Who is better Kasparov or Anand?

I've been through eight pages trying to find confirmation, but every article says that it was only alleged by Short that he was playing Fischer

Trysts, I edited post #42 before I saw your response. Sorry.

Oops! That's okay, SmyslovFan. Your original comment caught my eye because I had read about Short's claims before and had been curious if it was true.

Yes, as above, you might as well ask who is better Carlsen or Karpov(?)

There may be some indications that Carlsen would would do better, but, given the circumstances, we can never know for sure.  And, there are always upsets.  Perhaps not so many in chess as in, say, the NBA, but there are variable factors: mood, health, stamina, determination, focus etc.  Masters and GMs are such because they are not only very good but very consistent.  Even they, however, are not perfectly consistent.

If molecule x took a left turn instead of a right turn immediately after the big bang, would we be alive to ask the question?

Pardon my interuption in thread topic but I have a question and a comment tied into it.

When I play chess I play to win and even when I am losing I try my best to pull something out.  I don't understand why you would enter a world class chess game with the mentallity to draw.  Shouldn't you always want to win? 

Remember KornKid, it's their job. Losing = less $$ and there isnt all that much in chess to begin with. They still WANT to win, but over pushing for a win will often result in a loss, which they certainly do not want.

At that level most games are drawn.  Even Carlsen draws over 50% of his games (other top players over 60%).  It's because the level of play is so high and the perfect chess game is (theoretically) a draw.

To play for a win at that level is something completely different than it is for you or me.  To "play for a win" from the beginning mean to take risks and risk losing.  For you or me to "play for a win" means to try our best.

Maybe it is best for the super-tournaments to show a real, instead of theoretical draw on the board. Of course they could always attempt three-fold repetition whenever they wish, but maybe it will add pressure.

Trysts, they did that in this tournament, with the 30 move rule. 

But in truth, there are very few "grandmaster draws" in tournaments these days. The elite players seek complications and strive to win even as Black. The Ruy Lopez Berlin defense is an excellent example of this. We saw far more King's Indians and Grunfelds, which are not considered drawish at all, than we saw Russian or Queen's Gambit Accepted lines.

Nothing special? How about being the longest reining world champion ever?

Bjazz, I don't know how you count time, but the longest reigning champion of all time was Lasker. Kasparov held the title the longest of anyone since World War II. Kramnik has held the title longer than anyone this millenium. Anand has held the title the longest of anyone... this decade.

@SmyslovFan: maybe he meant "the longest reigning world champion ever to have been born in India" lol

wasn't the 2nd tie-break rule which gave Carlsen the 1st place for winning more games also in the same direction?

In 1896 Lasker won the rematch against Steinitz, he played his next WC match in 1907  against Marshall . He took another decade off after defeating Janowski in 1910 and didnt defend his title again until 1921 when he finally played Capablanca .  It has to be much easier to hold the title for 27 years when during 20 of those years you dont play anyone for the title ... no ?  

Bobby knew what he was doing  

Okay. I forgot about Lasker, but there was foul play involved. As for Kasparov I'm getting confused with the different championships.

Sorry, back to the drawing board.

In Championships Anand has been more accurate that any other Champion as wins go.

totally agree with you.

Kasparov  LEGEND !!!!!!!!

Yes, I saw the chessbase article. It's a fascinating read. The difference between Anand and Kramnik (#2) and Kasparov (top ten, but considerably lower) in "accuracy" may be deceiving. When Kasparov and Anand played in 1995, his "accuracy" was the second highest in history. Anand tried to simplify things against Kasparov in that match, but Kasparov proved better there too. 

Still, Anand plays pretty sharp chess and keeps his accuracy high! Only Kramnik matched him in that department as world champion. 

http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211/PostId/4009400/the-quality-of-play-at-the-candidates-090413.aspx