Kasparov himself evaluated Karpov as being superior to Fischer.
Also Seiwaran, who played against both, places Karpov in the second position.
Greatest Chess Master in History
Sort:
troy7915 wrote:
fabelhaft wrote:
"Do others go by whether or not they like the person, his statements, his behavior, his face (!) ?"
The problem with Karpov is that he played Kasparov in five matches without winning any of them in spite of all of them being played when Kasparov was quite young (Kasparov was more than 150 Elo below his peak when he won the title against Karpov after in all 72 match games). Karpov also faced Kasparov in numerous tournaments, finishing ahead of him only once.
So, even if one can come up with various more or less logical ways to decide that Lasker is greater than Kasparov or Fischer greater than Smyslov or Carlsen greater than Anand, it is more or less impossible to come up with any way to rank Karpov as greater than Kasparov.
The point is how can anyone vote for Ivanov?! As for Karpov, I’ll give you a reason: he dominated the chess world for 10 years, from ‘75 to ‘85. And his record with Kasparov is very, very tight, except in blitz.
The Ivanov nomination was probably made with tongue-in-cheek but since he was a grandmaster, I accepted it. Are you going to vote for Karpov or not? You make a case for him but you don't vote for him.
troy7915 wrote:
Kasparov himself evaluated Karpov as being superior to Fischer.
Also Seiwaran, who played against both, places Karpov in the second position.
Weak argument. There are many grandmasters with many different opinions. Kasparov and Seirawan aren't here so they're not voting.
FBloggs wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
The point is why hasn’t he? Do others go by whether or not they like the person, his statements, his behavior, his face (!) ?
I mean, ‘relative’ is one thing, but to not ‘nominate’ someone because of his face/style as a person is quite another.
If one is looking strictly at the chess player, not at the person Karpov, it is impossible—even in a relative sense— to comprise a list without him making it.
If that happens, it makes you think twice about the value of the whole idea.
I don't think anybody disputes that Karpov is one of the game's all-time greats. But so far nobody has nominated him as the best. Is that unfair? Everybody is entitled to his opinion. In fact, even though I gave you the opportunity, you haven't nominated Karpov. Why then do you complain that he hasn't been nominated?
The point was that not nominating Karpov casts doubt over the whole idea.
Why can’t you let everyone devise their own top 10 list—this way nobody gets excluded—and then do the math for the final list?
FBloggs wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
Kasparov himself evaluated Karpov as being superior to Fischer.
Also Seiwaran, who played against both, places Karpov in the second position.
Weak argument. There are many grandmasters with many different opinions.
It’s more than opinions. Seiwaran was even a friend, but that didn’t stop him from placing him in the third position. As for Kasparov, he understood Karpov’s strength better than anyone, and he also studied Fischer in depth.
troy7915 wrote:
FBloggs wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
The point is why hasn’t he? Do others go by whether or not they like the person, his statements, his behavior, his face (!) ?
I mean, ‘relative’ is one thing, but to not ‘nominate’ someone because of his face/style as a person is quite another.
If one is looking strictly at the chess player, not at the person Karpov, it is impossible—even in a relative sense— to comprise a list without him making it.
If that happens, it makes you think twice about the value of the whole idea.
I don't think anybody disputes that Karpov is one of the game's all-time greats. But so far nobody has nominated him as the best. Is that unfair? Everybody is entitled to his opinion. In fact, even though I gave you the opportunity, you haven't nominated Karpov. Why then do you complain that he hasn't been nominated?
The point was that not nominating Karpov casts doubt over the whole idea.
Why can’t you let everyone devise their own top 10 list—this way nobody gets excluded—and then do the math for the final list?
There is no top ten list. Everybody is free to nominate any master. No master is excluded. You seem to think that I've limited choices. I haven't. Why do you keep complaining that nobody has nominated Karpov - when you haven't nominated him? That really makes no sense.
By the way, the only two nominations I've rejected were for "grandma" and "grandpa". Hell, I even accepted a nomination for Igor Ivanov, which was almost certainly made in jest. But he was a grandmaster so I accepted it. That nobody (including troy7915) is willing to nominate Karpov as the best of all time isn't my fault.
Bobby Fischer was the only man to ever beat himself, so my vote goes to him. X
Nobody can vote for Karpov as the no. 1, but they can place him in second or third position. Just the same, why is Nimziwitsch at no. one? While Botvinnik isn’t, for instance.
