Is Anand one of the Best Player of all time ??

Why is Anand not compared with other great classical players ??

Kramnik on Anand:

I always considered him to be a colossal talent, one of the greatest in the whole history of chess. Each champion has had some sort of speciality, and his is creating counterplay in any position out of absolutely nowhere. He’s got an amazing ability to constantly stretch himself so that even in some kind of Exchange Slav he nevertheless manages to attack something and create something. He also plays absolutely brilliantly with knights, even better than Morozevich – if his knights start to jump around, particularly towards the king, then that’s that, it’s impossible to play against and they’ll just sweep away everything in their path. I noticed it’s better to get rid of them when you’re playing against him. In general, he’s improved a great deal in recent years, at some point after 2002. He’s a chess player of genius, but previously he didn’t work enough, by and large.

I think that namely in terms of play Anand is in no way weaker than Kasparov, but he’s simply a little lazy, relaxed and only focuses on matches. In the last 5-6 years he’s made a qualitative leap that’s made it possible to consider him one of the great chess players. Perhaps it doesn’t look like that to observers, but when you play against him you sense what a great range he has.

Carlsen on Anand:

To be honest I've learnt a lot from him in the past, both playing against him and especially while training with him. Just the kind of positions that he understands, the way he would just outplay me like no one else did in several kinds of positions. Also the precision with which he analyses games and positions has been an eye-opener.

Gelfand on Anand:

Anand is a modest and dignified person. He is not obsessed about being on the cover of popular magazines or being hounded by the media. He, like Kramnik, doesn't want the world to talk only about him. Anand started his career as a bright tactical player who could win a game in 20 minutes. During the years he matured as an all-round player who could excel in everything on the chess board.

Morozevich on Anand:

Anand is a very strong practical player. He does not strive for the absolutely “clean” opening play of Kramnik, he does not have the maximalism of Kasparov, and not the subtlety of Karpov. Anand, for example, can make a quick draw as White, if he has not played the opening well, or with a weaker opponent, if he thinks it is “necessary” or “appropriate”. But if the opponent appears to be tired, or not in form, then Anand seems to sense this and strives for the maximum from the game.

Only Garry Kasparov would talk nonsense about Vishy, but that’s just Kasparov being Kasparov.

what did Kasparov say about Anand?

yes.he is

yes, Anand is one of the best players of all time.

1. Tarrasch the Great (he wasn't the strongest, but he is the greatest. The most "correct" player of all time, he understood the proper way to play - the truth of chess - better than any one before or after him)

2. Garry Kasparov (the most dominant player among his contemporaries - of any era - since Morphy)

3. Bobby Fischer (extremely strong - might be number 2 if not for his early departure from the game)

4. Mikhail Tal (though often dubious and decidedly incorrect, he had a tactical mind that is second to none in the history of chess - he was a master of the combination)

5. Paul Morphy (he may very well be the most talented specimen to ever have been born on this earth - if he were born into the present day, with dedication he might reach 3000. And if he were merely transplanted into the present day, with no exposure to modern theory, he would still play at the GM level - he really was that good)

Anand may be top 10 - but I don't know. He's better than Steinitz but I'd rank Capablanca, Alekhine, Karpov, Botvinnik, and maybe even Spassky ahead of him.

because he is indian

theres nothing wrong with him being indian, im just saying that people usually dont put non european or non american players in their lists because it goes against their subconsious thought of what a great chess player is.  you have to realize that....

1. europe, then america, then russia popularized the game of chess.

2. most chess writers are american or russian. so most books, news articles and publications would have their opinions.

3. these chess writers would of course have a subconsious bias for their own nations, or own race.

yes anand is a good player but it is my opinion that because he is a foreigner they want to ignore him and focus on the more traditional view of a world champion. for example anand beat kramnik, but many still focus on kramnik more than anand, probably because we subconsiously root for the player of our own presupposed view of what a chess champion looks like. is this racism? no, it is only natural to root for your own kind.

also its just simple fact that for the whole of chess history European chess players were the only champions.

and bobby fischer is satan

So you're saying Anand and Kasparov are the same exact person?

Well how about that. Three different players - one from a different era. And all of them the same exact person. Who knew? I guess you never can tell about someone...

was anand a created being or did anand exist always with kasparov?

Record of Anand vs Carlsen says Anand won more games, but it doesn't mean that Carlsen is weaker.

B/w I'm back

Yes