To above:
I understand that. I'm just saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE to accurately gauge the playing strengths of different generations as all the metrics available are innately biased due to the natural increase of knowledge about the game. Meaning a discussion on who is better between Capablanca or Anand is utterly pointless.
Anand vs. Carlsen match would be good to watch. have they ever played against each other?
Oh yeah. They're both active players.
Anand has a good score against Carlsen, it's only in the last year and a half that Carlsen has managed to start overcome Anand.
I think Kasparov was definitely #1 and many people on this thread agree, but not many people (if any) mentioned Kramnik as the possible number 2. He was World Champion for 7 years (2000-2007), and took the World Championship away from Kasparov in 2000 without losing a single game.
...and got his ass kicked twice in a row by Anand. Kramnik had an inside scoop on Kasparov having trained with him in his youth, so that gave him an advantage against Kasparov that Anand never had, but head-to-head Anand wins.
Capablanca is number one...he is universally on everyone's short list, plus he seemed to put relatively little effort into the game...only Keres I think had a barely plus score against a 50-ish year old Capa and Botvinnik had an even score against a similarly-aged Capa.
Anand beat Kramnik in match play once (In 2008), not twice. In the 2007 Wch Tournament, they played each other twice, each game ending in a draw. Anand might be a better player than Kramnik, but I need to see more proof. Kramnik held his title for 7 years. So far, Anand has only held his for 3 years (besides, it is an amazing accomplishment to defeat Kasparov in match play, even if he had an "Inside Scoop").
That's a nice contribution. Glad you could join us.
Please wash your hands on the way out!
why anand deserves so much admiration is his defensive ability. it is well known that an attack is so much easier to coordinate than a defense, and in this light, players known for their dynamic, fearless attacks may be great, but they are also many. players like anand, and for that matter, karpov, and petrosian are a rare breed, making them if not better, at least more admirable.
I meant Anand plays like crap and so he is only no. 2 in a toilet. He blundered his way through the last WC and he won't keep his title again. This was his last win, so no. 2? Only in toilet..
Are you serious? "Blundered his way through the last WC"? Insulting the World Champion's play is not the way to get respect, by the way.
It is already difficult enough to compare players from different times, but it is very risky to judge their standing while they are still active. One swallow does not make the Spring, and one or two matches do not make a number one.And the chocolate that tastes the best is the latest one eaten.
So put Anand back in the wrapper and taste him again in 20 years...
But IMHO he in no way dominated Topalov in the recent match in the way that say Fischer dominated the competition including Spassky in his run for the World championship. Other players who dominated everyone when they were in their prime include Kasparov, Karpov, Botvinnik, Lasker, Capablanca and Morphy. Before putting Anand ahead of those stars, he needs to do a lot more convincing.
The American named Capablanca (North American, that is) is the greatest, although another American named Morphy might be due to his hands down dominance of his era like no one else before or after.
What does "dominate" mean? The only players to truly dominate their eras were Morphy (unquestionably the most dominant of an era of all time), Capablanca (but eventually the competition caught up), and Fischer (only because he refused to play Karpov and so it was perceived that he was so dominant), and Karpov (pre-Kasparov). Kasparov and Karpov were microscopically close in strength during their rivalry so Kasparov was never dominant in the pure sense that Morphy was or in the sense that Capablanca pre-Alekhine, Tal pre-Botvinnik II, Fischer pre-Karpov, or Karpov pre-Kasparov,
The American named Capablanca (North American, that is) is the greatest, although another American named Morphy might be due to his hands down dominance of his era like no one else before or after.
What does "dominate" mean? The only players to truly dominate their eras were Morphy (unquestionably the most dominant of an era of all time), Capablanca (but eventually the competition caught up), and Fischer (only because he refused to play Karpov and so it was perceived that he was so dominant), and Karpov (pre-Kasparov). Kasparov and Karpov were microscopically close in strength during their rivalry so Kasparov was never dominant in the pure sense that Morphy was or in the sense that Capablanca pre-Alekhine, Tal pre-Botvinnik II, Fischer pre-Karpov, or Karpov pre-Kasparov,
I don't disgree, but anyway, I don't think that Anand is anywhere close "dominant-wise" to any of those players, or rather it is too early to tell, but it doesn't look like it at this time.
I wouldn't put Anand in the Top 10. Over Chess's history there have been so many strong players Anand probably would be obliterated by so no, not in the top 10 all time
The American named Capablanca (North American, that is) is the greatest,
Capablanca is Cuban, not American.
The American named Capablanca (North American, that is) is the greatest,
Capablanca is Cuban, not American.
See how my non-chess mind works? It's like a laser. Think outside the bun.
Capablanca is Cuban and therefore [North] American but not United Statesian...unless Cuba is part of Europe or one of those "A" continents...didn't get that memo.
Regardless of the immutable objective truth of my statement, you must agree that Blimpy are the Capablanca of burgers (given your locale and photo).
Burger King is more like the Anand of burgers, their burgers are pretty good too (for fast food).
The American named Capablanca (North American, that is) is the greatest,
Capablanca is Cuban, not American.
See how my non-chess mind works? It's like a laser. Think outside the bun.
Capablanca is Cuban and therefore [North] American but not United Statesian...unless Cuba is part of Europe or one of those "A" continents...didn't get that memo.
Regardless of the immutable objective truth of my statement, you must agree that Blimpy are the Capablanca of burgers (given your locale and photo).
Burger King is more like the Anand of burgers, their burgers are pretty good too (for fast food).
Still, the country of origin is a bit more specific than the continent 
For example, I wonder if you've heard of the great Asian player... they call him Kasparov.
Anand IS the second greatest player of all time if you are measuring only playing strength at their peak performances. Older players had far less knowledge about the game than modern players. In fact, I'd wager that the world's current top 20 or so could easily smash players such as alekhine, morphy, et all had they played each other in their peak. Naturally, the next criteria would be their performance vs their peers. However, this is also ridiculously inaccurate as it was much harder back then to become better, the geographic region of the chess playing world was miniscule compared to today, which all essentially points to playing vs a relatively weak set of opponents. Meaning that it is impossible to claim someone like Morphy was a better player than Anand simply because he managed to dominate his consequentely weaker peers. ~ ILOVEBUNNIES
It's harder to get better? To get better doesn't require your opponent's to get better too; to get better only requires you to want to be better...it starts with the desire to be better. Your opponent's ability can force someone to have to be better to continually beat them, however, the person him/herself is the only factor in getting better. Do not fault anyone for having dominated their peers; it is not Morphy's (or any othe player that dominated their peers) fault that his opposition were not strong enough to beat him...You say that is it "impossible to claim someone like Morphy was a better player than Anand simply because he managed to dominate his consequentely weaker peers", however, it would be equally impossible to say that Anand is a better player than Morphy just because he has computers to help him study; how do you know that if Morphy had computers to help him study that his chess ability would not surpass Anand's? Nobody can know this; if anything, know how much of a natural talent Morphy was, you would have to say that Morphy's chess ability exceed those of players today if he had the same tools...if you can claim that Morphy or any of the older champions would not be able to learn from computers and advance their chess knowledge would be like saying Morphy is too stupid to learn (or had no ability to get better) chess theory compared to chess players today. Don't forget that Morphy learned his brand of chess without training...he dominated from very early in his life...his understanding of chess at an early age was well beyond those of his era at a similar age. Somehow people just assume that the older players would not be able to become better had they had the same tools to study with, like they are too dumb to absorb any more chess knowledge than what they had acquired.
BTW, Capablanca was Cuban (he was born in Cuba); I am not sure when in his life or chess carreer he move to the US...