Anand rocks......Kasparov sucks.....when Kasparov started losing matches he set up another chess association so that he always stayed at the pinnacle of it.....hell, I also feel like setting up a chess association every now and then and be at the helm of its charge d' affairs....
Who is better Kasparov or Anand?
Sort:
Apr 7, 2013
0
#23
sinnerman263 wrote:
...when Kasparov started losing matches he set up another chess association so that he always stayed at the pinnacle of it.....hell,...
That isn't what happened. When Kasparov set up the PCA he was clearly the greatest player who had ever lived. He absolutely destroyed Short, who had just defeated Karpov in the FIDE Candidates' final. Karpov won the consolation match that FIDE hastily arranged, but nobody except Karpov took it seriously.
Without looking it up, who was was Karpov's opponent in the match, where was it held, and what was the final score?
Regarding the PCA, it was a terrible idea made plausible that it boasted the backing of the best player in the world. Later even Kasparov himself agreed it was his biggest mistake in chess. But at least that one match between Short and Kasparov was well-funded and well-attended.
SmyslovFan wrote:
For a brief period from about 2003-2005, I would have bet on Anand to win a match against Kasparov. Unfortunately, they only played a handful of games during that time as Kasparov was heading towards retirement.
By 2008, Anand was clearly better than Kasparov. But Kasparov at his peak was better than Anand was at his peak.
Anand's highest rating was 2817. Kasparov's was 2851.
Since you are so reliant on ratings does this mean you believe Carlsen is the best player ever !? His rating is the highest ever afterall ...
SmyslovFan wrote:
sinnerman263 wrote:
...when Kasparov started losing matches he set up another chess association so that he always stayed at the pinnacle of it.....hell,...
That isn't what happened. When Kasparov set up the PCA he was clearly the greatest player who had ever lived. He absolutely destroyed Short, who had just defeated Karpov in the FIDE Candidates' final. Karpov won the consolation match that FIDE hastily arranged, but nobody except Karpov took it seriously.
Without looking it up, who was was Karpov's opponent in the match, where was it held, and what was the final score?
Regarding the PCA, it was a terrible idea made plausible that it boasted the backing of the best player in the world. Later even Kasparov himself agreed it was his biggest mistake in chess. But at least that one match between Short and Kasparov was well-funded and well-attended.
he was definetly not clearly the strongest player who ever lived.
Apr 7, 2013
0
#26
SmyslovFan wrote:
Without looking it up, who was was Karpov's opponent in the match, where was it held, and what was the final score?
I looked it up
It's interesting what Kasparov said:
"The next major meeting of Kasparov and Karpov was the 1994 Linares chess tournament. The field, in eventual finishing order, was Karpov, Kasparov, Shirov, Bareev, Kramnik, Lautier, Anand, Kamsky, Topalov, Ivanchuk,Gelfand, Illescas, Judit Polgár, and Beliavsky; with an average Elo rating of 2685, the highest ever at that time, making it the first Category XVIII tournament ever held. Impressed by the strength of the tournament, Kasparov had said several days before the tournament that the winner could rightly be called the world champion of tournaments. Perhaps spurred on by this comment, Karpov played the best tournament of his life. He was undefeated and earned 11 points out of 13 possible (the best world-class tournament winning percentage since Alekhine won San Remo in 1930), finishing 2½ points ahead of second-place Kasparov and Shirov. Many of his wins were spectacular (in particular, his win over Topalov is considered possibly the finest of his career). This performance against the best players in the world put his Elo rating tournament performance at 2985, the highestperformance rating of any player in history up until 2009, when Magnus Carlsen won the category XXI Pearl Spring chess tournament with a performance of 3002."
Apr 7, 2013
0
#27
Reb wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
For a brief period from about 2003-2005, I would have bet on Anand to win a match against Kasparov. Unfortunately, they only played a handful of games during that time as Kasparov was heading towards retirement.
By 2008, Anand was clearly better than Kasparov. But Kasparov at his peak was better than Anand was at his peak.
Anand's highest rating was 2817. Kasparov's was 2851.
Since you are so reliant on ratings does this mean you believe Carlsen is the best player ever !? His rating is the highest ever afterall ...
I'm reliant on ratings and winning the world championship in a match. I believe strongly that match play is essential to proving superiority over others. So yes, once Carlsen wins the world chess championshipin a match, he will prove that he's the best player ever.
