King Anand
RAKESH RAO
Viswanathan Anand becomes the first non-Russian “undisputed” world champion and the world’s top-ranked player at the same time.
CONTROVERSIES have their own way of attracting the attention of even those who are indifferent to the subject. At least the curiosity factor ensures that the topic does become a talking point depending on the gravity or the longevity of the debate.
For generations, the World Chess Championship has been characterised by controversies and chaos. Several temperamental champions, wittingly or otherwise, have caught global attention for courting or creating controversies. As a result, this “non-action” sport has never ceased to provide off-the-board action involving some of its leading practitioners.
On the roll of honour of world champions, the name of Viswanathan Anand stands out. In the past two decades, this genial genius from Chennai has proved that humility can be an asset even in the highly competitive world of chess. Unlike some of his predecessors, this articulate 37-year-old has repeatedly demonstrated that hard work over the board is a very effective substitute for harsh words away from it.
When Anand, world champion in 2000, regained the title in Mexico City on September 29, more people felt happy for him than for most winners in the past. Besides the millions in the country starved of individual success in the sporting arena, Anand’s followers around the world, mainly in Spain, were ecstatic. For over a decade, Anand has lived near Madrid, with wife Aruna, after choosing to have a base in Europe to facilitate his chess career.
What makes Anand such a lovable champion is his gracious demeanour. In triumph, he is quick to remember those who offered him a helping hand on the way. Even in adversity, Anand maintains grace and dignity. He has dealt with fans and critics with equal attention. Though at the top of the chess world, Anand remains grounded. Indeed, after a long time, chess has a worthy “undisputed champion” of the world.
Here is the full article.
Poll:
1. Fischer was Russian
2. Fischer’s title was disputed
3. Fischer was not top-ranked in Reykjavik
4. Rakesh Rao is out of touch
5. CowboyNeal does not care about chess
It is indeed refreshing to have a champion who has an air of dignity and maturity, not to mention tremendous talent.
Anand looks like a nice person but I think he is far from being an spotless person, we have to remember that when he lost the world championship versus the great Karpov he did not congratulate him!!! first time in history that the defeated player did this. And I think Krammik was also a worthy champ.
Not only Fischer, the writer seems blissfully ignorant of Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, and Euwe as well.
Not to mention the whole Bobby Fischer Syndrome, of using “Russian” to apply to anyone from the Soviet Union. Tal and Petrosian weren’t Russian either.
Rao needs to go back to Journalism 101.
The writer probably thinks Kasparov was the first world champion, or he meant to say Anand was the first undisputed, non-Russian champion in the 32 years since Fischer.
I’m surprised to hear that Anand stands alone amoungst Gentlemen champions.
I’ve noticed a long-standing trend amoungst Indian players and journalists of ignorance or disregard for the history of chess (excepting the deserved “we invented it” claim) and the world championship in general.
From the young Indian player who didn’t know Kasparov and Tal won the championship in thier twenties to this fool who couldn’t be bothered to go to wikipedia I’m disappointed by this ongoing trend. Somebody please send the Indians some chess literature!
I wouldn’t be surprised if Indian papers soon started claiming Koneru Humpy is the first woman to ever cross the 2600 mark.
Given the rise of the Chinese I hope they are not similarly ignorant of chess history otherwise much of chess culture may be lost over the next century.
If he meant “since Fischer”, that’s not what he said.
>>It is indeed refreshing to have a champion who has an air of dignity and maturity, not to mention tremendous talent.>>
How many champions do you think were lacking in tremendous talent? Or dignity? Topalov was never world champion, you know, so forget about him.
Rakesh Rao pls get your facts straight – Don’t confuse the former USSR with Russia – You don’t seem to know a damn about the great Robert James Fischer, or Capablanca or Alekhine or …….. As for Kramnik, I think he behaved really well, considering all those antics by Danailov and gang.There is no doubt that Anand is a great chess player and a gentleman ( but nobody is perfect and,we all have our lesser moments ). I sincerely hope that the key words for the forthcoming Anand – Kramnik match next year will be ‘Honesty’ ‘Integrity’ and ‘Sportsmanship’ instead of ‘OneUpManship’ and ‘Hey! my Rykba signal is garbled’
It think Rakesh Rao has not done any thing wrong intensionally. It is very common in India even in major news channels to publish articles with error. They simply dont research before writing. And people are not bothered too.
Raj
Rakesh Rao is just another sneaky Indian.
for all the dumb asses here who were quick to jump on to criticize the author, read the full article in the link.
He has given all the proper credit to all the Russian/non Russian players of the earlier era and clarified what “undisputed” mean.
and you can’t compare a player for earlier era to modern players, even most 2600 player of today can easily take Capablanca or Euwe or Alekhine for a ride of their life on most days with the modern day preparation.
Anand is King of chess at this moment all the rest is rubbish and nonsense; till next year he is KINGGGGGGGGGGGGG. then well see
jb.
p.d. maybe he didnt congratualate karpov because:
karpov isnt such a good person like all believe;
he was too young and he wanted to win, which shows it by becoming the king now,
maybe he didnt know u had to congratualate him:
its no sin to be hurt after a loose; spassky never showed up for his 21st game; bobby fisher retired, kasparov “inherited” to young Kramnik; Alekhine took it with him; so….
KINNNNG AAAANAND.
Karpov was a lackey of the soviet bloc. He got a free pass to the finals, then faced Anand. A probably weary Anand drew the classical slugfest but lost the rapid tiebreak. Imagine deciding the classical World Champion by Rapid games!! Absolutely SINFUL!!
to the comment”Rakesh Rao is just another sneaky indian”
Lots of sneaky untrustworthy people out there – of all races! History is full of them! As for Anand,he never gets involved in Toiletgate issues. Not easy to play good chess when your opponent either gets help from Fritz or slams doors or threatens your peace of mind in other objectionable ways.
I think you are wrong in thinking today’s modern players would wipe out Alekhine, Capablanca, Lasker, Steinitz, or Morphy! Fischer himself, who was one of the greatest chess minds in history was of the opinion Morphy could beat anyone once he learned the opening theory because the chess knowledge (middlegame/endgame) has not really increased that greatly from 1850 to today! Just play over some of these old games with your Rybka engine as I have done and are you going to be shocked by the level of their play. Even Staunton himself played some incredible games as did Andersson, Schlecter, Rubenstein, Nimzovitch, Torre, Pillsbury just to name a few. I love going over their games with Rybka and am always amazed at just how deep their play was in middlegame and endgame. Of course, the openings with my Chess Assistant may not be up to latest theory but once you see the rest of the game they rarely miss the best move! Also let us not forget Botvinnik, Tal, Smyslov, Petrosian, Spassky, Bronstein, Keres, Reshevsky, Fine, Flohr! It would do us all well to get empirical data before making conclusions!
to mayanking
what I meant about earlier era players vs modern is, they can’t make audacious moves in the early stages of the game or go with risky openings like Kings gambit or Evans gambit against the modern pool of players. most modern players can easily refute their audacious moves. if you analyze lot of the earlier era games at high level, you can find lot of places the opponent failed to find a what we think today as a ‘simple’ refutation.
Just like you failed to see a simple refutation for your post in Susan’s thursday puzzle. I was chuckling when you wanted to drop two Rs and Q for a Q, R and pawn of black with no more play.
Of course, the earlier era players might fare better if they use the same tools as modern 2600 players. more than rating, confidence plays a bigger role in Chess.