Talk:Viswanathan Anand/Archive 1

name
How is his name pronounced? Can anybody make a recording or describe phonetically?--Sonjaaa 22:16, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * vis-va-naa-tha-n aa-nand --Rrjanbiah 14:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I just added something that should help. Most of the vowel sounds in his name are unstressed schwa sounds. "Vish-vah-nuh-thun Ah-nund". I hope this helps. --Malathion 01:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Name
I think his name is simply "Anand", and Viswanathan is his father's name, used alongside Anand's name for disambiguation purposes. This works sort of like Icelandic names, e.g. "Björk Guðmundsdóttir" (see Icelandic name and Björk). Anand has simply gotten used to people calling him "Vishy" thinking that Viswanathan is his first name, and he goes along with it. His father Viswanathan sometimes gets called "Mr. Anand" by non-Indian chessplayers and is amused by the whole thing. A cite and correction in the article would be nice. In fact maybe the article should be renamed "Anand (chess player)". Phr 03:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * South Indians have the convention of using initials with the given name which stand for the (given) name of the person's father. Anand used be 'V. Anand' but the initials were expanded according to the convention of the rest of India and the world when he became famous. (See also the last paragraph of Indian_names) So the adding the explantion would be fine but Viswanathan part must stay in the title (but an additional redirect from V. Anand would be fine) as it is correct and ofcourse as it is the more famous version. Tintin (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was very helpful. I remembered the rest of the story about Anand's father and edited above.  An explanation should be added to the article; I'll try to get around to it if nobody else gets to it earlier. Phr 05:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: complete explanation here. Phr 06:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the manual of style, article titles should be consistent with how the subject is known in the English-speaking world, so I don't think a move would be appropriate here. ⟳ ausa کui × 13:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Tournament results for Anand
Should we add the results for Anand in big chess tournaments such as Corus, Dortmund, Linares? Very impressive I think Tac ke 11:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In the header, change the date to 1997 from 1994, since http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/AlltimeList.html shows Anand was rated as low as 6 on July 1996 FIDE rating list.

New image?
The new image is okay, but I personally prefer the old one. Was the old image replaced for copyvio concerns or the like, or just because you thought the new image was better? If the latter, maybe we could include both images in the article? Neilc 04:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"blitz speed"
The article claims:


 * "Vishy", as he is sometimes called, burst upon the upper echelons of the chess scene in the early 1990s, winning such tournaments as the Reggio Emilla 1991 (ahead of Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov). Playing at such a high level did not slow him down either, and he continued to play games at blitz speed.

I find this a little hard to believe; he may certainly play fairly quickly, but I'd be amazed if he was consistently able to beat the other top players in the world "at blitz speed" in non-blitz play. Does anyone have a reference for this claim? Neilc 08:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll look for some references and updates on the subject of his play speed. He attracted some early attention by playing very fast, but I think I recall some material saying that this only worked "about low grandmaster level, and that he did have to slow down to play championship level chess". Playing quickly without risking time trouble is also different from "blitz speed", so we should review the article to avoid over-embellishing. TaoPhoenix 00:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Anand often finishes professional games with more time than he started with, because of the hour added to the clock after the 40th move. He is almost never in time trouble even in very complex positions, for example as I recall he finished Anand - Topalov MTel Masters (2005) with two hours left on his clock. I don't know if this qualifies as "blitz speed" but he certainly plays extremely fast compared to others at the top level. --Malathion 05:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, ok -- fair enough. Thanks for the explaination. Neilc 08:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Topalov "Soviet" ?
I think the point of the line is to say that he's the strongest player since Fischer to come from a country where there was no influence on chess from the Soviet sport authority. I know that Bulgaria was once a satellite of the Soviet Union but I don't know how much influence the Soviet sport authority had there, but the point is that you could now say that Kasparov is another example of a "rival non-Soviet" since he's Armenian and not Russian. Clearly, that's not what this part of the intro is trying to express.

It could definitely be worded more clearly though. Any ideas? ⟳ ausa کui × 00:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Bulgaria was dominated by the Soviet Union, but it was never one of the Soviet Republics (USSR). AFAIK Bulgaria has always had its own Chess Olympiad team. Topalov became a GM in 1992; the USSR split up in 1991. From this it should be obvious that Kasparov's situation was not comparable in any way. Even Paul Keres, who was Estonian, was a Soviet because Estonia was a Soviet Republic for the majority of Keres' chess playing carerr.  Check Republics of the Soviet Union and note that Bulgaria is not there and it should be clear. Quale 06:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * How wd it be to say country without Soviet Russia's guidance in Chess. Another alternative is non-Warsaw pact countries. --Gurubrahma 06:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's OK now. I removed the unneeded quotes from non-"Soviet" to make it simply non-Soviet.  Soviet has a well understood and precisely defined meaning (in this context a citizen of the former Soviet Union).  Non-Warsaw pact would make the point not work, because the other person listed is Leko who is Hungarian.  With both Hungary and Bulgaria being former Warsaw pact nations, it's both accurate and easier to say non-Soviet and let it go at that. I see that the the link to Hungarian should be fixed since it links to a disambig instead of Hungary. Quale 04:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Sample game
I've removed the ending of the sample game. In the continuation '''39. Nd7 Be7 40. Nxe5 dxe5 41. Qf7 h6 42. Qe8+ 1-0''' the move 39. Nd7 cannot be made with the knights situated where they are. Perhaps the contributors could review the entire game to see what needs fixing. Eclecticology 17:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The knight moves from f6 to d7. ⟳ ausa کui × 14:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

importance rating
I think his importance rating for the chess project should be "Top", because: Of course if he wins, that will cinch "top importance". Bubba73 (talk), 18:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Was FIDE world champion during the divided phase
 * 2) One of only five people ever to top the FIDE rating list
 * 3) winner of the Chess Oscar several times
 * 4) Currently leading in the world championship tournament.
 * Agree. Unless there is an opposition with a reasoning by tomorrow, I will make this change then. Thanks. - KNM Talk 23:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of YouTube video links
Over the past few days I have been engaged in a bit of an edit war with an anon over the removal and addition of a few Youtube videos. My rationale for removing these videos is:


 * 1) External_links indicates that "Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media." are to be avoided. These links are difficult for many users to follow.
 * 2) According to the core policy What Wikipedia Is Not, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Excessive external linking detracts from articles because they are distracting from information that is immediately relevant to the article subject.
 * 3) If unchecked, these lists become bloated and overlong. See the edit history of Garry Kasparov and the ridiculous edit wars surrounding which of his "important games" belong on the list for an example. Although I believe these videos are interesting, a principled action that allowed them in the article would also allow videos analyzing any of his games, as well as anything pertaining to him whatsoever. It is not difficult for someone interested in more information about Viswanathan Anand to search Youtube for his name; in other words, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not here to do searching work for people.

