kasparov beat Anand like 8913891092183289 times
I love Anand's playing, but there can be no doubt that Kasparov is the better of the two. Their head-to-head favors Kasparov, longevity as World Champion favors Kasparov, longevity as world #1 favors Kasparov, etc. Anand is great without any doubt, but Kasparov is slightly greater without question.
Dude! If they played 1 game EVERY SECOND and Kasparov won every single game that would still take about 282 million years to achieve. Humans have only walked the earth for 200,000 years. I get your point though: Kasparov is the better of the two.
Kasparov was world champion for a long time - Anand not so long.
But look on the Bright side both would beat you
Who is better Kasparov or Anand?
Is this even debatable?
Actually i might need to see a game against them to see who is better.
1400136896, there are plenty of games between the two players available.
Go to chessgames.com and search for games between Kasparov and Anand. You'll see that Kasparov dominated.
Kaspy beat Anand 16-4 in standard games (31 draws), and 26-8 in all games (43 draws).
Kaspy trounced Anand.
Anand was a monkey and Kasparov was a Patzer military tank!
I have nothing against the monkeys or popular champs. They can climb a whole game-line and stay over the top of every leaf of the tree, maybe is more. But you can see his play running and hiding from Kasparov play and after the first military assault you can see his victories from far away.
Kasparov beats Anand, Kramnik beats Kasparov, Anand beats Kramnik. It's the great trifecta.
for a change we are asked if one alive guy is better than another alive guy. so finally we have a match that moneybags chess.com can sponsor for real answers!
Kasparov, no question.
I just checked another website that showed Kasparov and Anand played 77 games head-to-head. In all games, Kasparov won 26, lost eight, and drew 43. In classical games, Kasparov won 16, lost 4 and drew 31. I think that is pretty dominant.
There is no doubt that peak Kasparov is better than peak Anand, although not by as much as their head to head record may indicate (in my opinion). I believe their matchup was partly psychological: for example, Nakamura has a horrible score against Carlsen, but I don't think Carlsen is really *that* much better as their one-sided record suggests.
Anyway, I would separate it by time periods. Prior to (and including) 2003, Kasparov was superior to Anand. But from 2004 Anand started performing on a different level and I would give the edge to him had he played a match against Kasparov that very year and beyond. Of course at that point Kasparov was more interested in politics than chess.