Gollum Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 Carlsen will face the eye of the tiger of Madras this year.
fedex Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 i like to die as a hero.. :winky: carslsen might be better than anand now.. but anand @ 25 yrs >> carlsen @ 25.. anand should not try to prove 40 yr anand >> 25 yr old carslsen :hysterical:
Muloghonto Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 :hysterical: Thats not funny, that is true. Yes, carlsen has accomplished a lot, but so did Anand at the age of 25. He didnt get to be #1 or win the world championships at 25 but thats because in the 80s and 90s, chess field was stronger than it is today. Anand at a young age had to contend with Kasparov, quite possibly the best chess player ever, Kramnik, Kamsky and Karpov. All these guys are head and shoulders ahead of the field today, except for Anand. Oh and I dont think most people here know that Anand is an absolute God at speed chess/blitz chess. In the quicker version of the game, Anand has Bradman-like record, even demolishing the likes of Kasparov, Kamsky etc. with ease.
fedex Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 F**k off Paki i'm indian from karnataka..can u tell me how anand better than carlsen at 25 ? major achievement of carlsen at 23 1.he is youngest player to reach rank 1 2.highest ever peak rating in chess history 3.wining candidate chess 4.wining world championship now f**k off as****e
Muloghonto Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 i'm indian from karnataka..can u tell me how anand better than carlsen at 25 ? major achievement of carlsen at 23 1.he is youngest player to reach rank 1 2.highest ever peak rating in chess history 3.wining candidate chess 4.wining world championship now f**k off as****e Because Anand had some of the best results as a teenager and early 20-something guy (youngest grandmaster, deep runs in the majors, etc) and it came in a much, much harder era for chess. As i said, if you think Carlsen today would've accomplished ANY of the 4 points in an era when Kasparov, Kramnik, Karpov, Anand and Kamsky were active, then you clearly,never followed chess and do not know the difference between a Kasparov and Aaronian. In cricketing analogy terms, Anand is like Sachin, who averaged 35 against Waqar, Wasim, Imran and Qadir. Carlsen is like Hayden, who beat the crap out of Harbhajan and a bunch of nobodies in 2001. Yes, statistically Carlsen has accomplished more than Anand at 25. But as a player, he is nowhere near where Anand was at 25. Just that Anand has declined a bit and the field is really easy at the moment.
fedex Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Because Anand had some of the best results as a teenager and early 20-something guy (youngest grandmaster, deep runs in the majors, etc) and it came in a much, much harder era for chess. As i said, if you think Carlsen today would've accomplished ANY of the 4 points in an era when Kasparov, Kramnik, Karpov, Anand and Kamsky were active, then you clearly,never followed chess and do not know the difference between a Kasparov and Aaronian. In cricketing analogy terms, Anand is like Sachin, who averaged 35 against Waqar, Wasim, Imran and Qadir. Carlsen is like Hayden, who beat the crap out of Harbhajan and a bunch of nobodies in 2001. Yes, statistically Carlsen has accomplished more than Anand at 25. But as a player, he is nowhere near where Anand was at 25. Just that Anand has declined a bit and the field is really easy at the moment. dude i think u never seen carlsen play.at 14 age he drew with kasporov..but i agree with anand has more competiton than carlsen but anand has poor record against both kasporov and karpov . if u think like boris gelfand,kramnik,topolov,adams are nobody i think u never followed chess
Raghav_12 Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 There are enough indicators to suggest that Carlsen would achieve higher levels in chess than Anand. While I agree with Mulogonto's point that Chess field is now not as competitive as it was when Anand entered in late 80's or early 90's, but then Anand never dominated likes of Kasparov and Karpov. Anand would always be counted in the elitist but one league in chess world, though he can very well be the leader of that league.
FischerTal Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 There are enough indicators to suggest that Carlsen would achieve higher levels in chess than Anand. While I agree with Mulogonto's point that Chess field is now not as competitive as it was when Anand entered in late 80's or early 90's' date=' but then Anand never dominated likes of Kasparov and Karpov. Anand would always be counted in the elitist but one league in chess world, though he can very well be the leader of that league.[/quote'] carlsen barely made it past candidates 2013. he lost to ivanchuk and svidler in the last rounds. it was only thanks to kramnik's loss in round 14 that he went to WCC 2013. dont forget that anand-carlsen head on record is even as well.
randomGuy Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Carlsen is already the greatest ever tournament player. His win record in tournaments is unreal.
Gollum Posted March 31, 2014 Author Posted March 31, 2014 Anand entered the scene as the 1st great Non Soviet challenger to the crown since Bobby Fischer. In the early 90s he was the only serious threat to the Soviet machine(Short/Timman were a few notches below). He won the strongest tournament in history in 1988(Reggio Emilla) finishing ahead of Kasparov and Karpov.Throughout the 90s he was 2nd only to Kasparov. His H2H against all players except Gary is overwhelmingly in his favour. Moreover he was India's 1st GM, a trendsetter for future generations to follow. Today we have 25 GMs and a very good team thanks to Anand. So he deserves more respect than what a few c***sucking Pakis are giving here.
f.b.m Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 The modern chess players aren't even half as good as the old timers because they had much tougher conditions to face. Here's an example:
Recommended Posts