karpov or kasparov!

cmnt the truth

Kasparov by a narrow margin. Kasparov had won 21 games, Karpov 19 (with countless draws). The reason is pure mathematics and a large amount of games (which is not the case with Capa - Alekhine (although Alekhine won their 1927 match, Capa is widely regarded as a slightly better player, having even computers confirm that)).

"Kasparov by a narrow margin. Kasparov had won 21 games, Karpov 19"

Head to head (I think Kasparov had 27-21 in all) doesn't give the whole story when comparing though, in this case one could also point out that Karpov didn't win any of the matches between the two, and only finished ahead in one tournament of all those both participated in after Kasparov's teens.

I'm not counting blitz/rapid games, but long games only. Let's not, however, forget that even though Karpov had never won a match against Kasparov,all their encounters for the crown ended either in a draw (in which case the champion retains the title) or with Kasparov winning by only 1 point! 

fabelhaft, only Wijk aan Zee with 11/13?

Kasparov by a whisker.

I dont think you could pick 2 players that were more suited for each other, or more closely skilled than those two.  I think you have to say that kasparov holds a slight edge, but Karpov has always been one of my favorites. 

"I'm not counting blitz/rapid games, but long games only"

If rapid and blitz games were included the numbers would be much higher. I see that Chessgames give the career score as 28-21 to Kasparov (39-25 with rapid/blitz included), they are often wrong by a bit but maybe correct in this case:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?yearcomp=exactly&year=&playercomp=either&pid=20719&player=&pid2=15940&player2=&movescomp=exactly&moves=&opening=&eco=&result=

"fabelhaft, only Wijk aan Zee with 11/13?"

Linares 1994, before that Karpov only did better in Moscow 1981 when Kasparov was 18. The thirteen years in between both played lots of tournaments together and Karpov never did better. I do think stats like that are important when comparing players, one can't just conclude that Nakamura is much greater than Anand since he has +4-0=9, it's also a question of looking at results against other players. Karpov and Kramnik were uncomfortable opponents for Kasparov, just like Nakamura is an uncomfortable opponent for Anand and Kramnik, but the latter two have achieved much more outside the head to head comparison.

the records show that Kasparov was the better,stronger,more dominant player.

wow nice find tk bunny!!

I thought it was Wijk, oops. Hmm, interesting.

Nay, a few days ago I watched a documentary on Karpov-Kasparov battles and overall relation between the two on Viasat History and they said that their overall record was 21:19 for Kasparov with 144 draws. It was called "Two Kings for a Crown" or something like that.

"Nay, a few days ago I watched a documentary on Karpov-Kasparov battles and overall relation between the two on Viasat History and they said that their overall record was 21:19 for Kasparov"

And they were obviously wrong since those are far from the correct stats. Kasparov won 21 games against Karpov only in their title matches, and the last of those were played already when Kasparov was 27 years old, in 1990.

Karpov was convincingly outclassed by Kasparov.a)he lost not one but four(!) matches to him b)Karpov reached his peak in 1987 whereas Garry was world number one until he retired.c)years of tenure favours Kasparov d)Karpov became WC without a fight(arguably through no fault of his but still..) e)Kasparov is widely considered to be perhaps the greatest of all time.Save Karpov fans,no one believes Karpov was the greatest ever. f)peak elo ratings favour Kasparov

Kasparov.

Yeah, you're probably right, they obviously gave their matches statistics.

Karpov , best in all time ( when chess was in its peak ) 

for what is your question

kasparov might be a better person for birthday parties

The best matched players in the history of Chess, rivaled only by Alekhine/Capablanca. Though Karpov never won a match against Kasparov, those matches were always decided by i point or in at least 1 case the match was "tied"...

Garry has the flashier style and personally I feel he is not only the greatest player since Fischer and possibly superior to him, but the most important person representing chess for so many reasons, as an author annotator etc etc...BUT, "Karpov" was a BEAST, his End Game finesse was second to none in his prime years...Those 3 and Carlson are the 4 best players in modern chess.

Alekhine and Capa only played ONE match, which is why the Kasparov/Karpov matches are so important...Simply the greatest pairing in the history of CHESS!