18104 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I am curious of Karpov's percentage....He was known for defense...
No, Kasparov is best known for his attacking ability, not his defense.
Kasparov was known for the fact that he went a stretch in the 90s where he literally lost like, 1 game, in about a 5 to 7 year stretch as White. It was a game in 1996 or 1997 if my memory serves me right.
However, Kasparov has lost numerous times with Black. His Defense is actually quite poor compared to other World Champions.
Even in Everyman's "Chess Secrets" series, which cover 5 former GMs (only 3 in the case of Attacking players) that are strong in a certain aspect. For example, Kaprov and Nimzovich are best known for their positional play and strategy. Kasparov, along with Tal and Stein, are best known for their ability to Attack, and hence why they are the ones in the Great Attackers book in the Chess Secrets series.
But yeah maybe Kasparov would have a low loss rate simply because he so rarely had to defend worse positions.
The statistics are interesting. And they are useful to cull some candidates, but they don't answer the question definitively. Kasparov was rarely in a defensive position. Even he admitted he wasn't as good defending tough positions as Karpov was.
Thanks for providing the list.
I didn't misspell Kasparov....I was intentionally referring to Anatoly Karpov...the Karpov that Fischer was accussed of ducking...He was a positional defensive player...
If I were composing an Olympic team for the ages and absolutely needed a draw on top board as Black, I'd choose Vladimir Kramnik first.
Tal is considered to be the best attacker!
I agree with petrosian but karpov and kramnik are both very aggressive, attacking players
+1 and in that order ....
Both karpov and kramnik are just not in the same way as tal or fischer
Not that I particularly enjoy arguments, and creating chaos by trying make everything that is black and white become a paradoxical shade of grey, it is often said, the best defense is a good offensive...and Tal's was most likely the best...
Petrosian's style of play, although highly successful for avoiding defeats, was criticized as being dull. Chess enthusiasts saw his "ultraconservative" style as an unwelcome contrast to the popular image of Soviet chess as "daring" and "indomitable". Fellow Soviet chess grandmaster and personal friend Mikhail Tal described Petrosian as "cowardly", out of frustration that this eminent tactician so rarely showed the chessworld what he was capable of. His 1971Candidates Tournament match with Viktor Korchnoi featured so many monotonous draws that the Russian press began to complain. However, Svetozar Gligorić described Petrosian as being "very impressive in his incomparable ability to foresee danger on the board and to avoid any risk of defeat." Petrosian responded to his criticisms by saying "They say my games should be more 'interesting'. I could be more 'interesting'—and also lose." Petrosian was, in the words of future World Champion Vladimir Kramnik, "the first defender with a capital D".[
Aside from Petrosian,Lasker and Steinitz also comes to mind.
But Carlsen is getting more impressive with his defense.And he doesnt play not to lose unlike Petrosian.
Ulf the Wolf.
Petrosian was NOT a defensive player- he had superb defensive abilities, but his style was both positional and "aggressive".
Thank you, well said.
Stats mean very little. One could have a lower "losing percentage" by taking fewer risks, being highly proficient in endgames, or by playing a weaker average opponent.
The real test would be the win-draw-loss percentage in games against players within 200 points of their rating AFTER being down a pawn (or the positional equivalent of -1.00 by Houdini or another strong engine). That would illustrate defensive results.
My own list would include the most fearsome counterattackers, Lasker, Rubinstein, Alekhine, Keres, Korchnoi, Karpov, Kasparov, Ivanchuk, and Anand.
"Best defence is attack." <-- Who said that..?
Better solution for black are:15.Ba6+ Ka416.Nxc6 and so on, like simulator below:
sexism in chess?
by marcosite a few minutes ago
Membership question & Advice for Beginner
by tigerprowl5 3 minutes ago
by HeyokaSmiles 4 minutes ago
What am I missing?
by jondb801 5 minutes ago
e4 is bad (third obnoxious theory)
by ajian 7 minutes ago
by jondb801 10 minutes ago
I won a Tournament :)
by Pulpofeira 10 minutes ago
by Shakaali 13 minutes ago
fide or ecf
by soupram 16 minutes ago
Kings Gambit: Theory
by MY_ALTS_ARE_ON_FIRE 17 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!