Why is Vishwanathan Anand so bad?

I'm just saying the statement isn't so simple "retire when you're at the top" because it can be applied to obviously absurd cases like anyone who becomes world champion or rated #1 immediately retiring.

As for Kasparov, I remember him as the man whose ego was so huge he retired before he was past his prime out of fear of when he may start playing poorly. I don't admire him for that, if anything I think of it as cowardly.

Yeah, 4 to 9 isn't so bad. Anand is one of the best players of all time, so of course Carlsen can't beat him whenever he wants.

It will be interesting to see how Karjakin does.

 

Kind of selfish and spiteful also... like "if I can't be number #1 anymore I quit", an arrogance about that how he must have viewed top ten as being so inferior. I'd never begrudge someone from quitting if they really want to, but certainly not something to be admired.   

  

Temperament is also part of a professional's tool kit. And it's not fair to say "if ____ had played a little better" for only one person. Yes, Anand missed a simple tactic, but if Carlsen had been playing up to standard then he wouldn't have allowed that possibility in the first place.

But yes, Anand is one of the greatest.

going back to the topic title, so how bad is vishy actually?

https://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=men

#8 in the world, ahead of Karjakin, Topalov.  must be devastating.

The answer is plain simple: Carlsen is the better player. That said, the last decisive game between them in classical was won by Anand.

kingofshedinjas wrote: dpnorman wrote: GnrfFrtzl wrote: nimzomalaysian wrote: GnrfFrtzl wrote: nimzomalaysian wrote: Why does Viswanathan Anand continuously lose to a new player like Magnus Carlsen, inspite of being such an experienced and proficient player? Vishwanathan Anand has a very good record in playing chess, he's been a grandmaster for many years. But suddenly he is not able to perform well against the less experienced Magnus Carlsen. Please explain. Is that a serious question? Carlsen is half his age, man. That's exactly the point. How could an experienced chess player who was the World Champion 5 times lose to a person half his age? Yes, but aging also limits certain functions needed for chess. That's one side of the story. The other is the way chess is played. Theory evolved, new lines are introduced, etc. and the new generation has the privilege of adapting the old style and the new one at the same time. And let's not forget that Carlsen also could study Anand thoroughly. Anand, while being one of the strongest players of all time, is past his prime and eventually will not be able to catch up with new theory and the new generation. Some say he should've retired by now, with which I agree with.

And what you're trying to say is...

trolls are going green - reduce, reuse, recycle.

Isn't he bald btw?

Even at 35 yrs I am not performing the way I used to be . Vishy is 47 and if he plays at 2750 that should be appreciated .It is unfair to simply underrate  vishy at 47 with Magnus at 26 .Magnus is an amazing talent no doubt but  there is no one out there who could beat Magnus  ..

Kasparov was not able to beat 13 yr old magnus...kasparov cannot beat kramnik also..

He just won Tal Memorial 

Anand is absolutely brilliant when he plays boldly (i.e. tactically), but unfortunately, he only seems to do that when he's playing Rapid or Blitz.  He excels in kill-or-be-killed tactical positions, but he doesn't invite the complications when playing regular tournament or match games.

 

He's still great, and not just for his age, but he, like everyone else near the top, plays not to lose, rather than playing to win.  If he decided to play like Richard Reti (who forced opponents into decisive, high-tension positions which simply couldn't result in many draws), at least against the super-GMs, I think he'd see better results.  Carlsen takes people out of book on purpose, that's how he plays to his strength.  Anand could to the same, if he simply took the time to realize what his strengths really are.

 

The age issue is imagined more than it is real.  I knew a former (and now once-again) Expert who told me "your brain turns to mush after age 60", but the fact was he wasn't playing to his strengths.  It took a battery of games for him to realize that classical positions don't play to his strengths - gambits and tactical openings do.  Once he got enough confidence to play the "weird" stuff in tournaments, he went from struggling against A/B players to being on the level with 2100-2200 players.

 

Aging players fall into the same trap as young players - complacency.  Anand has been world champion already, and seems to have accepted that he has been surpassed, which is easy to understand, considering the circumstances.  If he played without fear, as he does in Rapid/Blitz, Anand could go toe-to-toe with anyone, Carlsen included.

Even Kramnik and Topalov have faded a lot. Ivanchuk also. In chess, age matters a lot. Newer younger players like Magnus, Karjakin, Caruana, Wesley So, Liren etc have fresh ideas with modern approaches. Chess evolved over time, and this is these guys' era. Anand's and Kramnik's era was 2000-12. Chess 2012-24 will be dominated by these younger guys.  

He is old...Plus his wife is really attractive

Troll threads always get the most activity. If someone asks a legit question, it sinks to the bottom of the pile...haha.

What are you talking about? The quality of all the threads on chess.com are top-notch especially in off-topic.