⟳ ausa کui × 12:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Ryan - what is your chess rating please?

Here is what I have written about this earlier:

'Vandelism' term being banded around - by non-domain experts - could be construed as Libel

It is funny that as an Internationally rated chess player, annotating the four key decisive wins of Anand in the Mexico City tournament (where he recently became Chess world champion) is described as "Vandalism" by Ryan Delaney, and then stamped in the history of edits of the Anand page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viswanathan_Anand

Is Wiki so full of itself now, that it does not recognise the International chess rating system, and basically *Anonymous* people in the Chess world can report "Vandalism" which is actually the work of Internationally rated chess players? What is Ryan Delaney's chess rating?! Why is he a self-declared judge on chess content - or mutlimedia game annotations?!

Perhaps in the definition of "Vandalism" it is important to recognise the subject domain - and seek to find authorities within that domain. The current emphasis seems to be on people such as Ryan Delaney as a self-declared authority in Chess labelling things as "Vandalism" when in fact it is he who is purpetrating Vandalism by the content link removals.

Again, I am left disappointed for where Wiki is going, and I think it is almost libellous how the term "Vandalism" is being implied to the history section of certain documents. Vandalism applied to the content of domain experts - this is where I question whether Wiki is heading for disaster - because this my frends is starting to become libellous - make no mistake about it. When you start abusing domain experts and calling them vandals, I would suggest is not a very good path to tread on.

In the case in question, I uploaded multimedia game annnotations of the four decisive wins of Anand on youtube. Does Wiki have a place for multimedia videos? If so, where is it? If not, what is the harm of using the External links section of the Anand page to have links to those multimedia annotations? One of my vidoes is featured on chessgames.com - their consultation rest of world game. Most of my videos get 5 star ratings on youtube. I am a qualified chess player, and my videos are enjoyed by many. And yet I am accused of vandalism, by putting links to my multimedia game annotations. Is this fair?

Check my Youtube videos for yourselves:-

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=kingscrusher

In a more direct answer to points 1-3 raised by Ryan Delaney:


 * 1) According to the Wiki page you cited: "Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites. There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would be infrequent). See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate intellectual property rights."
 * 2) If you had just copied and pasted a bit more from your cited page:- "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files.[2] Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines. ". Do you see where it indicates "adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article". Here is where your lack of any chess qualifications come in to judging whether something is relevant or not to an article. Here are some clues for you. Anand has recently won the World championship. Those four games were his four key wins - his other games were draws. Do you think those games are relevant or not for the Anand page?
 * 3) Wiki chess extensively links to Chessgames.com - if the argument is to be made that people can do searches elsewhere - then why put any links to Chessgames.com ?! Or are particular exceptions okay ?! If people cannot put external links to increase the value of Wiki, then that is a problem in my view. It is implying that all related content to chess players has to be within the confines of Wiki. A lot of chess content on the Internet is found on dedicated websites - such as Chessgames.com. A lot of multimedia chess content can now be found on Youtube. If Wiki provides a Multimedia video storage facility, then I can consider uploading my multimedia videos there if it is preferrerd. However in the meantime, what is the objection to putting links in the External links section to highly relevant and topical games, which Anand won in order to become the current World chess champion? Is this really considered "Vandalism" by Wiki - or just by the self declared judge Ryan Delaney, who I cannot find any chess rating for. Finally, Ryan, you are the one that is Anonymous in the world of chess. Information about me can be found here:- http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/getref.php?ref=111117G and http://www.fide.com/ratings/card.phtml?event=403105. What are your chess qualifications please? On a more serious note, I see you have also removed a lot of interesting external links from the page of Kasparov. Here is another clue for you - Kasparov is widely regarded as the strongest player that ever lived. It is in the spirit of encouraging the chess community to leave those external links intact - they were from a diverse range of chess websites. Why do you feel qualified to snuff out the value-added links of the broader chess community?

Kingscrusher 15:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Note - We are all individual wikipedians here, and we are all Equal when it comes to article development. A wikipedian having an ELO rating of 0 is having as much rights as the one who has 2900 points. We are not competing here. We are building an encyclopedia here. Please see WP:NOT to see what Wikipedia is NOT. I completely agree with Ryan, that these Youtube external links have to be removed. If these are not removed, then virtually thousands of Anand's games can be added and there is no end to it. - KNM Talk 16:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me - I am not being defensive about this - I am being offensive. He has vandalised the Kasparov page as well. Several chess website links were removed. I am accusing him of vandalising the page - please understand who is on the defence here. I request something to be done to remove his editing rights before there is serious damage done to the relationship of Wiki to the wider chess community. I reinstated the Kasparov external links section just earlier. I suggest if you want to make the statement "The chess community and its rating system are worth nothing", then please by all means continue Ryan's editing work of removing all the value-adding links from the Kasparov page. I dare you to. I will write off to all chess websites about you doing this, in complaint and campaign for an official boycott of Wiki. As such you will not be left with much content, which is often from chess books in any case - with people who wrote those backs carrying high chess ratings. Please don't insult me by indicating that Chess ratings in relation to chess content is worth nothing. I think people need to check out the Kasparov page, and the external links that Ryan removed - and the number of different chess websites that were totally disrespected.


 * You have just removed the four key games of Anand winning the world championship - give yourself a pat on the back, for improving the relationship with the Chess community. I politely suggest you reinstate them soon - or leave my reinstatement of them, until we can discuss this further here. If you seriously believe chess ratings in relation to chess content is not worth anything, then you are seriously deluding yourself. Chess books and especially reference works are written by knowledgable chess players often titled with IM or GM titles as well as high ratings.


