Adams and Gelfand vs Kasparov

Adams and Gelfand have been doing great lately, and looking at their career scores against Kasparov (that include the days when both were top 5) really makes one understand what a monster he was. Chessgames.com gives Kasparov’s head to head score against Adams and Gelfand as in all +23 -0 =16.

Anand has +5 -5 =37 against Adams + Gelfand during the last dozen years, Kramnik +4 -2 =29. That is, during a period when they were the only undisputed World Champions and had their best years Anand and Kramnik scored nine wins (+2) in 82 games against them. Kasparov scored 23 wins (+23) in 39 games, and that was before Adams fell down to #50 and Gelfand dropped out of top 20. In general the two were higher ranked when they played Kasparov than during the last decade.

Some players have inexplicably good (and bad) results against others.  Style, psychology, bad luck?  Who knows, but they exist.

For that reason this seems too much like cherry picking.  Taking a random number of top 20 GMs and compare the results would be more telling... although the rating system itself basically already does this comparison for us and more rigorously.

I don't think such comparisons are necessary to conclude that Kasparov was a beast.

Kasparov is the greatest ever, no doubt.

Not really a cherry picking,except for Karpov and Kramnik, Kasparov has dominant plus score against the top players when he was still playing. He has good plus score against Shirov(beat him 15-0), Polgar,Anand Topalov, Bareev, Korchnoi(beat him 16-1), Ivanchuk etc in many games.

Kasparov was doing things back then what most players are doing now because of the tools availabe: preparation.

He knew who he was playing against, had their games on files, prepared well against their pet lines, understood more importantly each players style, developed new ideas with other top GMs. Back then not every GM had access to such resources.

Nowadays chessbase and the net can keep you up to date and well prepared. You can test out ideas against engines. The playing field has been levelled somewhat; not that it detracts K's ability in any way.

Fischer was greater when you take into account all the intangibles.

Kasparov has the best resume though.He was just bitchslapping everyone.All the stars aligned.He had the talent,work ethic,resources and the competition.

Now Carlsen,young as he is has the opportunity to top or equal that resume.With the advent of computers leveling the playing field.His achievements will be given more weight than that of Kaspy

What Fischer has to do in this thread? This is about Kasparov. And nope Fischer is not greater. 

Kasparov did have rather impressive results against most other top players, not only Adams and Gelfand. Picking a few other top opponents that most of them dropped considerably in playing strength after Kasparov's retirement one could get this comparison:

Kasparov

Bareev 10-0 (5 draws)

Ivanchuk 11-4 (22)

Kamsky 9-1 (3)

Leko 4-0 (15)

Morozevich 3-0 (4)

Polgar 8-0 (3)

Shirov 15-0 (14)

Topalov 10-3 (14)

Anand

Bareev 6-0 (7)

Ivanchuk 13-7 (49)

Kamsky 11-7 (18)

Leko 10-3 (29)

Morozevich 5-2 (7)

Polgar 15-4 (10)

Shirov 17-4 (29)

Topalov 17-13 (40)

Kramnik

Bareev 3-3 (9)

Ivanchuk 10-5 (28)

Kamsky 1-4 (10)

Leko 11-6 (53)

Morozevich 4-3 (8)

Polgar 14-0 (11)

Shirov 15-11 (28)

Topalov 14-9 (32)

Not every result extremely different from both his successors, but on the whole the comparison is telling. I think maybe especially Kasparov's going 32-0 against the three latest Candidates winners before Carlsen (Shirov 1998, Leko 2002, Gelfand 2011) is impressive. All three also dropped a lot in playing strength the years after Kasparov retired. And against the Candidates winner before that, Anand, he scored 15-3 in wins.

Indeed. Kasparov is one of the Greatest. But the fact he was "born" into an society that bred Chess Champions (obviously referring to the Former USSR) makes me reluctant to name him as the Best.

He was an "beast" in his prime, no doubt. But so was Alekhine vs Capablanca, Lasker, Euwe etc.

I find it absolutely ironic, that our Nation never ever backed our talent.

Re: Morphy, Reshevsky, Fischer, Kamsky, Naka

(of course, i didn't mean to leave out Marshall, Byrne bros., Lombardy, Evans, Fine, Seirwan etc.)