Originally posted by z00t
Incidentally Kramnik spoke on Anand's Olympiad performance and said " I am quite surprised. He is such a good world-class player that even in bad shape, even if you wake him up in the middle of the night, he should still play very well. But you shouldn’t draw any conclusions, these things happen. In 1996, the year I overtook Kasparov in the rating lists, I p is site are unable to comment on the moves of a 2800 player just because he is a 2800 player.
What a shock; Kramnik agrees with me.
You should take particular note of his statement: "But you shouldn't draw any conclusions; these things happen." That's what I've been trying to get you to realize all along.
I wouldn't have taken issue with you if you had merely claimed Anand's sacrifice was bad (because it was). I wouldn't have cared if you said Anand had a bad tournament at the Olympiad (If he went 1/9, he did).
But then you go off and label Anand a 'speed chess master', as if he can't play slow chess well (completely ridiculous, given his rating), and label Anand's style "wind-assisted" (whatever the hell that means) because of one bad tournament. Both of these statements are absurd.