 * Kingscrusher 16:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Kingscrusher, seems like you have misunderstood my earlier statement on ratings. I never said, "chess ratings in relation to chess content is not worth anything". All I am saying here is, among the Wikipedia editors, one cannot make an argument because he has a good rating. It is not considered at all. It will be called as original research and Wikipedia strongly discourages the use of original research. Again, please note that, I am not talking about any chess community or chess website or chess book. I am only talking from the perspective of Wikipedia editors.
 * So, to summarize, please avoid statements you have made above like .. "What are your chess qualifications please?". We are all equal while improving this encyclopedia, and our individual ratings will NOT count. Hope I made it clear this time.
 * Coming back to the YouTube links in this article, they cannot be listed because of the reasons Ryan clearly explained above. Virtually, there would be no end to those kind of videos. What will you do when a new editor comes and adds another IM's or GM's commentary for the same games? and what will you do when people keep on adding links to such videos? If a reader of this article, is really interested in watching those games, it is quite easy to search them on web, and particularly in YouTube website. Thanks, - KNM Talk 17:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If I didn't know better, I'd say this is a joke. The "internationally rated" player has FIDE 2157 and no FIDE titles.  Analysis by an untitled player of the World Champion's games is non-encyclopedic, period.  For me, that ends this discussion.  If someone wants to add GM video commentary of Anand's games, we can reopen the discussion then. Quale 18:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think more serious is the Wiki bullying tactics of a few individuals to invite friends with Barn Stars to come in and prevent multimedia chess annotations. I will inform a few of my chess friends about this, and how some people with no qualifications in chess, but Wiki barn stars think they can just railroad indviduals by agreeing with each other like lemmings. You guys think you own Wiki don't you?!


 * Well, I will tell you what - the Chess commnunity is quite large. Your Barnstars don't give you the right to bully others, or remove dozens of external links from a large number of different chess websites from the Kasparov page. That you have done so, and have backed up the Vandal Ryan - in demolishing a lot of added value to the Kasparov page, as well as now the Anand page, shows how much better you think than the rest of the world. It is no wonder many sites are doing their own Wiki's now and rejecting the central Wiki. Do you two agree with the removal of the Kasparov links as well?! How well does your friendship go in relation to destroying Wiki pages for the wider good? Do you want me to highlight here the links removed on the Kasparov page - which have nothing to do with me, but were from a variety of different websites?


 * Here is the History of the Kasparov page - please undo my last undo, if you really agree with Ryan in his vandalism: I invite you to.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garry_Kasparov&action=history
 * Check out the last External links clear out by Ryan.
 * Kingscrusher 19:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Kingscrusher, this talk page is meant only for the discussion related to Vishwanathan Anand article and its improvement.
 * For any issues/concerns related to Kasparov article should be discussed at Talk:Garry Kasparov and not here. Thanks - KNM Talk 19:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear KNM, In my view, the Kasparov article is entirely relevant to the vandalism of Ryan Delaney which occured today. This is now in the public evidence. I am thinking of notifying some of my members in the Chessworld chess forum about this discussion along with The Week In Chess, Chessbase, Chessgames.com and the other sites which were removed by him. As far as I am aware: Yourself and Ryan are not the owners of Wiki - nor are you official Admin of Wiki. Or are you? You are just members. People in the chess community adding to the External links section have equal rights to use the "Edit" link as you do of any Wiki page. Wiki is meant to be an open-source encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Have I got any of this wrong?! Kingscrusher 21:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am a Wikipedia administrator, although this confers on me no special editorial privilege. ⟳ ausa کui × 23:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Place of birth?
Just a little inconsistency I've noticed. Anand is listed on his page as having been born in "Chennai" in 1969. However, no such place existed in 1969--the city was known by its former name of Madras. Which is fine, but we have another grandmaster, Viktor Korchnoi, listed as having been born in "Leningrad" in 1931. Seems to me we should be consistent and either list these guys by the name of the cities at their birth (Madras and Leningrad) or both by the current names (Chennai and St. Petersburg). 74.251.200.217 (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

World Champion???
The page says Anand is the undisputed World Champion. That means he won the title in a World Championship match. The match with title-holder Kramnik, as of the time of my writing this, is still ongoing. Kramnik seized the title from Kasparov, and has yet to be defeated in match play, which is the only way (barring death or something else obviously unavoidable) that the title can leave his hands. Granted, Anand is leading in the match as of today (20 October 2008), but until it is concluded, Kramnik holds Steinitz's crown that he seized from Kasparov.

Perhaps I should spell it out to make sure Anand's name isn't on there without me forgetting:

Kramnik > Kasparov - Kasparov > Karpov - Karpov > Korchnoi (unavoidable circumstance of Fischer refusal) Fischer > Spassky - Spassky > Petrosian - Petrosian > Botvinnik - Botvinnik > Tal - Tal > Botvinnik - Botvinnik > Smyslov - Smyslov > Botvinnik - Botvinnik > Euwe* (death of Alekhine, match-tmnt of 1948) - Alekhine > Euwe - Euwe > Alekhine - Alekhine > Capablanca - Capablanca > Em.Lasker - Em.Lasker > Steinitz - Steinitz > Zukertort (traditional first WC match) -

No, I don't see an "Anand >" anybody on that list. He last played a World Championship match in 1995 against Kasparov, and lost. This is his only other WC match, currently ongoing. No WC match wins. Therefore, no title. This is indisputable, unless some match took place that was held in secret, or I'm completely obvlivious to it.

