Of course Karpov is more likable, not just the best player. Kasparov always axaggerates his play. While Karpov is always polite. It is silly to make your opinion on the basis of an answer to a pointless question given by Ivanchuk. Kasparov thinks he is better than Karpov while in reality Karpov was superior and most of the time KNEW what was going on the board. While Kasparov relied more on intuition and opening preparation.
Another conference gem
Sort:
I guess it is clear for experts that Kasparov, when still a champion, was in overall a much better player than Karpov had ever been... I had also heard an IM lecturer verifying that! But i think GPG makes a strong point about the latter's positional instict. I know personally a NM who considers Karpov as a man whose understanding of chess is immense.
would Botvinnik fit in there, Estragon as you has describe in your last post ?
GreedyPawnGrabber wrote:
It is silly to make your opinion on the basis of an answer to a pointless question given by Ivanchuk.
I agree, i just provided the interview as an EXTRA source of information, not the BASIS of ALL judgement, because i just happened to read it recently and had it handy...
mykingdomforanos wrote:
de fish quit becoz he quit. chess.com shud run a contest 4 awl de kiddies 2 see who dont like de fish de mostest.
"I like to make them squirm"
Bobby
mykingdomforanos wrote:
magnis is kinda simler.
he luvs takin revenj on any1 dat punked him.
Must be such a hassle to type like that. Why even bother? It's not like it's funny or anything
I think players should DEFINITELY be compared to their peers and not those that followed.
Ask yourself this.
If Fischer was born 20 years ago and had a chance to study all the games of Karpov, Kasporov, Anand, Kramnik, Carlsen etc... and use high powered computers to analyze opening and other positions do you think he would be better than Kasparov and Karpov at their time if they never had a chance to study his games?
I think it would be an absolute wipeout for Fischer.
The players that come later always have the advantage of learning from those that came first. That was especially true in Kasparov's case because his was the first generation that was able to really take advantage of computer study and analysis. It's hard to take anything away from Kasparov, but it's not even clear he was better than Karpov. IIMO he clearly and certainly wasn't as talented as Fischer at his peak on a relative basis.
I thought a little on the matter of abandoning the game of chess, and i concluded that the worst player in this regard was Deep Blue 
blueemu wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
do you more easily forgive an african american who despises causians, than a caucasian american who hates blacks ? it isnt that i condone racism in any form, but an abused or mentally ill persons warped perceptions are more easily excused than someone like hitler, who just thought he was better than, wanted to exploit and exterminate...i get really tired of people trying to compare fischer to the likes of hitler...
bobby had ties to the jewish community, he had more reason to despise them or their ways. if you never walked a mile in bobbys shoes, what right do you have to treat him like you experienced his life and would have chosen any better ? all too often, we judge the actions of others with warped perceptions, we compare them to other and catergorize them the same, when they could be completely different. we also only look at our perception of the damage and dont even consider the cause of or the intent of the person...
every screwed up person i have known is either mentally ill, been abused, or admittedly evil, for their selfish pleasure....considering fischer wasnt even remotely close to the latter, it is easy to look past his obvious flaws, for obvious reasons....
This discussion seems to have taken a strange turn.
If you recall, you began by claiming that Fischer retired from active play because he felt that "he had nothing left to prove".
I responded by saying "no, he quit active play because he was mentally ill".
Here... I'll quote the exchange, to refresh your memory:
blueemu wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
After beating everyone so badly for a good while, would you feel you had anything to prove ? Or the same hunger, after feeling like you couldn't go any higher, or get any better comparatively ? Perhaps Fischer felt that way...
I'm afraid that Fischer's retirement from competitive chess had more to do with his mental health issues than with "having nothing more to prove". His gradually increasing paranoia and misanthropism should be obvious to anyone who followed his radio interviews.
He remains, in my view, one of the greatest chess players who ever lived... but a badly flawed human being.
Now... in your post just above... you seem to be the one claiming that he was mentally ill, and you also seem to be expecting me to say "Yes, you're right... I was wrong! I'm sorry!"
Well, no... I wasn't wrong. I made that same claim right at the start.
it would appear you arent doing well with taking into account that fischer wasnt the same person in 1972 that he become 20 yrs or more later...
bobby had ties to the jewish community, he had more reason to despise them or their ways. if you never walked a mile in bobbys shoes, what right do you have to treat him like you experienced his life and would have chosen any better ? all too often, we judge the actions of others with warped perceptions, we compare them to other and catergorize them the same, when they could be completely different. we also only look at our perception of the damage and dont even consider the cause of or the intent of the person...
every screwed up person i have known is either mentally ill, been abused, or admittedly evil, for their selfish pleasure....considering fischer wasnt even remotely close to the latter, it is easy to look past his obvious flaws, for obvious reasons....
This discussion seems to have taken a strange turn.
If you recall, you began by claiming that Fischer retired from active play because he felt that "he had nothing left to prove".
I responded by saying "no, he quit active play because he was mentally ill".
Here... I'll quote the exchange, to refresh your memory:
After beating everyone so badly for a good while, would you feel you had anything to prove ? Or the same hunger, after feeling like you couldn't go any higher, or get any better comparatively ? Perhaps Fischer felt that way...
I'm afraid that Fischer's retirement from competitive chess had more to do with his mental health issues than with "having nothing more to prove". His gradually increasing paranoia and misanthropism should be obvious to anyone who followed his radio interviews.
He remains, in my view, one of the greatest chess players who ever lived... but a badly flawed human being.
Now... in your post just above... you seem to be the one claiming that he was mentally ill, and you also seem to be expecting me to say "Yes, you're right... I was wrong! I'm sorry!"
Well, no... I wasn't wrong. I made that same claim right at the start.