Talk:Viswanathan Anand

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#Her_name). 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#Initials) 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 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? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 14:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

importance rating

I think his importance rating for the chess project should be "Top", because:

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.

Of course if he wins, that will cinch "top importance". Bubba73 (talk), 18:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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 [1]. My rationale for removing these videos is:

1. Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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.

--Ryan Delaney ^talk 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/enwiki/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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 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.