As it stands, this article is being pre-emptive and predicting a future Anand win (which I'd like to see) to an ongoing sporting competition. This is beyond inappropriate. Smyslov (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * See World Chess Championship 2007. Given the unusual nature of the current situation, even though Anand is the defending champion in the current championship match he hasn't been given the tie break advantage (defending champion retains the title in case of tie) that was given all previous defending champions in their matches.  165.189.91.148 (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If he's the defending World Champion, it requires that he won a World Championship match against Kramnik prior to the current one. Can the dates of this match be given?  What about game scores?  I can't find a single thing on it.  The article you cited goes to a tournament.  The World Champion's title cannot be exchanged in a tournament, so it's irrelevant. I would appreciate any information on the MATCH where Anand beat Kramnik to allow him to be the defending titleholder in this current, ongoing match.  Smyslov (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't require anything of the sort. See WP:TALK: Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.  The purpose of an article talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to debate chess politics or to troll. 165.189.91.148 (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? Trolling, personal views?  The view of the World Champion title that I am using predates FIDE.  Why is FIDE's decision to remake the title into some new thing (redefinition) being blindly accepted here?  This isn't "politics", this is definition.  And yes, in response to SyG below, to win the World Champion title, it is won in a match.  This predates FIDE.  An organisation cannot simply decide to redefine terms and concepts and have it blindly accepted, nor should Wikipedia feed into this.  "Universal" World Champion is a title that exists before and independent of FIDE, otherwise you're talking only about the FIDE World Champion, not the Universal one.  This is not my simply my opinion, and I am not trolling.  I am taking the objective, older view, which is the one Wikipedia should follow, not the personal opinion of Kirsan Ilyumzhanov or any single organisation. Smyslov (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, your argument is messed up around Botvinnik's assumption of the title. Euwe did not regain the title when Alekhine died, and Botvinnik did not gain the title originally in a match.  165.189.91.148 (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the same mistake is made twice by Smyslov:
 * "The page says Anand is the undisputed World Champion. That means he won the title in a World Championship match." No it does not mean that.
 * "If he's the defending World Champion, it requires that he won a World Championship match against Kramnik prior to the current one." No it does not require that, not according to FIDE regulations.
 * SyG (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong, wrong, again wrong. It DOES require that.  FIDE is one organisation, but the title of UNIVERSAL World Champion predates FIDE.  This is not an opinion.  The years are clear.  FIDE did not exist when, say, Lasker and Steinitz were playing for the title.  How can you say that I am making a mistake?  It is chronological reality. FIDE regulations define only the FIDE Champion, not the Universal champion, which this article (falsely) claims Anand to be.  That's exactly what "FIDE regulations" do.  The title existed before them, however, and can exist independent of them.  If FIDE ceases to exist, the continuous title can still be passed on, regardless of its regulations. Smyslov (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree the title of World Champion predates FIDE, as Lasker and Steinitz show. Your reference to a "universal World Champion", however, is a bit vague. What is the definition of a "universal World Champion" ? According to whom ? Is it backed by WP:Reliable sources ?
 * I also note that even Kramnick had agreed Anand was the new champion. Surely this is an indication of the strength of Anand's claim on the title, isn't it ? SyG (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Vegetarian?
I don't know much about chess, but I'm a vegetarian, and I've heard Anand is too. Is this correct? Shouldn't this fact be mentioned in the article? It sure goes a long way to explain his mental superiority. (preceding unsigned comment by 62.73.248.37 (talk))


 * If Anand is vegetarian, we should mention it, but we should find a source for the information first, we need more than "I've heard such and such." However, we should not say that he is mentally superior because he's a vegetarian. I am not aware of any factual basis that eating meat impairs brain function, and on the surface this seems false. Further, saying Anand is 'mentally superior' suggests that other people are somehow deficient, which would be identified type of bias and point-of-view that is not allowed on Wikipedia.  So, a fact about Anand like him being a vegetarian is fine to mention, we should not call him mentally superior as a result.  —fudoreaper (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Siblings
I've removed the paragraph on his brother and sister from the "personal" section. I can't find a relevant Wikipedia policy, but it seems to me pretty rare to put siblings' info in Wikipedia articles (except in cases where the whole family is famous), and it seems to be pushing the bounds of privacy. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please check these edits
Someone please check the edits made today by 122.161.145.28 in "personal life". Bubba73 (talk), 18:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC) ✅

More chess diagrams!!!
I've just added more chess diagrams. They can be viewed on the article, but for anyone who wants a laugh for the first one...

If you want to read it, either go to the article by this link or turn your computer screen upside down. Ho ho. --116.14.27.127 (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Jewish
I heard he belongs to an Indian-Jewish family. Is this true?
 * No. Tintin 14:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. To be very precise he belongs to an Indian-Tamil-Hindu-Brahmin-Iyer family. Vaazan (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ranking Change
After the win at the last game of the World Championship, Anand is now ranked third in the world with a rating of 2800 (2799.8, actually).

http://chess.liverating.org/

Navneethc (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Update World's Greatest Player Page
Can some expert please update the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Methods_for_comparing_top_chess_players_throughout_history which talks about the method of rating the greatest players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.213.77 (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Great or not?
I think this sentence in the article (While not nearly as highly regarded as greats such as Garry Kasparov or Bobby Fischer) is unfair to a world champion from 4 years that is one of the top 3 o 4 players in the world from 20 years. Anand is for sure one of the greatest of all time, no doubt about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.165.65.169 (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course he's a great. Every single one of the 15 undisputed world champions is a great. But is he "one of the greatest of all time" in addition to being a world champion, i.e. is he one of the greatest of those 15? We can't claim that without citing opinions to support it. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he is one of the greatest. The reason is that he single-handedly rose to the top, without the benefit of the resources as in the case of Kasparaov or Fischer or Karpov or others. He rose to the top because of superior talent, not because of superior preparation. The only modern player with a superior record than Anand is Kasparov (who happens to have a superior record relative to pretty much everyone else). Finally, Anand never played dirty tricks to win. Remember that Karpov's victory over Anand in 1998 was unfair because Karpov was given all kinds of unfair privileges. Similarly, Kasparov would use all kinds of off-the-board dirty tricks to win. Not Anand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.30.235 (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That is WP:Original Research. You need to find sources stating that Anand is one of the greatest. Your personal opinion is not enough. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"oldest person to become world number-one for the first time"
Can we remove that, at least from the lead? Personally I think it's a pretty meaningless statistic (in comparison to all his other achievements). If he was the oldest world #1 that might be of interest, but that honour belongs to Kasparov (though of course Anand might still beat that in the future). Peter Ballard (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree and I've tweaked the sentence to remove that stat.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"the first player in chess history to have won the World Championship in three different formats: Knockout, Tournament, and Match"
While we're on the subject of stats in the lead, I don't think this one is too significant either. Seeing as how the tournament and knockout formats are both fairly recent innovations for the world championship (1948 excepted, of course), very few other players have had the chance to achieve this feat. Strikes me as just a bit of trivia.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (Changed my mind on this, see below). I have a less problem with this one, because (IMHO) it's an actually interesting piece of trivia. Obviously Steinitz through to Karpov never had the opportunity to do this... but Topalov, Kramnik, Kasimzhanov, Ponomariov etc all had the opportunity but none of them have been good enough! Perhaps a rephrase is in order though, e.g., "Anand is unique in that he has won the World Championship in three different formats: Knockout, Tournament, and Match". By removing "first in history" we remove the impression that this somehow makes him better than the other world champions. And (though we can't really say this), it's a testament to his versatility, and to his willingness to slug through those stupid KO tournaments. Adpete (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * On second thoughts, I agree it's too trivial for the lead. I had a go at rewriting that second paragraph, and it quickly became apparent that that fact sticks out like a sore thumb. It's OK in body of the article though. I'll take the same approach as others: it depends how widely reliable sources mention it. Adpete (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This fact is important for three reasons. First, many current top players had the same opportunities as Anand in attempting to win the championship in different formats. They didn't succeed. Second, it demonstrates Anand's versatility. Finally, a highly respected player, commentator and opinion maker, Lubomir Kavalek, has mentioned this fact many times as a sign of Anand's strength. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.164.220 (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Tiger of Madras
"Anand is also popularly known as the 'Tiger of Madras'.[1]" I am moving this line from the beginning to deep into the article. It is in no way a "popular" nickname (actually this is the first time I am hearing this) and does not deserve to be near the top of the article. Tintin 01:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Done so. I wonder whether it should be deleted altogether. According to google, there are perhaps a dozen or so news article that mention it. Tintin 01:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"fourth player to be undisputed World Champion and hold the world number one ranking at the same time"
Since there have only been 6 undisputed champtions since ratings were introduced, I don't find this to be particularly significant. I propose deleting this unless a reliable source can be produced showing this is significant. (e.g. "XXX congratulated Anand on being the 4th World champion to also be #1", something like that). Adpete (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Quale (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Adpete (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sample game
Hi. I have just noticed that there are two dark squared bishops on the diagram of the sample game - one on f8 and another one on c1
 * Following the game, itself, I have realized that there shouldn't be a bishop on c1 but on c8. --Dratroy (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have corrected it. --MrsHudson (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrongly referred Viswanathan Anand claim needs a source
The claim that Viswanathan Anand is not the champion's correct name in English ("Anand Viswanathan, often wrongly referred Viswanathan Anand") needs a reliable source. I actually think this claim is false. The issue of name order is already dealt with in the Template:Indian name hatnote. It seems to me that by this editor's logic, nearly every Indian biography should say "wrongly referred". Quale (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As per Anand's passport scan at http://www.chessbase.com/news/2010/anand14.jpg. His Given Name is 'Anand' and his surname is 'Viswanathan'. I think in wikipedia we always put full name as " ". So as per that it should be "Anand Viswanathan". -Abhishikt 01:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that is not correct. First, see Template:Indian name.  Second, a passport scan is not a reference that supports the "wrongly referred" claim.  Look at the references listed in the article and see how his name is always spelled in English.  As one particular example, I would suppose that The Times of India would know how to correctly spell his name.  Apparently this newspaper has the largest circulation of any English-language newspaper in the world. Quale (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Consequentive?
His article currently shows that he won in 2000, 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2012.

