Weakest World Champion ?

Anand is the strangest. No.1 at age 37!

Idrees, I didn't criticize him or anything. I just said that he is different and unique from all the others in a way. And YOU found a way to criticize me.

Lets not forget that Anand is the ONLY player to win the WC in 3 different formats !  Also.... he defeated Kramnik in a classical match for the title so he cant be weaker than Kramnik ! 

Only factoring the raw objective skillset: Steinitz since older generations lack the understanding and developments of newer generations.

Relative to one's peers: Umm, maybe Tal or Euwe?  All champions were great don't get me wrong, but other champions tend to outshine them.  Alekhine, Fischer, Botvinnik, Karpov, Kasparov, Smyslov, Capablanca, and Kramnik tend to be the big names everyone talks about, with an occasional shout out to Petrosian and Lasker.

"Alekhine, Fischer, Botvinnik, Karpov, Kasparov, Smyslov, Capablanca, and Kramnik tend to be the big names everyone talks about, with an occasional shout out to Petrosian and Lasker"

Going by which criteria would Kramnik be a bigger name than Lasker and much bigger name than Steinitz, or Anand and Carlsen for that matter?

Since relative to one's peers is the only serious way to measure, I think it is difficult to rank a player like Kramnik, who even at his best only shared first on the rating list, ahead of a player like Lasker, who was best in the world for decades and scored consistent World Champion level results for 45 years.

Steinitz ? The weakest world champion?  

Dude... Steinitz redefined the game and took it to a whole new level.

I am not going to insult you by calling you ignorant.....but I'm sure someone else will. 

"Apart from that, the worst performance by a reigning world champion would probably be Petrosian at Alekhine Memorial, Moscow 1967 where he could only manage =9th"

At least that was an equal score in the middle of the field, while both Anand and Kramnik finished last a couple of times.

Yes, Petro's result is certainly up there, or down there rather.

Kramnik defeated Kasparov, a name that frequently appears on best of all time lists, for the title and simply has such amazing technique.  His title defense against Leko is one of the most memorable. 

Lasker's match with Schliemann was a great one, and Steinitz's match with Anderssen was a battle between the old romantic chess and the new scientific approach.  Steinitz understood the importance of positional imbalances and how planning should take them into account, a far superior method to premature, baseless attacks.

I didn't include Carlsen because obviously the current champion is going to be the most talked about, but I personally think he's already the best of all time given how he surpassed Kasparov's peak rating. 

"His title defense against Leko is one of the most memorable. Lasker's match with Schliemann was a great one"

If you say so :-)

You're right I meant Schlechter.  It's been awhile since I studied the games from the match but this one was a great one:

To me Kramnik vs Leko and Anand vs Gelfand are the two dullest title matches :-) Leko was never top three but when the best players refused to participate he became the challenger and lost because of draw odds after several games were drawn in the opening. Lasker's match against Schlechter was maybe his only really bad performance over many decades, together with the Capa match but then he was in his 50s and didn't really want to play, and faced an extremely strong player at the peak of his powers. Schlechter was always classes weaker than Lasker, except in that one short match.

But leaving Steinitz and Lasker out of the equation I still don't really buy the argument that everybody should talk about Kramnik, Kasparov, Karpov et al as the greatest players, while Anand should be nowhere near Kramnik. The two played in many World Championships and Candidates together, and Anand did much better every time, qualifying in the 90s and winning the World Championship knockout, winning the 2007 World Championship, the 2008 match, the 2014 Candidates. Anand has a plus score, has 6-2 in Chess Oscars, won more World Championships, did better in rapid, was #1 much longer, etc. He also qualified for several title matches, FIDE against Karpov, breakout title match against Kasparov, undisputed against Carlsen, while Kramnik failed to win all qualifications he participated in. So to me Anand is ahead of Kramnik on the ranking.

Here's an unpopular suggestion: Fischer. His antics before and during the match with Spassky amounted to psychological warfare - would he have won without it? And after he won, he disappeared from the scene. He had brilliance, but not stamina. Maybe the antics were because he already felt he was slipping, and then didn't play because he didn't want to embarrass himself? Or once he had the money, he lost his motivation? Weakest or not, he was certainly the briefest.

I don't think you're well informed. Leko almost became WC. He spoiled the last game (a draw would have secured him the title) and actually lost.

Regardless how good Kramnik's last game against Leko may have been, drawing a match against a player that never reached top three is not in itself much of an argument to rank his career achievements as greater than those of Lasker and Steinitz.

Speaking of the most recent matches I think Anand vs Kramnik was a great match, maybe the last really great match. Anand vs Topalov was quite OK but did have some horrible blunders and with both players past their peaks. Anand vs Gelfand was just a misery to follow, while Anand vs Carlsen was much too easy for Carlsen after Anand continued the downgoing spiral from the previous title matches. He has given the impression of being in better shape now so hopefully a better match is coming up.

kalifman was the weakest.

Botvinnik, he had to have a rematch everytime he lost and never won a match on his first try.

More proof that Anand is the worst of all time.