Anand is good but will not go down among the "greats" of the game because of his vaccilating performance, which is evident throughout his long career. Compare with Kasparov, who, in his prime, just after winning the crown from Karpov, never lost a game for ten years and won tournament after tournament, so much so that people would only bet who would be no.2.
RE:good vs great
by desi dragon on Jun 02, 2008 07:00 PM Permalink
Anand is a second rate WC who maintains his rating by beating sub 2700 GM's . It wont be long before Carlsen makes him his bunny lol.
RE:good vs great
by Raghu Chadalavada on Jun 02, 2008 07:22 PM Permalink
To a certain extent you are right but Anand is playing in a period everybody is sub 2700. It is not his fault. Let us appreciate what he has done to the country. Sachin never won anything for India except accumulating runs and contracts.
RE:good vs great
by vijay narayanan on Jun 02, 2008 06:26 PM Permalink
But towards the end of his reign Kasparov for a few years avoided a large number of tournaments in which Anand played. Every world Champion is great in his own way and its not fair to compare.
RE:good vs great
by Anand athreyaa on Jun 04, 2008 05:33 PM Permalink
Sir..Please may I ask you do you know anything about chess?? On what basis do you claim that Anand won't go down as one of the greatest? You don't decide the greatness of someone by comparing him with someone else. If you say Kasparov is the greatest, there are people who would claim Fisher is greater, and some would say Capablanca is the greatest. Kasparov, the greatest, lost to Kramnik in a match without winning a single game. That doesn't mean Kasparov is not one of the greatest or Kramnik is greater. Please leave your idiotic ideas behind and understand the game. This man, has never lost this tournament since its inception and I think he won it seven times. And for the first time he is losing it and you guys start talking about Anand aging. Let me reiterate, if at all there is sportsperson who can be called the greatest produced by India, its Viswanathan ANAND. And in chess parlaans, he certainly would go down as one of the greatest. 5 chess oscars, twice winning the championship, 10 years of top three position, one of the 4 humans who have broken the 2800 barrier, all this inspite of being trained in a nation who didnt know how to spell chess. Lets remember, Kasparov said "If Anand was born in Russia and received a russian training, he would have become the greatest.". When Kasparov retired,he told Anand "Now you can take over". So I would plead all chess illiterate people to just shut up and accept that they dont understand the game.
RE:good vs great
by Harsh Mishra on Jun 04, 2008 06:47 PM Permalink
Understand the game or not, understand cold statistic...2 decades as the no. 1 player in the world (Kasparov) is just not the same as being in top three for ten years...