But the frontpage shows says that he has won his fourth consequitive. Please to explain. 96.50.10.234 (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

[quote]Otherwise, he took advantage of the rule allowing players in time trouble to use dashes instead of the move notation during the last four minutes only once, in the game Anand versus Svidler at the MTel Masters 2006.[quote] WTF does this mean???

Correct name & edit war with Quale
This is regards to the "concern" of Quale. For the sake of record, I'm one of the early Wikipedians (18th or so) and I was sick at certain times as people were doing "Google Test" and start removing my edits. Then some people came from South India and supported me. I'm not sure if that "culture" still persists here; but that's a big curse of openness and possessive edits.

Regarding the naming, here are the proofs (even if there's no proof, please note that it's a commonsense here in South India):

''That’s right. I’m Anand. My father is Vishwanathan. At some point people assumed that this must be my first name and Anand must be my last name. It’s common in the West. Vishwanathan was unpronounceable for them. Became Vishy.''

''But my father is Vishwanathan Krishnamurthy. I am Anand Vishwanathan. Of course, my wife is Aruna Anand. So among the mysteries we have to explain to many people is, though we are married, why we don’t share the same family name.'' - http://www.indianexpress.com/storyOld.php?storyId=38320&spf

And http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1416

HTH --Rrjanbiah (talk) 05:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the Indian Express link is helpful. It doesn't say that "Viswanathan Anand" is wrong, however, and in fact chessbase uses that name order even at the link you provide.  It's common in English (but not universal) to put an Indian given name last, as explained in Template:Indian name that has been placed at the top of the article for some time.  Commonsense isn't the standard in wikipedia, sources are, and the there are dozens of English-language sources that say "Viswanathan Anand".  (I'm sure there are actually thousands, but the article would never list them all.)  You're mistaken if you think this is an internet artifact, as "Viswanathan Ananad" is the name order used in English-language print sources as well.  Please explain if you can why The Times of India uses an allegedly wrong spelling of Anand's name. Quale (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

He clearly says "I’m Anand...I am Anand Vishwanathan..." and also says western people misunderstood. Then, how that cannot be wrong? Most of the info on South India are not available in internet and even if so, not in English. That's pathetic being a Wikipedian and adding South Indian information. For everything else refer Indian_name --Rrjanbiah (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Since you have some experience in this issue, it would actually be more helpful if you could answer my questions. First, "Viswanathan Anand" is not found only in internet sources; this is also the way that his name is presented in English-language print sources as I've already stated.  Second, Anand is not someone from South India unknown to the rest of the world.  He is prominent world-wide, and achieved that prominence during the age of the Internet.  Both those facts deflate your repeated "google test" argument, so you should move on from that to other matters.  Third, are you claiming that something that is commonly known in South India is unknown to the The Times of India?  I'm genuinely curious about this.  Newspapers are usually very careful to get the spelling of people's names correct.  (They often get lots of other things wrong, but they are particular about the spelling of names.)  The the Times that is best known in the US, The New York Times, also uses "Viswanathan Anand" in print.  Finally, the chessbase article you pointed to correctly said that Anand should be referred to as "Anand" and not "Viswanathan", but the article itself always uses "Viswanathan Anand".  So your claim is also that the very article written to clear up confusion about Anand's name spells it wrong?  And it does this after talking to Anand himself about his name?  I'm afraid that doesn't make sense, to the point of being incredible.  There is a lot more, including the fact that FIDE, the governing body of world chess also uses "Viswanathan Anand".  Since Anand is that organization's world champion it is hard to understand how it could spell his name incorrectly.  Quale (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Not Current World #1
As of the July 2011 FIDE ratings, Magnus Carlsen is World #1 with a 2821 rating. Anand is second with 2817. This information is also grossly wrong on the FIDE World Rankings wikipedia page. (it lists Magnus as #2 with a 2827 rating?) 69.224.41.179 (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

FIDE Rating Card vs reality
Anand's FIDE Chess Profile says his GM title year was 1985. This is of course wrong, and our article has 1988 which is the correct year. (Another editor just fixed the infobox.) Anand earned the FM and IM titles in 1985. Although his rating reached 2500 in 1987, he didn't complete the norm requirements until the following year. It's unfortunate that FIDE can't provide accurate information on its website. Quale (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Good source
http://moscow2012.fide.com/en/presentation/25-anand Abhishikt (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Kasparov and Anand

 * "This has made him a well-liked figure throughout the chess world for two decades, evidenced by the fact that Garry Kasparov, Vladimir Kramnik, and Magnus Carlsen, of whom the former two were rivals for the World Championship throughout Anand's career, each aided him in preparing for the World Chess Championship 2010."

