I particularly don't care who popularized what. But I'm more interested in the contents of what was popularized rather than the line itself, i.e if it lead to exciting games and victories for the person employing it, or if it was just used as a drawing weapon, otherwise what's the point of employing a line if it doesn't win for you?

Tournaments in India

8th Parsvnath Open (Delhi)
---
Prize money Rs.12.5 Lakhs($26600)
1st Prize Rs.2.75 Lakhs($5850)
Finished in January

2nd Chennai Open
----------------
Prize money Rs.10.2 Lakhs($21600)
1st Prize Rs.2.0 Lakhs($4250)
Finished in February

2nd Tata Open (Jamshedpur)
---
Prize money Rs.3.7 Lakhs($7900)
1st Prize Rs.0.7 Lakhs($1500)
will be conducted in April

2nd SCS Open(Bhuvaneswar)
---
Prize money Rs.11.0 Lakhs($23400)
1st Prize Rs.2.0 Lakhs($4250)
will be conducted in May

3rd Mumbai Open
------------------
Prize money Rs.13 Lakhs($27700)
1st Prize Rs.3.0 Lakhs($6400)
will be conducted in June

<<I mean who cares if the Berlin was revived? How many players really play it at the top level.> Almost every top GM has tried the Berlin at least once and it's one of the main responses to 1.e4 by one of your favourite players: Topalov!>

Anyway, no attempt to create a row again. But did Topalov tried it in Linares 98 because he knew that Kramnik will have great results with it in future?

The point is how popular the Berlin became after Topalov used it in 98'? Very littlle.

After Kramnik employed it in 2000 it hit the head lines and the majority of top GM tested it.>

Because Topalov had played one game with it, and Kramnik played more games with it and so people had a larger sample of games to research and choose from, as it worked for Kramnik in securing draws. I'd guess this strategy was adopted by many weaker players who hoped to hold stronger GMs to draws from the black side.

I'm not sure how much the Meran has picked up among the general chess playing public after the Bonn match, given that it's rather complicated, and the average club level player out there isn't very tactically gifted, and so is more likely to choose simpler, positional openings instead of wild, complicated variations that keep the position open, and require a keen eye for tactics. It again boils down to playing strength, playing style/preference for positions and intention of play (draw or win).

I agree with <iamsheaf> that virtually almost all openings have been tried out by many top-level GMs at some point or the other. The only reason another picks it up is because if my opponent has prepared it, then I must know it too, in order to bust his preparation. I can bet that Kramnik probably studied the Meran even more deeply after the Bonn match just so that nobody else could spring a surprise on him using the same variation.

All the top GMs know a lot about a lot of openings but only use little of what they know depending on their playing styles.

Anand has a tendency of playing based on his opponents' weaknesses and not necessarily with a specific outcome in mind. For example, he doesn't appear to be the kind to say before a game, "I'll draw today with this color". As was seen in Bonn, he continued playing risky openings even after getting a lead. In the last game, he played e4, not because he thought Kramnik would want a draw and play e5, but precisely because he felt Kramnik would respond with c5 to keep his (winning) chances alive and play the game on Anand's turf (Sicilian), which is what ended up happening.

(sorry guys Google translate or something)