Karpov was greatest Chess Champion, so far...

Fisher prefered not to play him, because, he intuitevely was on big doubt how to play Karpov...

Karpov excelled in end games, an excellent book  he published and it needs a lot of end game play understanding is:

Endgame Virtuoso Anatoly Karpov

Thisbook explores new venues and is fairly complex, but it does tell you what a higher mind chess is considering.

Semen Furman, the Coach of Karpov, told, that if Karpov on a material advantage on the game, he will win the game!

Just a simple question: How would studying grand masters games help a players development if the combinations of moves aint likely to be seen in any game played by a low rated player such as myself?

 These two titans of chess played more than 180 games against each other and Kasparov is only +7 overall I believe. They contested 5 WC matches against one another and Kasparov is +2 in those contests. Karpov is indeed very close to Kasparov and why so many think he was "dominated" by Kasparov is beyond me given these facts. Oh , and lets not forget that in their last match in NY 2002 Karpov beat Kasparov in a rapid chess match. This is a time control in which almost none gave Karpov any serious chances. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QXRR9Ql7kI    I want you Kaspy fans to see how your hero is destroyed by Karpov, who is 12 years his senior and in 2002 Karpov is clearly no longer in his prime while kaspy is still 3 years away from retiring. 

 This is because Karpov , like Botvinnik, was a "good communist" and is one reason I cannot really like Karpov nor Botvinnik as human beings but I can still admire their chess. Spassky was one of few who refused to sign a petition denouncing/condemning Korchnoi for "defecting" and for this I really admire Spassky.

The same themes come up over and over in many different positions.

This is why the "standard" advice is to start with the old masters, e.g. Morphy. His opponents play plausible moves (similar moves might come up in your own games), and get demolished. You study his games to figure out how he did that, and what his opponents did wrong. After that, if you manage to apply that knowledge to your own games, you'll probably not be low rated for much longer :-)

Then move up to more recent masters. The game of chess developed by building upon older ideas, so so can you. Or that's the idea, anyway.

The second reason is more simple. If you're going to study chess games anyway, why not games in which a large percentage of the moves is going to be correct?

The third reason is that these games are often beautiful, and it's fun to play through them and figure them out.

But first things first. If you're still dropping undefended pieces, no amount of study is going to help, you need to start checking for that. Practice is more important than study. And later, studying your own games to find out what sort of things you do wrong and how to change that is also more important.

the studying of my own games tends to be boring and laborous especially wen u have young children ... i have tried going back over my past games to see where i have gone wrong but havent got very far.

Iv tried using databases where openings can be explained in a bit more detail but all it does is give u the moves and not the theory behind it. 

LOL if i explained how many tutors iv had and how many books iv read and how many other things iv tried id be here all day but i am just beginning to resign to the fact il be a 1200-1300 player for life simply coz i dont concentrate hard enough on my games 

Kasparov holds the record for the longest time as the #1 rated player.
Kasparov had the highest elo in the world continuously from 1986 to 2005
Kasparov reached a 2851 elo, the highest rating ever achieved, Karpov  had a peak elo of 2780
Kasparov  holds the highest all-time average rating over a 2  to 20 year period
Kasparov In his 1980 Olympiad debut, became, at age 17, the youngest player to represent the Soviet Union or Russia at that level, a record which was broken by Vladimir Kramnik in 1992
Kasparov holds the record for most consecutive professional tournament victories, placing first or equal first in 15 individual tournaments from 1981 to 1990
Kasparov won the Chess Oscar a record eleven times
Kasparov was classical chess champion from 1985-2000, a 15 year span, while Karpov was champion for only 10 years, 1975=1985.

i vote kasparov

 Very impressive indeed. You vote Kasparov for what exactly ? I thought the bone of contention here is that you say Karpov isnt even a close second and on this I disagree given their personal record and the fact that Karpov won their last match despite being 12 years older and being a huge underdog in rapid chess to Kasparov. I would also like to point out that Karpov was the undisputed world champion longer than Kasparov was. When Kasparov split from FIDE to form the PCA he was no longer an undisputed world champion. Karpov was undisputed world champion for 10 years.

For a long time I was not much of a Karpov fan, UNTIL.... I happened to pick up his book "Karpov On Karpov". Now it's one of my favorite chess books. It was very personal, philosophical, at times poetic, candid, and filled with interesting stories and chess advice. I didn't realize Karpov was "The Man" until I read this great book!

