user101: I was watching an interview with Kasparov which occurred before the Anand-Gelfand match was played, and he said:

"Nobody should be offended, it is just a fact, but it's the first time in a long period of time that a World Championship match, with the official champion and official challenger, doesn't have anything to do with fighting for the title of the strongest chess player on the planet."

Why exactly would he say that?  Was it just because Carlsen was not playing, or are there deeper reasons?

user334: Kasparov has been known to make controversial statements. He's just not politically correct. But it is the fact that the match winner will not be considered world strongest chess player by most. According to May 2012 FIDE Elo list Anand was no.4 and Gelfand no.20. 
The part about it being first time in long period of time is questionable, recent FIDE world chess champions like Khalifman, Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov were also not in the World's top few and Kasparov himself chose Kramnik for his "classical world champion" match who arguably was not the strongest player possible (but beat him anyway).

user167: Kasparov's reason for that statement may be no deeper than this:

The current rating list does give a concrete, factual basis for his assessment, though it is certainly something with which others might disagree. Current world #2 Levon Aronian, for one, made a point of contradicting Kasparov:

"I don’t think [what Kasparov said] is true. The player that made it through a very tough Candidates’ Tournament and the player that has held the title for so long are, by rights, the strongest players in the world."

Ultimately, how one defines the "strongest" players is clearly a subjective matter. As for what underlying personal motivations Kasparov might have for saying what he did, we shouldn't speculate; so if that really is what you're after, then I concur with the current vote to close the question. But if you take the rating list to satisfy the "why" of your question, then it seems OK to me.

101: <p>I was watching an interview with Kasparov which occurred before the Anand-Gelfand match was played, and he said:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Nobody should be offended, it is just a fact, but it's the first time in a long period of time that a World Championship match, with the official champion and official challenger, doesn't have anything to do with fighting for the title of the strongest chess player on the planet."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Why exactly would he say that?  Was it just because Carlsen was not playing, or are there deeper reasons?</p>
 334: <p>Kasparov has been known to make controversial statements. He's just not politically correct. But it is the fact that the match winner will not be considered world strongest chess player by most. According to <a href="http://ratings.fide.com/toparc.phtml?cod=213">May 2012 FIDE Elo list</a> Anand was no.4 and Gelfand no.20. </p>

<p>The part about it being first time in long period of time is questionable, recent FIDE world chess champions like Khalifman, Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov were also not in the World's top few and Kasparov himself chose Kramnik for his "classical world champion" match who arguably was not the strongest player possible (but beat him anyway).</p>
 167: <p>Kasparov's reason for that statement may be no deeper than this:</p>

<p><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/RgiN3.png" alt="Live ratings"></p>

<p>The current rating list does give a concrete, factual basis for his assessment, though it is certainly something with which others might disagree. Current world #2 Levon Aronian, for one, made a point of <a href="http://www.chessbase.com/newsprint.asp?newsid=8197" rel="noreferrer">contradicting</a> Kasparov:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"I don’t think [what Kasparov said] is true. The player that made it through a very tough Candidates’ Tournament and the player that has held the title for so long are, by rights, the strongest players in the world."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Ultimately, how one defines the "strongest" players is clearly a subjective matter. As for what underlying personal motivations Kasparov might have for saying what he did, we shouldn't speculate; so if that really is what you're after, then I concur with the current vote to close the question. But if you take the rating list to satisfy the "why" of your question, then it seems OK to me.</p>
