Angry Anand?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #21


    cam and alwys cool on face...only

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #22


    Give the guy a break, Anand broke it off before he finished the question, he might only have been asking Anand's opinion of the difference in approach between his generation and the younger class.  Anand certainly didn't want any part of that discussion, but he didn't seem angry to me, just he was done with his interview on the game and the tournament and ready to go.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #23


    No, Anand wasn't angry - but a bit annoyed/irritated, as was plain from his body language.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #24


    Anand just used a bit of humor;  a very classy move and he did it in good spirits.  I am sure he looked forward to a break.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #25


    Kramnik said the same thing when asked about the outcome of the match:

    "Generally speaking, I would like a player from my generation to do better" (Firstpost Sports article, quoted in Chessbase).

    It's a normal question - there is a generation shift going on and its interesting to see how the old guard react (e.g. Kramnik has actually started trying to win games again in the past few years!).  But the chessvibes comments threads are 'interesting' places for all types of theories...

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #26


    He left a little suddenly, but it does not qualify as anger. He of course wasn't elated, but he left with a smile. 

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #27


    It was a good-natured way of conveying the message "I'm not going to take your silly bait".

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #28


    I agree with many of the posts above; I didn't sense anger. I think Anand just wanted to leave. He had covered his game, and tried to leave with some humor.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #29


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #30


    Chess is like any sport in which new ideas challenge old regimes. Young players with youthful spirit challenge older players with wisdom and experience. At some point, though, age and an unwillingness or inability to absorb the new ideas and evolve with the game will make anyone a dinosaur. Facing this sort of "Lex Talionis" is part of competitive life, no matter how refined its exponents like to think their sport is. Depending on who you talk to, objecting to such provocative jabs is either an example of mature integrity or of fuddy-duddy-ism.
  • 3 years ago · Quote · #32


    Harmless, yes I think so. The fact that he once trained Magnus Carlsen and was author of the book Wonderboy about him goes a long way to explaining his comment/question to Anand, and his rather irritating (imo) continual low-level rooting for Magnus as tournament commentator.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #33


    It's harmless unless Simen Agdestein asked given that he was MC trainer.

    Both of them were wrong and not elegant. Anand should not react too much, and SA should be very careful with his questions since Anand was his rival.

    SA should have known that they are in mental war. And his questions to Anand were inappropriate. Of course it's understandble that Anand fans are angry. I would if I were one.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #34


    I think Simen's idea of the old guard vs up-and-commers is wrong. A long time ago, the old guard had old worn-out ideas, as it was a lot of work to find fresh novelties over the board during study. But with computers, it's much easier to keep up to date with the latest novelties and refutations, which means the older gents don't have to put out so much energy to keep fresh.

    The fact that Gelfand and Anand were in the previous WC only underscores the fact that computers may bring longevity to chess players.

Back to Top

Post your reply: