Similarly, Gelfand and Kramnik are doing what they need to do to 1. succeed in the game, and 2. maintain high ratings. You are not entitled to a particular style of play from them. I wish people on the internet would realise this and stop talking about elite chess players as if we're paying their wages--or as if there's one single way to play 'entertaining' chess.

I wish more people would take this viewpoint.

What's not to like?

You should lay of Anand a little bit,yeah he is not winning any major tournaments but that dosen't mean he isn't a great player,also i don't think its a good idea for him to retire and drop his wc title,someone should wrestle that wc title of him,like carlsen,but carlsen withdrew for the candidates tournament in 2011,( which makes me wonder wether he will play in next years tournement)anyway if anand plays boring chess thats his strong point(as a solid player who dosen't take much risks)not all wc champions can be like tal or kasparov,thats why anand is still the wc because of his style of play,so wether you agree or not Anand is a legend and he is far from boring

Gelfand...I love this über-nerd!

I occasionally make the social mistake of saying a sentence or two about chess to my friends outside the game. Their polite reactions help me not to forget that chess is a game where two people relocate wooden figues on a checkered board. The idea that one way of pushing wood around is somehow inherently braver, more glorious, or otherwise cooler than some other way to do it - it is utter nonsence to those fine and smart people I communicate everyday. And you know what - I sincererly think that, in this regard, they are much closer to truth than the people who play the game.

It's just as lopsided with Svidler, the six time Russian champion who has yet to beat Vishy in classical chess.

lol, i have a multiple personality

Well, take a look a couple of kibitzing pages back (FIDE Grand Prix London (2012)): he played "solid" – probably result of his WC prep, he's an old boring guy and a fossil and should just retire already so that Naka, Wang Hao & Giri could take over:-)

For the great Vishy to pound on these so-called top players of today would be no challenge at all; Fischer's the only player, alive or dead, with any hope against him, and all Anand's efforts must be directed towards him.

Ponomariov
Nigel Short (UK)
Wojtaszek (Poland)
Wang Yue
Bologan
Rublevsky

Not the right page... try 13th Karpov International (2012)

Why does Carlsen think Vishy is stronger than Kramnik or Aronian?

If he really said - and meant - that, maybe it has something to do with his own score against him; he finds Anand the toughest to beat among the three (and in general).

...so this time the comment comes with a smiley?

Since I obviously think it's a ridiculous comment (like all the other comments about Gelfand that I was quoting), then yes.

Yes, I believe Carlsen made this evaluation relative to himself, with match play in mind: Anand is damn hard to beat when he is motivated and in form, even when he is "hanging in the ropes". Probably one of the best match players in history relative to his own "objective" strength.

what makes anand such a great match player? he beat kramnik (who only has two career match victories) topalov (not good in matches either) and he drew against gelfand.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.