“Top 10 in history” Because: He’s only 4 years younger than me and still is at the top. For his professional longevity (from 34° New Year’s tournament in Reggio Emilia in 1991, ahead of Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov). Its not for Elo, Anand showed that the Elo rating is not so important. For the 4 titles of World Champion of Chess. Finally (most importantly) for having performed a play style similar to the style “Anand man”.
He is the only one to win knockout format, classical format,round robin format of World chess championship. He has never complained about privileges previous world chess champions have enjoyed.
I give credit to Anand for becoming the first Asian world champion and leading the big surge in Asian chess. Asia has half the world’s population but, until two decades ago, Asian players have been average at best. Now, a number of Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese, and Filipinos regularly compete with the elite.
“When he retires chess will get significantly poorer”
No, Magnus Carlsen will come out of hiding wearing a baseball cap, sporting a crazy beard, and leading an old frazzled Liv Tyler carrying his luggage in tow.
Magnus will be sanctioned for playing a grudgematch against the brain of Topalov floating in a pickle jar in the Satanic Peoples Republic of Arizona after it secedes from the Hispanic Union of North America in 2049.
I’m shocked at how low some people would rank Lasker and Steinitz, men who absolutely dominated the chess world of their time. It’s a mistake to underestimate them just because they lived in age when there was less analysis on the books. In fact, if anything, it makes what they achieved even more remarkable. Hard to put Fischer on the list since he did become champion, but never played a game AS champion.
How do you compare champions of different eras? If by sheer chess skill, some of these “greats” would not even rate 2500 if they played today. If by strength of their competition, there are probably 10-20 times more competitive players today than 50 years ago. The only “fair” criterion is how they shone above their class in their own time and conditions, and how much impact they made on chess history and lore. Given these, I’d put Fischer, Lasker, Capablanca, Kasparov, and Botvinnik up there. Anand would be right in the middle, definitely much ahead of such non-notables as Smyslov, Topalov, Ponomariov, Khalifman, and Kasimzhanov.
Anand is the greatest, of course.
I think hes the Interim Champ, i mean from the time when fischer was the best then they took it to Russia, so um not sure.
“Top 10 in history”
Because:
He’s only 4 years younger than me and still is at the top.
For his professional longevity (from 34° New Year’s tournament in Reggio Emilia in 1991, ahead of Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov).
Its not for Elo, Anand showed that the Elo rating is not so important.
For the 4 titles of World Champion of Chess.
Finally (most importantly) for having performed a play style similar to the style “Anand man”.
Best regards
Stef
Sometimes I wish Vishy had some of the issues of the previous champs – ego, eccentricity, big mouth…
Vishy Anand, over decades, turned out to be a true gentle giant!
1. Kasparov 2. Fischer 3. Botvinnik
4. Capablanca 5. Karpov 6. Anand
7. Lasker 8. Alekhine 9. Kramnik
10. Tal 11. Petrosian 12. Spassky 13. Topalov 14. Steinitz 15. Smyslov 16. Euwe 17. Ponomariov 18. Khalifman 19. Kasimdzhanov
Vishy is an anomaly in chess.
Normally the top spot is held by a mental patient.
He is the only one to win knockout format, classical format,round robin format of World chess championship. He has never complained about privileges previous world chess champions have enjoyed.
I give credit to Anand for becoming the first Asian world champion and leading the big surge in Asian chess. Asia has half the world’s population but, until two decades ago, Asian players have been average at best. Now, a number of Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese, and Filipinos regularly compete with the elite.
When he retires chess will get significantly poorer
There should be a fifth option: “Not one of the top ten.”
The person who put Anand ahead of Lasker needs a serious history lesson.
“When he retires chess will get significantly poorer”
No, Magnus Carlsen will come out of hiding wearing a baseball cap, sporting a crazy beard, and leading an old frazzled Liv Tyler carrying his luggage in tow.
Magnus will be sanctioned for playing a grudgematch against the brain of Topalov floating in a pickle jar in the Satanic Peoples Republic of Arizona after it secedes from the Hispanic Union of North America in 2049.
1. Kasparov 2. Lasker 3. Steinitz 4. Botvinnik 5. Capablanca 6. Karpov 7. Alekhine 8. Petrosian 9. Spassky 10. Anand
I’m shocked at how low some people would rank Lasker and Steinitz, men who absolutely dominated the chess world of their time. It’s a mistake to underestimate them just because they lived in age when there was less analysis on the books. In fact, if anything, it makes what they achieved even more remarkable. Hard to put Fischer on the list since he did become champion, but never played a game AS champion.
How do you compare champions of different eras? If by sheer chess skill, some of these “greats” would not even rate 2500 if they played today. If by strength of their competition, there are probably 10-20 times more competitive players today than 50 years ago. The only “fair” criterion is how they shone above their class in their own time and conditions, and how much impact they made on chess history and lore. Given these, I’d put Fischer, Lasker, Capablanca, Kasparov, and Botvinnik up there. Anand would be right in the middle, definitely much ahead of such non-notables as Smyslov, Topalov, Ponomariov, Khalifman, and Kasimzhanov.
Anand notin top ten. Already, Magnus is better.
Anand not in top ten, Magnus is already better.
Magnus who?? Its absurd to compare confused wannabe kids with great legends.