This is rather debatable, considering Kasparov later offered Gelfand help in his match against Anand in 2012. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Out front I should say that it is a fact that Anand is popular and well-liked by both fans and his rivals. In my view the real problem is that the statement isn't supported by the sources cited to justify it.  The two sources given confirm that Anand received help, but neither one makes any claim as to why.  The argument in the article that this is evidence that Anand is well liked is original research as it advances a claim not made by the sources.  In fact, The Times of India explicitly declines to say why Anand received so much elite help:
 * But why did the world greats rally behind Anand? That's a question both Aruna and Anand would like to skip. "We are not into the politics of it," said Aruna. It is a fact that Topalov had publicly taken on Kramnik during a face-off in 2006, alleging that his opponent had received tips in between games during his visits to the toilet.
 * It's rather obvious the primary reason Anand received so much top-level help in 2010 is that Topalov is so well-hated. It is true and in fact very well known that Anand is well-liked in the chess world by both players and fans, but this needs a different source and this unsupported argument should be removed.  My quick try to google for sources confirming Anand's popularity didn't give much, just a blurb about a book on Anand's games and career (not the best source) and another brief bit in a newspaper article. Quale (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Doctoral offered?
Just wondering if the University of Hyderabad offered a specific degree, if any are immediate source for. I would think the reasonable specifics would be Physical Education or Computer Science for performance at chess, if that was the grounds. 204.108.237.194 (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The lead
One IP editor has recently restored the old and contested (by User:Ihardlythinkso and me) version of the lead of this article. Here it is:


 * Viswanathan Anand (born 11 December 1969) is an Indian chess Grandmaster and the current World Chess Champion. Anand has won the World Chess Championship five times (2000, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012), and has been the undisputed World Champion since 2007. Anand was the FIDE World Rapid Chess Champion in 2003, and is widely considered the strongest rapid player in history.


 * Anand has been described by many of his peers (e.g., Vladimir Kramnik) as probably one of the greatest talents in chess history. Lubomir Kavalek describes Anand as the most versatile world champion ever, since Anand is the only player to have won the world chess championships in many formats including Tournament, Match, Rapid, and Knockout chess.


 * Anand became India's first grandmaster in 1987. He was also the first recipient of the Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna Award in 1991–92, India's highest sporting honour. In 2007, he was awarded India's second highest civilian award, the Padma Vibhushan, making him the first sportsperson to receive the award in Indian history. Anand has won the Chess Oscar six times (1997, 1998, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008).


 * He held the FIDE World Chess Championship from 2000 to 2002, at a time when the world title was split. He became the undisputed World Champion in 2007 and defended his title against Vladimir Kramnik in 2008. He then successfully defended his title in the World Chess Championship 2010 against Veselin Topalov and in the World Chess Championship 2012 against Boris Gelfand. As the reigning champion, he will face the winner of the upcoming Candidates Tournament for the World Chess Championship 2013.


 * Anand is one of six players in history to break the 2800 mark on the FIDE rating list, and in April 2007 at the age of 37, he became the world number one for the first time. He was at the top of the world rankings five out of six times, from April 2007 to July 2008, holding the number-one ranking for a total of 15 months. In October 2008, he dropped out of the world top three ranking for the first time since July 1996. Anand regained the world number one ranking in 1 November 2010, having defeated the reigning world No. 1 Magnus Carlsen in the Bilbao Masters, but had to concede the top spot back to Carlsen in July 2011.

So, what are the problems with this version of the lead? First of all, per WP:LEADLENGTH, the lead of this article should usually have three or four paragraphs, but the contested lead has five. Second, "is widely considered the strongest rapid player in history" would need a good amount of sources, per WP:REDFLAG. Presently, the lead has "of his generation". The second source for that says, "Mr. Anand, for more than ten years you have been the world's best rapid chess player", which does not support the "in history" claim. The other source says "A strong claim can be made that he is the greatest rapid player of all time." However, that does not support the "widely" claim. Third, the lead is supposed to be a summary of an article's body, but in this case it is straying into the realm of "excessive detail" (see WP:LEAD and WP:FA?). Fourth, the contested paragraph is already included in the section "Assessment". Fifth, "Anand has been described by many of his peers (e.g., Vladimir Kramnik) as probably one of the greatest talents in chess history" is supported by one reference, an interview with Kramnik. "Kramnik" is not synonymous with "many of his peers". Sixth, it has been the practice in the articles related to WP:CHESS to use descriptions such as "widely considered one of the greatest chess players ever" only in a few select articles, such as Emanuel Lasker, José Raúl Capablanca or Alexander Alekhine. Articles such as Max Euwe and Tigran Petrosian contain no such claim in their respective leads, even though both players were world champions.

Comments from other editors are welcome. Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with your concerns, including excessive length and detail and the use of single references containing a statements by one individual to try to support claims like "many of his peers" and "widely". Anand is a great chess player, but I think the article can reflect that by sticking more closely to what the refs actually say.  Quale (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the removal of "praise for Anand" from the lead. While the lead can be shortened and presented compactly, the praise aspect has to be present for a player of Anand's stature and impact. The fact that Anand is a colossal talent is not just opinion of one player, Kramnik, but is also recognized by several other GMs such as Nigel Short and Kavalek. Kasparov himself said that "had Anand trained with the Soviets he would have been a world champion much earlier". While Max Euwe and Tigran Petrosian were world champions, they didn't win it 5 times against a variety of the top players at the time and in 4 different formats. I don't think you understand chess well enough to appreciate what Anand has accomplished. Anand is the only player to have won the world champion 5 times besides Karpov and Kasparov.

Lets shorten the length of the praise for Anand in the lead, but for heaven's sake and for the sake of chess, let the article reflect what the chess community thinks of Anand as a player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.63.2 (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

signature?
Why is his signature in this article? I don't think it's relevant to anything and I suspect it's not a good idea to publish anyone's signature anyway.--Grondilu (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Fix "Tamil" name
Please change ವಿಶ್ವನಾಥನ್ ಆನಂದ್ to விசுவநாதன் ஆனந்த்.

