Who is better, Anand or Karpov

I really dont have any idea. ask them.

Hmm, yes, but now I'm not sure which pronunciation you're familiar with -- there are generally two common pronunciations of "either" here but only one pronunciation of "ether", so it was "either" that was pronounced like "ether" (both loosely rhyming with beaver, probably because it's Canada), not the other way around.  (The other pronounciation of "either" rhymes loosely with "geiger".)

It now occurs to me that there may be more than one pronunciation of "ether" -- possibly rhyming with "leather"?

I have no idea what you're talking aboot. 

Fezzik, seroiusly, to make a pun, the words don't have to be pronounced exactly the same, just close enough to make you chuckle.

Sure, but as long as we all pronounce the rest of the words the same as each other it's close enough to make for a half decent pun.  I should have been more clear in my response to RR -- didn't mean to imply that they were homonyms.

If someone didn't get the pun I suspect that it was ether because they do pronounce the two words markedly differently or becasue they didn't get the reference to ether within the context of space-time, not because of something so subtle as a hard vs. soft diphthong.

Disclaimer:  This is not a reference to anyone's neither regions. 

I love "aboot"! The greatest invention ever, from Canada(with, of course, "BlackOps Radio", SCTV, and Montreal)!

But, the word "ether", has a soft "th" sound, like "throw". While  the word, "either", does have two different pronunciations. None having to do with the "th" sound. But, rather, the long "e" sound at the beginning, or the long "i" sound at the beginning. The "th" sound remains hard in both pronunciations, like from the word "the". But, as I'm typing this, you'll be glad to know I feel like an idiot

 The eunuch was kicked in his neither regions!

yeah!

Well, after a little research, it turns out that what I thought were diphthongs are actually heterogeneous consonant digraphs.

It just doesn't roll off the tongue the same way.

The problem with comparing Karpov peak vs Anand peak (or Alekhine peak, Morphy peak, Carlsen peak) is the amount of theory (not just opening, also middlegame and endgame) that the older player spots to the newer player.

No data to back this up, but you take Morphy out of his era and plunk him down today and I doubt he's a GM. Take Alekhine and transport him through time to play, oh I don't know well ok let's be controversial, through time to play Kosteniuk, and he loses badly. So Karpov from 1987 against current Anand, I just don't think it compares well.

This is why I measure career peak (borrowed from baseball) which attempts to normalize. I contend that Karpov's peak was higher and longer than Anand's.

and the unanswerable question is how Karpov would do at his peak, if he had the resources of today, or the similarly unanswerable question of how Anand at his peak would do with only the group knowledge of the early 80s.

What we haven't addressed is just how ridiculously impressive Korchnoi's career is. A rematch between him and Karpov today would not be close. Are there any comparables at all?

Comparing them at the top of their careers (assuming Anand is near or at the top of his career) definitely Karpov

Karpov or Kasparov? I would say Anand is superior to Karpov, but not Kasparov.

That's fair enough to say.  The only practical way to do it would be to measure their performance relative to their peers of the time to get an accurate measurement.  And while I respect both Karpov and Anand for their vast chess knowledge, I don't know enough about either when talking specifics to judge.  If I had to be biased though I'd be leaning towards Karpov.

annad

Just wanted to add a few points to this discussion, some 16 months after.

1. It is impossible to issue a definitive verdict on this. Both were immensely strong at their peak. Karpov is the most successful tournament player of all time by a huge margin (160 tournaments won!). Anand is maybe the most naturally talented player since Capablanca, and the only champion to hold the title in all 3 time formats.

2. In some very good interviews published years ago Kramnik discussed world champions past and present and suggested that Anand's achievements and his practical strength as a player were in no way inferior to Kasparov's. 

3.  Both have left a huge creative legacy to their fans due to their unique talents and preferences. Anand gets active positions like nobody else. Karpov immobilizes his opponents like nobody before or after.

I can't decide......I'm a fan of both.....sorry 

I think Karpov is better than Anand.