Karpov's run at the very top really ended in summer/fall 1996 with the match against Kamsky and his wins at Vienna and Biel.

Nobody considered it convincing because nobody considered his title itself convincing. I don't remember anyone taking this one particularly less seriously than they took Karpov-Timman and Karpov-Kamsky.

The 1995 match was already a thing of the past; the chess world of 1998 was very different than what it was in 1995 : PCA had died, Karpov's results declined and Anand-Kramnik clearly took the 2-3 spots, Ilyumzhinov came in, the classical WC cycle got destroyed on both sides, PCA and FIDE. Anand's tournament results consistenly improved meanwhile to the point his rating reached 2795 this year which was huge back then. It was clear Anand was on the rise and had not peaked yet. Of course, Kasparov was still universally considered the strongest player but eventually those years spent without defending the title did him no favor (in 1998 he failed to win Linares and hardly played at all).

To pick out one tournament during the late 90s early 00s that Kasparov didn't win seems a bit disingenuous - he was totally dominant in tournaments particularly in 1999 and 2000.

Kasparov's total chess dominance in 99-2001 was the direct reaction to this rather void period. He had to prove he was still the best.

And I'm quite sure that Karpov was a greater player than Anand. The only reason Anand became world champion was because Kasparov retired too soon. He got destroyed by Kasparov when he was 26 (optimal age for playing chess). He also lost to an old Karpov.

You're right what you say about Anand beating his top two rivals in championship matches. That was a great achievement and absolutely cemented him as the world's best player. But Karpov absolutely dominated the whole world for 10 years. He seemed to win every tournament he entered, and nobody could hold a candle to him until Kasparov stepped up to the plate. Maybe people remember the end of his career better than the beginning now, but from 1975-1985 he was unstoppable.

Karpov is usually considered one of the greatest players ever, along with players like Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen. Anand doesn't belong to this group!

And Anand was rarely, if ever out of the Top Three for something like 15-20 years, so you really can't sell him short. But Karpov and Kasparov are the only really dominant champions of the postwar-era (Fischer might have been also if he hadn't retired). But all 15 of the Undisputed Champions have been great players who only suffer in comparison with each other. IMO, each one of them was the best player in the world at some point in time.

The real wild card is Capablanca. He was largely inactive for a couple of years in the early 30's, and didn't start getting back into it until 1935. So how good was he during that time?

Kasparov was still clearly the strongest player in the world--title or none--during that 1997-98 phase.

This all before Fischer became world champion, and the next challenger was already clear to Fischer, and he was 8 years younger. Competition makes one stronger, and had Karpov had Fischer to spar with for a few matches before the Kasparov encounters, he may have been too strong for Kasparov to overcome. It is a shame we never saw a match between the best two players in the world from 1973 to at least 1986 then, but that is on Fischer, not on Karpov, who did everything he could to prove he was a worthy world champion. Note that Karpov was already 46 when he defeated Anand and still quite capable. Imagine Magnus Carlsen in 2037 winning a similar match!

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