While Carlsen is the new kid on the block and a great one, it's too early to put him on that level. Time will tell.
I don't think it's too early to put him on Anand's level. His results over the last five years make it hard to see him as not good enough to be in the same league with regards to playing strength.
A tad better I think, but not much.
Best score of Anand at Tata Steel : 9,5 in 1999 (2nd behind Kasparov)
Best score of Carlsen : 10 in 2013.
Obviously that's only two tournaments, not a proof, but a good exemple of what they can do when they play their best chess.
Carlsen is the strongest player at the moment but hasnt won a world title yet. Anand stands 5th in the all time table whereas Kasparov is 2nd after Lasker. Maybe after winning the title Carlsen might enter the top 10 next time.
A tad better I think, but not much.
Best score of Anand at Tata Steel : 9,5 in 1999 (2nd behind Kasparov)
Best score of Carlsen : 10 in 2013.
Obviously that's only two tournaments, not a proof, but a good exemple of what they can do when they play their best chess.
Yes, but one difference is that Carlsen is much more even at a high level. Anand's Wijk 1999 was very impressive, but the same year he finished last with -2 in Dos Hermanas (behind among others a 68 year old Korchnoi), and didn't win any of the tournaments he played. The last time Carlsen had a bad result is several years back.
I wish Kasparov is still around to take on Magnus. That would be epic.
People who said that Anand got his title because Kasparov retired are clearly ignorant. Kasparov was defeated by Kramnik (Remember the famous Berlin Wall defense employed by Kramnik). Then, the world championship title was split. Kasparov resented the changes in the FIDE and went on to create another chess organization. Each organization has their own world champion. Anand was the first to be the undisputed World Chess Champion by defeating champions from both organizations. He defeated Kramnik and Shirov (I think it was Shirov). There was also a period where Anand topped the FIDE rating. So, Anand clearly deserved his title.
Not quite. It was more like this:
1993 Kasparov split
2000 Kramnik > (i.e. beat) Kasparov
200X Topalov wins FIDE title
2006 Kramnik > Topalov, becomes unified champion
2007 Anand wins "tournament," becomes "World Champion"
2008 Anand > Kramnik in a match
2010 Anand > Topalov
2012 Anand > Gelfand
2013 Anand vs. Carlsen
I do agree that Anand deserved his title given that he beat Kramnik, Topalov, and Gelfand (three strong GMs, especially the first two) in matches. Anand also had some decent finishes during that period, coming in 1st at 2008 Linares (where he beat Shirov x2, Carlsen, and Leko) and winning quite a few rapid tournaments. (For some reason, he played mostly rapid tournaments lately.)
source on Anand's finishes: Anand, World Champion by Anand and Nunn
actually its more like this:
1993 Kasparov split
2000 Kramnik > (i.e. beat) Kasparov
200X Topalov wins FIDE title
2006 Kramnik > Topalov, becomes unified champion
2007 Anand wins "tournament," becomes "World Champion"
2008 Anand > Kramnik in a match
2010 Anand > Topalov
2012 Anand > Gelfand
2013 Anand < Carlsen
A tad better I think, but not much.
Best score of Anand at Tata Steel : 9,5 in 1999 (2nd behind Kasparov)
Best score of Carlsen : 10 in 2013.
Obviously that's only two tournaments, not a proof, but a good exemple of what they can do when they play their best chess.
Yes, but one difference is that Carlsen is much more even at a high level. Anand's Wijk 1999 was very impressive, but the same year he finished last with -2 in Dos Hermanas (behind among others a 68 year old Korchnoi), and didn't win any of the tournaments he played. The last time Carlsen had a bad result is several years back.
That's right. That's why I said it was only an exemple of their best performances. It's irrelevent if you're interested in their average level.
When Anand played his best chess, he was just a tiny bit weaker than Carlsen is now. But Carlsen is much more regular.
The last time Carlsen had a bad result is several years back.
A bad result for Carlsen is 2nd place. Of his last 18 tournaments, he won 12 and got the bad result of 2nd in the others.
I wish Kasparov is still around to take on Magnus. That would be epic.
Carlsen would win... Carlsen drew with Kasparov at a simul at like age 12 or 13. I am willing to bet that you could put any of the top 10 players or past champs still living, against Carlsen in a match, and those who are able to beat him more than once in a match, you could count on one had, and not need your thumb....
I wish Kasparov is still around to take on Magnus. That would be epic.
Carlsen would win... Carlsen drew with Kasparov at a simul at like age 12 or 13. I am willing to bet that you could put any of the top 10 players or past champs still living, against Carlsen in a match, and those who are able to beat him more than once in a match, you could count on one had, and not need your thumb....
I believe he drew in an actual rapid game in Reykjavik at the age of 13, making it all the more impressive! :)
Carlsen made excellent moves in the endgame and has proven to be an excellent endgame player, but, at no point did he come up with some incredible attack or incredible endgame position that Vishy would be unable to overcome. If not for current Vishy blundering twice, these two have played very equal chess. In my opinion, prime Vishy didn't make simple mistakes like that, so I think comparisons of current Carlsen with prime Vishy are premature.
No prime Vishy was never quite Kasparov or Fischer (in fact Kasparov usually steamrolled him), but he was just a notch below and was an incredibly dynamic talent who played beautifully complex positions and combinations that often baffled the top players in the game. While Carlsen is the new kid on the block and a great one, it's too early to put him on that level. Time will tell.