If Karpov played Kasparov now, Karpov wins. (Although I would want Kasparov to win). If they played 15 years ago, Kasparov.
Kasparov - Karpov Re-match
Sort:
Jul 26, 2009
0
#23
Given Karpov's poor performance at San Sebastian.....I'll go with Kasparov.
Aug 12, 2009
0
#24
Sothilde wrote:
I think Magnus Carlsen will win it
hmmmmm...
Maybe, but he wouldn't be on since it's a Kasparov-Karpov match!
Kasparov, for sure.
Aug 12, 2009
0
#25
We won't know who's better NOW unless they really play. However, historically the new guy is always "better", thats why they're the new guy. So:
Lasker, better than Steinitz
Capablanca better than Lasker,
Alehkine better than Capablanca,
etc...etc..
skip forward...
Fisher better than Spassky,
Karpov v Fisher ???
and
finally:
Kasparov better than karpov...simple see??
polydiatonic wrote:
We won't know who's better NOW unless they really play. However, historically the new guy is always "better", thats why they're the new guy. So:
Lasker, better than Steinitz
Capablanca better than Lasker,
Alehkine better than Capablanca,
etc...etc..
skip forward...
Fisher better than Spassky,
Karpov v Fisher ???
and
finally:
Kasparov better than karpov...simple see??
That's a fairly glib argument.
What of Botvinnik-Petrosian?
Smyslov-Botvinnik?
The Tal-Botvinnik matches?
The Spassky-Petrosian matches?
Short beat Karpov. Is Short the better player? (People forget Karpov lost a match to someone not named Kasparov.)
Not least the Capa-Alekhine match.
Capablanca not as good as Alekhine? I'd say he was the better player, but squandered through laziness enough of his talent to lose the match. Oh well, it's something to talk about.
Aug 12, 2009
0
#28
goldendog wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
We won't know who's better NOW unless they really play. However, historically the new guy is always "better", thats why they're the new guy. So:
Lasker, better than Steinitz
Capablanca better than Lasker,
Alehkine better than Capablanca,
etc...etc..
skip forward...
Fisher better than Spassky,
Karpov v Fisher ???
and
finally:
Kasparov better than karpov...simple see??
That's a fairly glib argument.
What of Botvinnik-Petrosian?
Smyslov-Botvinnik?
The Tal-Botvinnik matches?
The Spassky-Petrosian matches?
Short beat Karpov. Is Short the better player? (People forget Karpov lost a match to someone not named Kasparov.)
Not least the Capa-Alekhine match.
Capablanca not as good as Alekhine? I'd say he was the better player, but squandered through laziness enough of his talent to lose the match. Oh well, it's something to talk about.
Oh I'm sorry, you have a problem with "glib"...well EXCUSE ME...However I stand my ground, the last winner is the stronger player. That's why the won. DUH. Can the reverse roles as time goes by? Of course they can. That's why it's stupid to state who is stronger now. That's why they play. DUH.
polydiatonic wrote:
goldendog wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
We won't know who's better NOW unless they really play. However, historically the new guy is always "better", thats why they're the new guy. So:
Lasker, better than Steinitz
Capablanca better than Lasker,
Alehkine better than Capablanca,
etc...etc..
skip forward...
Fisher better than Spassky,
Karpov v Fisher ???
and
finally:
Kasparov better than karpov...simple see??
That's a fairly glib argument.
What of Botvinnik-Petrosian?
Smyslov-Botvinnik?
The Tal-Botvinnik matches?
The Spassky-Petrosian matches?
Short beat Karpov. Is Short the better player? (People forget Karpov lost a match to someone not named Kasparov.)
Not least the Capa-Alekhine match.
Capablanca not as good as Alekhine? I'd say he was the better player, but squandered through laziness enough of his talent to lose the match. Oh well, it's something to talk about.
