Who is better Kasparov or Anand?

It's interesting that Tal, one of the most complex players in history, would have had only about an average complexity rating among the the eight candidates. Chess really has become much more concrete and complex in the last 20 years.

As far as I am concerned, whether Karpov and Kasparov was better was never actually settled with certainty. Sure, Kasparov got the better of him overall in matches and H2H, but their head to head record was so close while they were still at their best it could easily have been random.

They were so close it would probably take 1000 games or more for the result to become statistically significant enough to be confident one or the other was better.

Personally, I think Karpov was better when they were both physically and mentally at 100%, but Kasparov was younger and also had a tad more stamina so he could wear down Karpov in longer matches. 

Put them at the table at their best for one game with my life on the line, I'd take Karpov.  I'd sweat my a$$ off, but that's the way I'd bet my life.  

Make it some very long match, I'd go the other way, but it's still a coin flip.  

It's a HUGE MISTAKE to think a small edge in results translates into a definitive difference in skill/ability.  

Kasparov was never ranked #6 in the world while he was world champion.

Kasparov was born in India?

Wcrimi, yes, Karpov and Kasparov were close in skill. Their matches were fantastic. But, in the games that mattered, Kasparov demonstrated that he was indeed better than Karpov. This can be shown by the final World Championship matchfinal match score:

three wins for Kasparov, one (almost) won by Karpov, one drawn. 

I believe you are missing my point. 

If I played a few matches with an opponent that was very slightly better than me, I might win them without it meaning I was better.  When 2 players are very close, (as they certainly were) it takes a very large sample of games to know who is actually better.  

The results were the results. No one will ever be able take that away from Kasparov, but the sample size is not conclusive given how close all the matches were. 

Wcrimi, you seem to be saying that the results were random. I'm arguing that the match results were not random. Kasparov won when he had to win, Karpov didn't. A prime example of this was in game 24 of the fourth match. Kasparov needed to win as white, Karpov only needed the draw. Kasparov found a way to win.

That wasn't luck or random chance, Kasparov proved he was better in the critical moments. This sort of minute difference is seen quite often in sports. Louisville recently won the NCAA basketball championship by repeatedly going on late scoring runs to win against Wichita State, Michigan, and others. Yes, it takes luck to win a tournament, but chess matches have far less luck. Kasparov proved he was slightly better than Karpov. Also, his rating was consistently higher than Karpov's from 1985-2000.

if you go back and read more carefully, you'll understand the post was about Anand

The refs gave it to Kasparov!  Damn' refs.

@Eseles:  whoops, yup, you're right.  Wrong again...damn'.

 Not true. Karpov held the title for 16 years, while Kasparov was champion for only 15 years.

This is what comes from reading Wikipedia. 

Karpov held the World Championship from 1975-1985. Kasparov held the title from 1985-2000. 

Karpov lost the Candidates' Final in 1992 to Nigel Short, but then won a consolation match to Timman. That consolation match conferred a title to him that nobody else considered legitimate.  In 1993, Kasparov crushed Short, the legitimate challenger, as selected by FIDE and the new group, PCA.

Karpov held the title for ten years, Kasparov held the title for fifteen years. Kasparov held the title longer than Karpov did.

 It proves nothing. To get there Kasparov relied exculively on his opening preparation. Out of the opening  Karpov was superior to Kasparov.

 That's your story. Karpov was champion till 1999 and everybody knows it. He beat Anand and refused to defend his title later on. So, yes, Karpov dominated the chess world, won more torunaments and was WC longer than Kasparov.

I lot of what people THINK is some kind of critical small difference IS RANDOM. 

kasparov.i watched anand games against computer(robel).he really played like amateurs

My vote for Anand....

didin they settil that ?

Kasparov was clearly better than Anand when they were both at or near their prime. 

Anand is an absolutely fantastic world champion, but he was never better than Kasparov at his best. 

If you believe all that tripe about ratings inflation, Anand should have a much higher rating than Kasparov ever had. Anand's highest rating was 2817. Kaspy broke 2851.

Statisticians have shown that there is no rating inflation, but that's another argument that has been bludgeoned in countless forums here.

I tend to think the computer analysis of these very strong computers is about our best estimate of strength.  Players are extremely biased and often tend to pick people they played against and beat.  

A computer is objective and very strong at chess.  I am not sure why they have the computer analysis for a set number of plie though.  I would think it would be better if they did a set amount of time per move instead.  

I don't think those engine studies say all that much. If Grischuk really played so much better than Aronian, Kramnik and Svidler in the latest Candidates, why did he finish far behind them? All engine analysis I've seen agree that Karpov played better than Kasparov in their title matches, still the latter did after all score the better results and that should count for something :-)