That doesn't mean he'll be the greatest player ever. That's more subjective.
Smyslov but best player is subjective too, even though there are advancements in chess knowledge. I mean its not like someone invented a time machine and they played each other. You cant just claim that Kasparov or now Carlsen was the best ever.
Kasparov has always been better than Anand. He dominated him everywhere. Anand at his peak during the late 90's lost the match for the title against Karpov, who by that time was not taking chess too seriously. However, Anand is among the 4 best players for the last 40 years:
1. Karpov
2. Kasparov
3. Anand
3. Kramnik
GreedyPawnGrabber wrote:
Kasparov has always been better than Anand. He dominated him everywhere. Anand at his peak during the late 90's lost the match for the title against Karpov, who by that time was not taking chess too seriously. However, Anand is among the 4 best players for the last 40 years:
1. Karpov
2. Kasparov
3. Anand
3. Kramnik
I believe that Fischer surpassed all the former and currently living grandmasters in the ability to produce and process chess ideas. - Anatoly Karpov
Bobby Fischer is the greatest Chess genius of all time! - Alexander Kotov
SmyslovFan wrote:
Without looking it up, who was was Karpov's opponent in the match, where was it held, and what was the final score?
To be fair, I couldn't answer the latter two questions for most championship matches, even if I can name at least one Dutch player.
As to the OP's question, the answer is clearly Anand. Change "is" to "was" and the answer is clearly Kasparov.
But you see when I play a game of Bobby, there is no style. Bobby played perfectly. And perfection has no style. - Miguel Najdorf
Do you realize Fischer almost never has any bad pieces? He exchanges them, and the bad pieces remain with his opponent. - Yuri Balashov
In complicated positions, Bobby Fischer hardly had to be afraid of anybody. - Paul Keres
I am 99 per cent sure that I have been playing against the chess legend. It's tremendously exciting," he said. In October last year, in the first of their four confrontations, Nigel lost 0:8, although he is one of the world's best speed chess players. "In my opinion Fischer is a much stronger speed chess player than Kasparov, which is incredible when one considers that at 58 he is virtually a geriatric in terms of the modern game," Nigel said. (quoted at ChessBase.com in 2001) - Nigel Short
this question should not arise! because Kasparov is considered as the "grearest" of all time. while Anand may be considered as "one of the greatests".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_top_chess_players_throughout_history
TetsuoShima wrote:
"In my opinion Fischer is a much stronger speed chess player than Kasparov, which is incredible when one considers that at 58 he is virtually a geriatric in terms of the modern game," Nigel said. (quoted at ChessBase.com in 2001) - Nigel Short
It has been proven that Short was playing against a computer program on ICC.
Better? Anand can be better because he is shy which is usually good, whereas Kasparov is arrogant, which is always bad. But as far as chess is concerned Kasparov had the highest rating and this fact doesn't need any further commentary.
Apr 7, 2013
0
#38
GreedyPawnGrabber wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
"In my opinion Fischer is a much stronger speed chess player than Kasparov, which is incredible when one considers that at 58 he is virtually a geriatric in terms of the modern game," Nigel said. (quoted at ChessBase.com in 2001) - Nigel Short
It has been proven that Short was playing against a computer program on ICC.
Not entirely true. Short played against Fischer several games. Not all of his games were against Fischer, but the owners of ICC confirmed that yes indeed it was Fischer who set up the account and played Short. Short claimed that other accounts were also Fischer, which turned out to be untrue.
Apr 7, 2013
0
#39
SmyslovFan wrote:
Not entirely true. Short played against Fischer several games. Not all of his games were against Fischer, but the owners of ICC confirmed that yes indeed it was Fischer who set up the account and played Short. Short claimed that other accounts were also Fischer, which turned out to be untrue.
Do you have a link for the confirmation by ICC, SmyslovFan? I can't find anything to confirm this, only speculation from Nigel Short.
Apr 7, 2013
0
#40
No, trysts. I was told by the owner of the site himself quite some time ago that Fischer had an anonymous account there. There may be some online confirmation of this somewhere, but I don't know where. Perhaps in the wiki entry on ICC. Whether Short actually played him or not, I can't say.
kasrapov is suppose to be the best.
2. Kasrapov one a few more times