in a relatively old age for top chess players after staying at the elite level for decades is a VIP ticket to the hall of fame.

I think he will have no problem defending against Gelfand, and I would still put my money on him in the next cycle, be it against Carlsen or Kramnik. That would be amazing to watch.

To summarize, I think he is up there with Kasparov, Karpov, Botvinnik, Fischer and Kramnik in the history of chess.

lol...at last somebody with a sense of proportion. 

After all the nice words about Anand's enormous talent and results there are still reasons to see him as a notch below players like Kasparov, Lasker and Karpov. Anand's head to head results aren't the most impressive compared to other World Champions. He is 1-6 against Aronian, all in games played during his World Champion years, and 3-15 against Kasparov. Topalov has been mentioned as a player Anand plays well against, but it's only 13-12 in wins (Carlsen has 8-3).

To pick some other current top players, Anand is 2-2 against Radjabov (Carlsen is 5-1) and 0-1 against Nakamura (Carlsen 5-0). Ivanchuk has 2-1 against Anand after 2000 but 2-8 against Carlsen, etc. Then of course Anand has a big plus against Carlsen (after scoring four wins before Carlsen reached top ten), but on the whole his head to head stats against top players aren't spectacular for a World Champion.

Anand's results have been good, but for example Topalov and Carlsen have been #1 for longer periods, and it's more than four years since he won a tournament. Even though Anand is a great player it's hard to imagine someone like Kasparov or Lasker scoring similar results after participating in many tournaments for years.

Counting from S:t Petersburg 1895 Lasker won every tournament he played for many decades with only two exceptions, when he finished in second place. This included winning New York 1924, when he was 55, far ahead of Capablanca and Alekhine, and the top two sequence ended first with Zurich 1934, when Lasker was 65 years old.

It would be nice to see Anand play his best chess again, Bonn 2008 was maybe the last time that happened and hopefully he can play on a similar level against Gelfand.

rating 'Drawnik'  ahead of Anand.....wat a big Joke.... :)

Now she's a true legend... 

I think Anand is a very strong player, easily one of the best ever. Although I don't think that his preparation is better than Kasparov.  Kasparov. http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/text/kaspeng.html

Kramnik is commentating on the 11th game of the world title match today, it will be interesting to hear his views, i'm sure.

The answer to the question will probably depend a lot on who wins the tiebreak (since I think the two remaining games of the title match will be drawn). If Anand wins he has won four World Championships in a row in less than five years without draw odds, quite an achievement. If Anand loses he will be the World Champion that didn't win a single tournament for five years and lost the title to someone who was far from top ten.

I think I understand your sentiment. Anand is the first of your country to be the World Champion and that is something in itself. Also I believe that the culture of India is such that it contributes to Anand's apparent shyness. Or at least lack of a big ego. There is something peaceful about Vishy which I admire. I agree with the poster above who noted that Anand does not need to be antagonistic towards his opponent. But then, neither does Boris. Two gentlemen indeed!

Dear Andy,

#52, uhmmm is there another version of the blind men and elephant, the one where the elephant goes wild with rage, after............

well, you fill in the blanks

Somehow I doubt that this is gonna help much...

It never helped me.

Getting back to the original post, it is difficult to recall any WCC having a longer string of poor performances than Anand had lately. He won what, maybe two tournaments in the past three years?

Crazychessplaya wrote:

"Getting back to the original post, it is difficult to recall any WCC having a longer string of poor performances than Anand had lately. He won what, maybe two tournaments in the past three years?"

He has won one tournament the last five years and three months, and in that one his highest ranked opponent was #13

Anand is still one of the greats of the game of course, as for example Botvinnik he has been far from his peak during the last years of holding the title though.

Just how great is Anand?

Hmm, about this great?

Botvinnik only won one tournament between his championshipmatch against Bronstein in 1951 and his championshipmatch against Smyslov in 1954. Both match were drawn by the way. 
He didn't play a lot however.

Petrossian didn't win many tournament during his reign either.

 

Botvinnik only won one tournament 1951-54, but I think he only played two :-) And the one he won was a very strong Soviet Championship ahead of players like Smyslov, Bronstein, Keres, etc. In the other tournament he played he shared third behind Keres and Geller, but that too was a strong event (with 18 players).

Petrosian usually did OK in tournaments while he was World Champion, even if he rarely won them. He was often second in big fields though, but also had two weak results (even score). Petrosian won the title against 52-year-old Botvinnik, but in tournaments he had to face Smyslov, Keres, Geller, Korchnoi, Bronstein, Spassky, Boleslavsky time and again and winning in such fields was maybe more difficult than beating one aging Botvinnik.

Anand has had many finishes in the middle of the fields or worse the last five years, and in that respect his tournament results have been weaker than those of Botvinnik and Petrosian. But I think Anand really has wanted to score good tournament results. Even if Grenke was the weakest tournament he has played in decades he was over the moon after winning it, tweeting repeatedly about it and very much enjoying it.

But Anand's being weaker now than at his peak doesn't make him less of a legendary player, he is around #10 among the greatest players ever as I see it. But I was more impressed by the player that finished just behind a Kasparov at his peak time and again 15 years ago than by the World Champion after 2008.