Both Nakamura and Fischer are uncompromising players who take a lot of chances to win, and so they end up losing quite a few games. Of the American players, Boris Gulko and Samuel Reshevsky were probably the hardest to beat.
namenohad - Karpov came in at 18.0%.
I suspected he couldn't have been far off of that list...
Classic non-exhibition games are the interesting stats for me, blitz are another discussion IMO.
The clock simuls the Kasparov played against national teams of GMs were quite interesting, and impressive.
Yeah but they skew the data away from a fair comparison of his loss percentage.
pfren, it doesn't say defensive style. Just says best defensive player. Defensive skill is what that implies, not defensive style. The ability to draw from bad positions. I would have to give that nod to Petrosian as well.
That said, if you strictly go based on defensive style, and draw ratio, gotta give the nod to Yusupov.
I agree that Petrosian was a good defensive player. He was known for prophylaxis. As a positional player, that normally by default throws up a defensive wall of pieces and controlled territory. An offense that is calculated, smothering, willing and able to make sound sacrifice is in itself a really good defense as well.
I am curious of Karpov's percentage....He was known for defense...
No, Kasparov is best known for his attacking ability, not his defense.
Kasparov was known for the fact that he went a stretch in the 90s where he literally lost like, 1 game, in about a 5 to 7 year stretch as White. It was a game in 1996 or 1997 if my memory serves me right.
However, Kasparov has lost numerous times with Black. His Defense is actually quite poor compared to other World Champions.
Even in Everyman's "Chess Secrets" series, which cover 5 former GMs (only 3 in the case of Attacking players) that are strong in a certain aspect. For example, Kaprov and Nimzovich are best known for their positional play and strategy. Kasparov, along with Tal and Stein, are best known for their ability to Attack, and hence why they are the ones in the Great Attackers book in the Chess Secrets series.
^^ Karpov.
But yeah maybe Kasparov would have a low loss rate simply because he so rarely had to defend worse positions.
The statistics are interesting. And they are useful to cull some candidates, but they don't answer the question definitively. Kasparov was rarely in a defensive position. Even he admitted he wasn't as good defending tough positions as Karpov was.
Thanks for providing the list.
I am curious of Karpov's percentage....He was known for defense...
No, Kasparov is best known for his attacking ability, not his defense.
Kasparov was known for the fact that he went a stretch in the 90s where he literally lost like, 1 game, in about a 5 to 7 year stretch as White. It was a game in 1996 or 1997 if my memory serves me right.
However, Kasparov has lost numerous times with Black. His Defense is actually quite poor compared to other World Champions.
Even in Everyman's "Chess Secrets" series, which cover 5 former GMs (only 3 in the case of Attacking players) that are strong in a certain aspect. For example, Kaprov and Nimzovich are best known for their positional play and strategy. Kasparov, along with Tal and Stein, are best known for their ability to Attack, and hence why they are the ones in the Great Attackers book in the Chess Secrets series.
I didn't misspell Kasparov....I was intentionally referring to Anatoly Karpov...the Karpov that Fischer was accussed of ducking...He was a positional defensive player...
Dvoretsky has written that Kasparov would often make his position worse when he got into trouble. It seems to be more of a case that he so rarely got into bad positions.
If I were composing an Olympic team for the ages and absolutely needed a draw on top board as Black, I'd choose Vladimir Kramnik first.
Tal, maybe?
Tal is considered to be the best attacker!
Steve212000 wrote:
" Petrosian,Karpov,Kramnik"
I agree with petrosian but karpov and kramnik are both very aggressive, attacking players
Petrosian,Karpov,Kramnik
+1 and in that order ....
Both karpov and kramnik are just not in the same way as tal or fischer
Tal, maybe?
Tal is considered to be the best attacker!
Not that I particularly enjoy arguments, and creating chaos by trying make everything that is black and white become a paradoxical shade of grey, it is often said, the best defense is a good offensive...and Tal's was most likely the best...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigran_Petrosian
Petrosian's style of play, although highly successful for avoiding defeats, was criticized as being dull. Chess enthusiasts saw his "ultraconservative" style as an unwelcome contrast to the popular image of Soviet chess as "daring" and "indomitable".[30] Fellow Soviet chess grandmaster and personal friend Mikhail Tal described Petrosian as "cowardly", out of frustration that this eminent tactician so rarely showed the chessworld what he was capable of. His 1971Candidates Tournament match with Viktor Korchnoi featured so many monotonous draws that the Russian press began to complain. However, Svetozar Gligorić described Petrosian as being "very impressive in his incomparable ability to foresee danger on the board and to avoid any risk of defeat."[23] Petrosian responded to his criticisms by saying "They say my games should be more 'interesting'. I could be more 'interesting'—and also lose."[4] Petrosian was, in the words of future World Champion Vladimir Kramnik, "the first defender with a capital D".[
Aside from Petrosian,Lasker and Steinitz also comes to mind.
But Carlsen is getting more impressive with his defense.And he doesnt play not to lose unlike Petrosian.
I can't believe nobody mentioned Capablanca yet.