Maybe that would be a relief for you to know, that really nobody ever wanted to sign that petition (and many other "petitions" as well) and no chess player ever was agreed to many very cruel and totally unfair deeds, like arresting Kortschnoj's son. The point is that all soviet chess players was putted in a state of marionettes by government. They have no choice, they cant prevent it and had no influence on the government to stop such deeds. All they could do was just to obey bureaucrats and the system overall, because if not - then you will never play at any chess event anymore and will be cut of any chess life immediately, and will be forgotten like you was never existed. Spassky could afford to disobey that stupid things only at the point when his chess career was already happened and he was at sunset of it, so he was not as much to lose, while Karpov has no choice, just to sucrifice his pride in order to have a chess career, because that was absolutely decisive to be able to play chess anymore at world level. That was part of bad side of all soviet system (there was also good sides, it wasnt just totally evil ), government forced famous people to be "agreed" with very unpleasant things to prove that is good things. It was forbidden to speak opposite. To prove "things" for ideology basically. Probably my explanation is very lame, because my knowledges of english language is very restricted, i wish i could explain better... Even Kasparov, in spite of the late time of soviet system, when it was about dead, was forced to became "a honest communist" for some period, because that was the only way to have a chance for chess career in that country. Not a communist wasnt allowed to play for world crawn at all. As soon as possible Kasparov threw off this bondage, because always was disagree, like all others was disagree, including Karpov. But while been communist Kasparov also was like a marionette in questions of been always agree (in public only of course) with such "petitions" and other things. It will be useful for you to know which part of Karpov's public statements were approved by him and which was just statements that the system demands. You will be suprised a lot. Very rare players was dare to disobey, Kortschnoj tried and look how much he payed for that, nobody else wanted to pay such price. Most part of that "communism" was just fake, dont hate people for that they prefer to live safe insteed of live Kortschnoj's way. If you want, hate politicians insteed, who are responsible for creating such a living conditions. Who knows, maybe Karpov every day is under trial of his conscience for things he was forced to be publically agreed or deeds he couldnt afford to protest against. Kortschnoj and many others condemned Karpov for such loyalty to system, because partially Karpov was advocated soviet system, the good sides of it, in which (good sides) he really believed as a person (and there was enough good things to believe in), but it is very unfair to blame him in been agree to all dirty things like terrorizing Kortschnoj's family and other very inhuman deeds.

About Botvinnik that is all different story, but again i am sure you will be surprised to find out the real matter of things and will let go your dislike of his "communistic" state.

I think you are correct Catalyst_Kh. I have read "Chess is my Life" By Korchnoi and just from that chess in the Soviet Union was always pollictically motivated. If Karpov did not sign he would probably lose some of his pay, or the right to play in some tournaments overseas. In some cases when they played outside the USSR a KGB agent was sent with them to moniter them and their actions. And Petrosian was Punished for not beating Korchnoi in the their 1977 candidates match: he lost his position as editor in chief of Weekly 64.

His eyes are just a little too far apart, but not googly enough to be Tal-like, so I am still going with Tal in this specific category (Cool looking) because of the hair styling supremacy of Mikhail.

But, when it come to chess machine, Anatoli would have made the best Turk.

Yes, way, Hector Elizondo Rey.

I need help locating a game. I am quite sure that Karpov had white, and I _thought_ that A. Yusupov had black. G. Kaidanov used this game to display what prophalactic play truly means. There is a lot of play on the queenside which black would _like_ to do, but every time white plays a move to counter the play. One of those moves I believe is Qb1.

Anybody know the game? :-)

Sorry I can't be more help than that!

And bonus points if you recognize Professor Irwin Corey in attendance. 

Karpov was better player, but Tal is coolest looking WC and do not make me smack your Bishop over this. 

Yes, but if Karpov were a defensive back and Tal was the opposing Quarterback, Karpov would continually get the wrong read and never get any interceptions.

And if it were a smoking contest, Anatoli would get, well,..... rolled.

[quote]This is because Karpov , like Botvinnik, was a "good communist" and is one reason I cannot really like Karpov nor Botvinnik as human beings but I can still admire their chess. Spassky was one of few who refused to sign a petition denouncing/condemning Korchnoi for "defecting" and for this I really admire Spassky.[/quote]

I did not know that about Spassky ! Thanks for pointing that out. I really like to know about these small details. For what can one do in such a position except make small acts.

And Karpov made no such actions, refusing to shake Victors hand or even look at him after his son was arrested.

Didn't Botvinnik also not sign that petition?