Like to see a unification of world chess and would like to see Anand at the top of it. I really appreciate the exposure he has mananged to acquire for chess everywhere - India in particular.
So impressed with his play in this title chase. He's playing like he wants it more. Doing a great job of playing the man - backing it up on the chessboard too!!!
Winning with black twice! That's willpower and taking risks.
I think the controvery over who is "really" world champion stems from the long standing belief that world chess champion was synonymous with "best chess player in the world." To the extent it just means "guy that FIDE calls the champion," who that is is clear. FIDE has done the chess world no favors by using ever changing systems to crown their champion. When there was a regular 3-year cycle there was at least an appearance of regularity and order to the transfer of the crown. Hopefully FIDE can get back to something like regularity sooner rather than later.
Re Spassky as an 'accidental WC": No way. He was an enthusiastic challenger and a reluctant (perhaps) WC. In his time his reputation among his peers was special, someone who could play at a very high level in several styles.
Old WC hurdles v. Current ones: In the days of candidates matches and a long WC match using long tc and no rapid tiebreaks, it was like climbing a mountain. The challenger that got to the top was the one in best form. I can't think of an exception at the moment. The recent WCs we have Khalifman and Kaz.
As one who would like the best players to meet and settle a winner, I want the older formats. If the 24 (let's say) game match in the original commercial venue was tied up I'd move it to (as required by circumstances) to the Offical FIDE match site in the FIDE compound (which doesn't exist) and just have the players finish up there. Well, that's better than 12 game WC matches and rapid tie breaks anyway.
Anand reminds me of Fischer. Both have strategically tactical styles and both came up in a non-powerhouse chess country.
Anand reminds me of Fischer. Both have strategically tactical styles and both came up in a non-powerhouse chess country.
And I think in the same way that Fischer caused a boom in interest in chess in the US, Anand has caused a boom in interest in India.
I am also one to question those who win the WC through a tournament, I dont trust a tournament to produce the best player in the world as much as I do matches. However, in the case of both Topalov and Anand I do make an exception since both of them have also been the #1 ranked player (rating wise) in the world and both have broken 2800, something very few have done and also neither of them have seemingly vanished from the top of world chess after winning their titles.......as did Khalifman and Kazim..... I am a bit biased against Kramnik due to his never giving Kasparov another shot AND the favoritism that fide seems to show him (as well as Topalov I might add) . I also dont particularly like Topalov nor Kramnik due to the toiletgate mess in their match. I DO like Anand because I cant think of another top chess player that is such a gentleman as he is and always has been. I also like his style of chess. I dont like the "safety first" style of Kramnik, Petrosian and some other great players. I prefer to see decisive games and not a bunch of boring draws with 2 or 3 decisive games in a match. Now that Kramnik is down 3 games lets see if he gives short draws with white as Kasparov gave him in their match ? I am betting he will NOT !