laying a bait dr. ? 
Just how great is Anand?
Sort:
LOL! Why is it every time I go fishing, I just end up catching crabs?
your are a lousy fisherman, that's why ! lol
tweet from Pogonina: "In terms of play Anand is in no way weaker than Kasparov, but he’s simply a little lazy, relaxed and only focuses on matches (C) Kramnik"
"bump" just putting the bait out again.
Maybe Anand will come forth... 
yeah he won't last long.
He clearly dyes his hair
I also think Anand is one of the greatest - for me some of his games sparkle
with a mathematical perfection.
Any against the top rateds? Or just sparklers against those who facilitate sparkling at the board?
Not as great as Kasparov, Fischer, Karpov, Alekhine or Capablanca. Greater than Smyslov, Kramnik, Euwe, Petrosian...
DrSpudnik wrote:
Any against the top rateds? Or just sparklers against those who facilitate sparkling at the board?
Topalov specifically.
I wish I could learn the game perfectly so that I can beat him one day and the title remains with the country. For that I would have to become same as "Anand = The Perfectionist"
:) anand is an awesome player !
Crazychessplaya wrote:
Not as great as Kasparov, Fischer, Karpov, Alekhine or Capablanca. Greater than Smyslov, Kramnik, Euwe, Petrosian...
There is no way Anand is greater than Petrosian!!
As to Kramnik it is open to debate- for me Kramnik is better.
Petrosian ftw!
his aiming is a bit high don't you think ?
Define "greatness" first. Otherwise the discussion, especially arguing who is greater, makes no sense at all. However, I would like to say that Anand is often underestimated due to being rather modest and ego-lacking. He doesn't walk around bashing everyone and telling how much they suck (like Kasparov or Fischer did). Nonetheless, he is the only person in the history of chess to win the WC title in a match, knock-out event and a round robin.
However, he hasn't had much impact on the chess politics and promotion of the game as some other champs.
Summarizing, I would rate him incredibly high on chess skills (as compared to other WCs), but somewhat low on chess ambassador skills.
Natalia_Pogonina wrote:
Define "greatness" first. Otherwise the discussion, especially arguing who is greater, makes no sense at all.
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.
The question of assessing and ranking world champions always revolves around the old "who is the greatest?" point. It's fairly obvious that the current WC is not the all-time greatest, but just where does he stand in that small club of world chess champions?