Kasparov or Karpov

In a recent interview Nakamura  commented about Kasparov which at the time of the interview was either coaching or assinting Nakamura in his training.  Nakamura said "Kasparov is all about playing the absolute best move at any position".   In response to the OP, I can't separate the two, chessplayers from absolutely another planet, or galaxy if you like.  Cheers.

I have to say Karpov, just going off the 1984 two point lead, and the draw in 1987. The rules are in case of a draw in a world chess championship the title goes to the current world champion. To be honest Karpov drew the match in 1987 being 11 years older, and having had to go through all the candidates matches etc. Can one say that Kasparov was 100%  world champion when he draws the world championship, likewise was he really WC for 20 years straight ? I can't say for sure that is what is dubious to me. I believe that they are both brilliant chess players, but the one thing that Kasparov beats Karpov at is work ethic. Kasparov is crazy OCD, he feels that he must be 100% prepared, and he prepares to dominate, however it is that mentality, which makes him susceptible to psychological pressure if he doesn't understand his opponent or hasn't prepared he flounders which was what happened in the case of his match with Deep Blue. I say flounders but Kasparov's floundering would be genius to me, but the differences are so small at the Kasparov-Karpov level. I think if the 1984 match was 25 games, Karpov would have crushed Kasparov (like he did in the first 25 games), and knowing Kasparov's character he wouldn't be the same; this is a good thing though because if that didn't happen then Kasparov wouldn't have worked his butt off for the next 20 years to try and stay at the top, and consequently add tons to the game of Chess. So that's my thoughts on it, but it's very complicated! Chess talent is a very complicated question. 

I think Karpov was the stronger player, and coming back again and again...just wonderful.  I do think that the results would have been different had Karpov managed the clock better, but cest la vie

forever Tolya

"I have to say Karpov"

"To be honest Karpov drew the match in 1987 being 11 years older, and having had to go through all the candidates matches etc"

Karpov was seeded into the final so the only player he had to face was Andrei Sokolov.

"I think Karpov was the stronger player"

One of my pet peeves in these discussions is the certainty with which it usually is assumed that Kasparov was at his peak when playing Karpov, while the latter was past his best. There is nothing in the actual records that support this. When Kasparov won the title (after having played in all 72 match games against Karpov), he was still more than 150 Elo from his peak. Kasparov was only 24 when playing the fourth of their five matches. Looking at Karpov's best performances more or less all of them are between 1984 and 1996. Kasparov on the other hand was at his best a decade after the matches against Karpov. Still, Karpov only finished ahead of an adult Kasparov in one single tournament of the dozens they played. So ranking Karpov as the better player of the two is something that is difficult to support with stats.

My vote is for Karpov.

All the K-K matches that were played, Karpov was already sliding from his peak, while Kasparov was going for it.

I believe that most chess players reach their full strength around ages 30-32. This is why we don't see matches where both players are at their best. There's usually an imbalance.

Kasparov was also the more hardworking one when it came to the opening preparations, while Karpov was a little lazier there.

Another factor is Karpov's stamina. If he was physically stronger, he would've done so much better.

Of course Kasparov's results were better. But I think that Karpov was the better player of the two on his best day. In fact, Karpov was perhaps the best of all times at his peak performance. Linares 1994 tournament is a testament to that. But then again, this is only my opinion.

Kasparov. Vomitable as a person. Karpov looked like a corpse to Fischer when they met In Japan in 1977, I think. But he added, hIs eyes sparkled lively. In Fischer play conditions 10 wins, draws not counting, he reckoned Karpov would be dead halfway...

Kasparov&Karpov always played prearranged games

Which do you like better?

There are only two items for comparison.

Oh, and Kasparove was dynamite in his prime. He still seems to be able to play at high levels too.

Are your nonsense prearranged as well?

the most stupid and horrible comment ive ever seen on the internet

Wow, you must have just logged in for the first time!

I agree with batgirl, Kasparov as well as being a very strong player brought about a vitality to the game in the late 80s and 90s.  In the 90s I wouldn't say he was a household name in the world outside Russia, but I'd bet that a fair share of average Joes/Janes would know of him "Oh yeah that Russian chess player, Harry Kaspaniov, or something?" He was different from the usual perception of chess, as a game for nerds or unsmiling Russian masters. He had the image of being a sort of "uncouth, arrogant genius" in the way Beethoven was. I remember watching the 1993 World Champion Match on TV. I was only a very casual chess player them and didn't really understand what was going on in the games, but from then on Kasparov made an impression.

Karpov, while there is much to admire in his ruthless logical play seemed more like a chess robot.  Unfortunately for him most people find more enjoyment out of fierce attacking games, so his cool positional play will probably never likely be as popular as Kasparovs style.