The choice for no. one is very, very .imited. But a top 10 would offer a more comprehensive, cohesive and logical picture.
After all, the no. one isn’t just somebody who dominates other players, no matter how weak they are. No. one is the player with the greatest strength.
It’s not fair for older players? It can’t be helped: the strongest player is the strongest player, with all-time strength.
shanelevene wrote:
Bobby Fischer was the only man to ever beat himself, so my vote goes to him. X
Not sure what you mean by beating himself but that's a vote for Fischer nonetheless. And Fischer has the lead.
troy7915 wrote:
Nobody can vote for Karpov as the no. 1, but they can place him in second or third position. Just the same, why is Nimziwitsch at no. one? While Botvinnik isn’t, for instance.
The choice for no. one is very, very .imited. But a top 10 would offer a more comprehensive, cohesive and logical picture.
After all, the no. one isn’t just somebody who dominates other players, no matter how weak they are. No. one is the player with the greatest strength.
It’s not fair for older players? It can’t be helped: the strongest player is the strongest player, with all-time strength.
Yes, someone may place Karpov in second or third but the point of this is to vote for one master as the best of all time. You can vote for one if you want. Or if you disagree with the thread's premise and don't want to participate, you can create a new thread that asks people to vote for their top ten.
FBloggs wrote:
shanelevene wrote:
Bobby Fischer was the only man to ever beat himself, so my vote goes to him. X
Not sure what you mean by beating himself but that's a vote for Fischer nonetheless. And Fischer has the lead.
Obviously, he means that no one dethroned Fischer. The only World Champion who never lost the title to another.
"The only World Champion who never lost the title to another"
What about Carlsen? :-)
FBloggs wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
Nobody can vote for Karpov as the no. 1, but they can place him in second or third position. Just the same, why is Nimziwitsch at no. one? While Botvinnik isn’t, for instance.
The choice for no. one is very, very .imited. But a top 10 would offer a more comprehensive, cohesive and logical picture.
After all, the no. one isn’t just somebody who dominates other players, no matter how weak they are. No. one is the player with the greatest strength.
It’s not fair for older players? It can’t be helped: the strongest player is the strongest player, with all-time strength.
Yes, someone may place Karpov in second or third but the point of this is to vote for one master as the best of all time. You can vote for one if you want. Or if you disagree with the thread's premise and don't want to participate, you can create a new thread that asks people to vote for their top ten.
The only reason I disagree is because for the strongest player there are very few choices. Nominating past strong players who are no match for today’s players is not acceptable—‘just to give them a chance, too’.
It is their fault that back then belief was even stronger, as there were systems of thought based on who said what. Whereas today’s computers almost equalized the field and elimitated the antique schools of thought based on belief.
They didn’t have computers to show them wrong, but they didn’t have intelligence to not bring their emotional beliefs into an objective game, either. So they deserve their place as weaker players in the history of the game.
Therefore, I will just observe this from afar.
fabelhaft wrote:
"The only World Champion who never lost the title to another"
What about Carlsen? :-)
Carlsen is an active player, as all World Champions were when they were still world champions.
‘The only’ refers to the present situation: ‘insofar’ that took place. What will happen when the crown will go to the next World Champion remains to be seen.
Until that moment Fischer is the only one,
"Until that moment Fischer is the only one"
Well, the only one to refuse to defend the title, if that is supposed to be some sort of merit :-)
@FBloggs... It was a remark refferring to his troubled and complex mind, meaning that he was his own undoing and his ownultimate victor. It's the tragedy of what should have been a beautiful life. Maybe to him it was still a beautiful life... It didn't show in his face, but aybe he found some great peace somewhere. X
"Do others go by whether or not they like the person, his statements, his behavior, his face (!) ?"
The problem with Karpov is that he played Kasparov in five matches without winning any of them in spite of all of them being played when Kasparov was quite young (Kasparov was more than 150 Elo below his peak when he won the title against Karpov after in all 72 match games). Karpov also faced Kasparov in numerous tournaments, finishing ahead of him only once.
So, even if one can come up with various more or less logical ways to decide that Lasker is greater than Kasparov or Fischer greater than Smyslov or Carlsen greater than Anand, it is more or less impossible to come up with any way to rank Karpov as greater than Kasparov.
The point is how can anyone vote for Ivanov?! As for Karpov, I’ll give you a reason: he dominated the chess world for 10 years, from ‘75 to ‘85. And his record with Kasparov is very, very tight, except in blitz.