The name listed as "Tamil" is actually Kannada. Please fix it to the actual Tamil name (get it from the corresponding article on ta.wikipedia.org). Verbatim text to change is given above.


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Asking for a "reliable source" that the Kannada script is actually not Tamil is ridiculous. Tamil and Kannada are two different languages with completely different scripts.  If you can't tell them apart I suggest you have a look at the Wikipedia articles for the two.  Anyway, whatever, the Kannada and Hindi names have been deleted by someone else already.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.181.16.2 (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Done Agree that asking for sources is laughable. It is given in the Tamil article anyway. Jose Mathew C (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been removed per consensus WP:INDICSCRIPT. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed that a neutral scvript should be used in case of controversy/edit warring. But as far as I know, Anand Viswanathan was born and grew up in Tamil Nadu. Therefore, there is little possibility of controversy and it seems to me better to use a real language than an artificial creation that very few readers will understand. This does not mean that I am against IPA; since Wikipedia has no space restriction, I feel that the more translations are given, the more useful it will be to readers. Jose Mathew C (talk) 06:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not how the consensus of the RfC turned out though. Especially with biographies, there was a near uniform opinion to not have any non-English scripts. If anyone wants to see translations, all they'd need to do is to check the interwiki links on the left. IPA use isn't compulsory, it's an option. The rest of the deal is quite simple though, on ta.wiki we don't add English or Spanish for this page and so on, the language of the 'pedia does matter. In biographies such as this, native (or other) language names add no real value and cause more problems as per the consensus of the RfC. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Levon Aronian
In recent years, aside from Magnus Carlsen, Anand has noted Levon Aronian as a "problematic opponent" for him. I think his lifetime record against him should also be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qed (talk • contribs) 01:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 August 2015
In the "Assesment" section it says: "FIDE Present Kirsan Ilyumzhinov". It should say "FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov".

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah. My bad. Honestly, I'd just wait until the protect is taken off next week. I think people get the point. Jkmaskell (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The page is no longer protected. Thanks,  Nakon  04:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Viswanathan Anand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070822011817/http://www.the-south-asian.com:80/March2002/Chess-Vishwanathan_Anand1.htm to http://www.the-south-asian.com/March2002/Chess-Vishwanathan_Anand1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Page protected
I have temporarily edit protected this article untill this edit warring issue is resolved. To edit, please see WP:PER. Any admin can shorten or lift this PP at their discretion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

How are you sir Mahidul Islam Al Mahdi (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Viswanathan Anand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120531020848/http://moscow2012.fide.com/ to http://moscow2012.fide.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

IP from Chennai
"One of the best of all time" is not the same as saying "the greatest of all time", an easy distinction to make for any competent English speaker. The phrasing is actually quite mild considering Anand's achievements. Ample evidence to justify the statement is provided within the body of the article. The persistent edit warring by this IP is becoming a real pest. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the ip is who also wants to reframe Morphy's page per the same POV (see note to that effect on my talk page). I forget who the last admin who handled this earlier was, I know I came in and got sucked into it as did, but this is getting to be an incredible waste of time. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Kasparov and Fischer are considered to be the greatest of all time. Capablanca, Alekhine who are slightly less than the former will be considered "one of the best players of all time". But anand, Topalov, Kramnik are players who are really good.

But terming them as one of the best of all time is not proper to say atleast. Since they have lots and lots to achieve to get that trade mark.

@MaxBrowne: Sorry if i had annoyed you. I just felt that there should not be any dramatizing comments in any of wiki's page. Since, this is the information that people are going through and should not be guided wrongly is what my concern is and will be — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vignesh9891 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've heard a number of top players call Anand one of the all-time greats. A second's googling produces Nakamura saying "Vishy's a really strong player, probably the second-greatest player in history". In the reddit discussion someone says "Vishy is absolutely a top tier all time great." The person disagreeing with him responds "I don't think anyone would say that Anand isn't an all time great".. So I'm not sure how you can be unquestionably an all-time great but yet not one of the best players of all times. Saying only Capa and Alekhine are in the 'one of the best players of all time' category is a bit silly. Ok, people will vary in how many fit in that category. Capa and Alekhine are people I've heard claimed to be the greatest ever. I think a person who could write "But terming them as one of the best of all time is not proper to say atleast." should be more careful and modest about the likely meaning of fairly vague English expressions than they have been. Saying Anand and Kramnik aren't all-time greats but just "really good" is just silly. Anyway, I'll leave the last words to Kramnik: "I always considered him [i.e. Vishy] to be a colossal talent, one of the greatest in the whole history of chess". 110.20.157.59 (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