Oh I'm sorry, you have a problem with "glib"...well EXCUSE ME...However I stand my ground, the last winner is the stronger player. That's why the won. DUH. Can the reverse roles as time goes by? Of course they can. That's why it's stupid to state who is stronger now. That's why they play. DUH.
I mistook you for someone worthy to discuss chess with.
goldendog wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
goldendog wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
We won't know who's better NOW unless they really play. However, historically the new guy is always "better", thats why they're the new guy. So:
Lasker, better than Steinitz
Capablanca better than Lasker,
Alehkine better than Capablanca,
etc...etc..
skip forward...
Fisher better than Spassky,
Karpov v Fisher ???
and
finally:
Kasparov better than karpov...simple see??
That's a fairly glib argument.
What of Botvinnik-Petrosian?
Smyslov-Botvinnik?
The Tal-Botvinnik matches?
The Spassky-Petrosian matches?
Short beat Karpov. Is Short the better player? (People forget Karpov lost a match to someone not named Kasparov.)
Not least the Capa-Alekhine match.
Capablanca not as good as Alekhine? I'd say he was the better player, but squandered through laziness enough of his talent to lose the match. Oh well, it's something to talk about.
Oh I'm sorry, you have a problem with "glib"...well EXCUSE ME...However I stand my ground, the last winner is the stronger player. That's why the won. DUH. Can the reverse roles as time goes by? Of course they can. That's why it's stupid to state who is stronger now. That's why they play. DUH.
I mistook you for someone worthy to discuss chess with.
The stronger player does not always win, even in matches. The best example of this is the match Alekhine lost to Euwe. I dont think anyone believes Euwe was ever the player Alekhine was, not even die hard Euwe fans. Also, Karpov won the last match he played against Kasparov and it was in rapid chess, a time control that shold give the younger ( 12 years ) Kasparov a big advantage.
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
I guess I also have an issue with the phrasing "the much, much better player" -- but I think there's no doubt who's the better player, no matter how close their head to head record was.
And, of course, I'm a fan of Mr. Karpov's. If he had a newsletter, I would subscribe, even if it was full of penny stock recommendations.
You wouldnt happen to be a fan of Karpov's because of that silly caro kann defense would you Oz ? 
is chess.com gonna broadcast the games live?
Kasparov....
First off i would like to say -
Even though Kasparov Retired 4 years ago..
HES TRAINING CARLSEN MAGNUS
Therefore Kasparov must be practising/training so he could train Carlsen (Ranked #3 in the world), and he is younger then Karpov which is a bit helpful to kasparov, i believe kasparov is still good in chess, its just he is not playing in rated tournaments anymore.
Kasparov all the way, if i had an estimated rating for kasparov right now it would be 2700+ (believe it or not)
I truly believe he will beat karpov somewhere around 7.0-5.0 to 8.0-4.0
If Kasparov has been doing some specific prep for Karpov, I think he must be the favorite. As noted, his chess engine must be chugging if he is training Carlsen.
i cant believe all you titled players.. thinking kasparov will lose to karpov.. YOUR OUT OF YOUR MINDS...
Karpov is old.. hes getting badder by the months, while kasparov.. still young (not that young but still) and he has raw talent, something that karpov wont be able to beat..
KASPAROV ALL THE WAY!!
Btw its 2-0 for kasparov.. sorry for the karpov lovers..
Sep 22, 2009
0
#37
SerbianChessStar wrote:
i cant believe all you titled players.. thinking kasparov will lose to karpov.. YOUR OUT OF YOUR MINDS...
Karpov is old.. hes getting badder by the months, while kasparov.. still young (not that young but still) and he has raw talent, something that karpov wont be able to beat..
KASPAROV ALL THE WAY!!
Btw its 2-0 for kasparov.. sorry for the karpov lovers..
when is in the 40's is not young ! huh? sheez thank alot !
i think karpov deserves to win, but i'd also feel bad for kaspy if he loses -_- i say they should draw each match,