"one of the greatest" etc etc
In this instance I agree with the IP. "One of only nine players in history to surpass a rating of 2800" is enough to convey that he is one of the world's leading players, no need to use subjective or hyperbolic words like "greatest", and "highest rated of all time" doesn't add any new information. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but using the terms "one of only 9 players to be rated above 2800" will just become weaker over time, as rating inflation and the younger generation of players (like Giri, and Liren) inevitably topple that mark. A statement that better stands the test of time would be: "The fourth player to exceed the 2800 rating" (If I am not mistaken, the order is Kasparov, Kramnik, Topalov, Anand, Carlsen, Aronian, Caruana, Grischuk, Nakamura).  You won't need to constantly update this statement, and it will properly convey his role in history as one of the strongest players of all time. Qed (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That works for me, I'll make the change. Can bring the discussion back here if it gets reverted. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with that too, I only changed it to "highest rated" to get rid of the word "greatest" but as you say the next sentence does make it somewhat redundant. Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No disagreement here as I had also done the change from greatest to "top ranked" for similar reasons and to avoid the original back and forth. I'd also asked the IP/ to instead go and discuss this and the Morphy changes at WT:WikiProject Chess rather than continue reverting here and at Morphy but that doesn't seem to have happened. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no "consensus" here, only your biased opinion. I already provided proper citation (from Vldamir Kramnik no less) showing other players referring to Anand as one of the best ever chess players. In fact, any knowledgable chess fan knows as fact that Anand is one of the most formidable champions ever. Other "best ever" chess players apparently don't need a citation to be acknowledged as "one of the greats" but Vishy does? Can you provide any citations to the contrary? If not, then stop changing my edits. You seem not to know how wiki works. When citations are provided, you have to provide evidence to the contrary before changing them. Please leave it alone, unless I'll report this handle to the wikipedia admins and have it banned for life, together with your IP. Your personal issues with Anand need to be taking elsewhere. Exxcalibur808 (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh, you continue to add this against the consensus here (,, and I have commented here, you seem to think that your opinion counters all that), your cites such as the one to youngbites is clearly subpar. As for the rest of your tirade, I think you need to understand how Wikipedia works before you go down that road. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not enough to say that on the basis of one cite that Anand is one of the the greatest. It's far too bold a claim, especially in the lead, without sufficient evidence to justify it. I agree that he could be one of the greatest but one person's opinion isn't enough, whoever it is. The more modest wording covers perfectly well. There are far bigger problems with the article than this sentence. Jkmaskell (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've already provided adequate citations from Vladmir Kramnik himself who puts Anand in his top 10 greatest players ever and a talent even on par with Kasparov himself. Kramnik will surely know this, since he faced both players hundreds of times in his career. What exactly is wrong with the citations provided? Isn't that what the point of providing citations are? I'm not sure how this is a bold claim whatsoever, considering Anand's career. Any knowledgeable will seriously struggle to name 10 more accomplished chess players in history (and some of the wiki members that are constantly changing my edits don't seem to be chess fans at all, but seem more to be cricket fans more than anything). His achievements in chess are unbelievable. While not on par with the likes of Kasparov, Fischer, Capablanca or Alekhine, Anand is certainly in that 2nd category of world champions with Spassky ,Petrosian et al who are obviously all time greats. Still, are there any citations suggesting Anand is NOT an all time great, or do I need to provide some more? Exxcalibur808 (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, there are other chess players who have the "one of the greatest ever" tags in their wiki page and apparently don't need citations to justify it, so why Anand? The only reason why this is even an issue for me is because this page is very mediocre for a player of Anand's status and I come only with good intentions to make it better. So please, consider my edits, as a FIDE titled player myself and a chess player for more than 20 years. That wasn't the only edit I made, by the way. I also added a more detailed head to head record vs Anand's other peers, mostly those of his own generation and all from the same site, chessgames.com. So, let's talk as chess fans, if there are any here. Why is five time world champion, Anand not one of the best ever players? And why is ex world champion Vladmir Kramnik's citation on the matter invalid. Thanks. For now, I'll revert it back to the edits I made. And I'll also like real wikipedia admins to get involved. This can be easily be settled as gentlemen. Thank you. Exxcalibur808 (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Given what Anand has achieved, terms such as "greatest" shouldn't be necessary. Wikipedia policies consider them "peacock" terms, advising that contributors instead allow the facts to speak for themselves. An argument could be made to use the term, providing enough reliable sources are cited. However, two quotes from Kramnik and one from Grischuk is not sufficient to depart from Wikipedia guidelines. I sympathise but that line shouldn't be there at present. Jkmaskell (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Greetings. I've added YET another citation from none other than the FIDE president, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, himself an ex-player. There can be no higher authority in the chess world than that. Again, where are the citations that argue to the contrary? I'm not just stating my opinion, but providing quotes from former world champions, world class players and even the FIDE president. You might suggest that "one of the greatest" is not necessary, but I can argue it is. It is a proper introduction to the article proper, and it's an honor afforded to other great chess giants, so why not Anand? Notice, this is not the only change I made to the article. I also added various head to head records of other great players (mostly from his generation) that Anand has faced, all from the same source as the previous head to heads, chessgames.com. This is getting swept aside together with the other edit. Thank you. Exxcalibur808 (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to help make it work. I don't think you can retain the line in the lead. However, putting the evidence in the "Assessment" section could work as it is part of the main body. Ilyumzhinov's quote we'll use for the time being but far stronger sources exist, published sources in particular (books, magazines, etc etc) which can replace it. The lead section shouldn't really need many cites at all as it summarises what follows. Jkmaskell (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not use the Ilyumzhinov citation in the summary and delete the other citations then? Also, the way it is edited in the assessment section seems pretty poorly written. I'm still amazed as to why a perfectly legitimate quote can not be used in the opening summary as a segway to the main article. Exxcalibur808 (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ilyumzhinov isn't really an authority on chess, certainly not good enough to back the claim. He said that in a press conference with Anand. The term "greatest" is an example of puffery (see WP:PEACOCK) and should be avoided. As for the edit in Assessment, that was me rushing it to be fair. Jkmaskell (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither are you an authority, with all due respect. Since the citations of the FIDE president and an ex world champion (Kramnik) is of no authority to you. There are several other citations, but since you have no little time for the evidence, even if God said it, I won't bore you with it. Also, you say the term "greatest" (actually, it's one of the greatest), is puffery. Well, um, actually no it isn't. I know full well what puffery is and this is not. There are several, un-sourced articles of other chess players were the phrase, "one of the greatest" is used with no problems. What doesn't sit well with me is the fact; You are a fellow wiki user. Your opinion on an issue has no more validation or supremacy over that of another user. You're not arguing with facts or citations but with feelings and opinions. Since you've yet to provide a citation to the contrary, I will revert it back to what it was. And you can keep on reverting back if you please, but I've already notified an admin and the admin will get sort this out tomorrow, hopefully. All in all, wiki is a poorer place when some users think their feelings and opinions on a matter apparently trump sources from others with the highest form of credibility and prestige in a certain field. Exxcalibur808 (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been reported to Administrators formally. I suggest we leave both the article and talk page until this has been resolved. It didn't need to come to this and I am very disappointed. Jkmaskell (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an incredible waste of time, first from a detractor and now this. Sigh. Eitherways, I think there's consensus that this doesn't belong here, so unless there's some compelling evidence introduced that this should be here, we ought to remove it. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd have taken Jkmaskell's advice and left the article alone until an admin addresses this. We need to avoid the perception that we're edit warring ourselves. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

One of the earliest grandmaster from Asia,as not too much scene was built around chess at that time. SamyakAnand2002 (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed it from the lead because the sources were poor. Despite the claim above that "Other "best ever" chess players apparently don't need a citation to be acknowledged as "one of the greats" but Vishy does?", the only other post-war champions which mention being among the greatest in the lead are Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov, and all with decent cites. I think that is about right, and even Karpov is debatable, but at least I found a good cite. It is redundant calling a world champion "one of the greatest" - when there have only been 16, they are all "one of the greatest". Adpete (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)