Comparison

Sort:
atarw

Here: read this: 

I am not saying it is true, I consider Karpov to be second-best ever. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/science/a-computer-program-to-detect-possible-cheating-in-chess.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Scottrf

May well be true, but you judge people against their time. Jesse Owens wouldn't medal now I'm any event, doesn't mean he wasn't a great athlete.

atarw

I don't care of their time, although the players of today find it easier to play well.

The time doesn't matter, it is a handicap in a way

What matters is the accuracy of the moves, that is how you should judge the players.

fixbone

i presume we are not including fischer in this discussion?

atarw

Not these Fischer addicts again! :P

Scottrf
DaBigOne wrote:

I don't care of their time, although the players of today find it easier to play well.

The time doesn't matter, it is a handicap in a way

What matters is the accuracy of the moves, that is how you should judge the players.

No way. Obviously as people learn from previous generations and computers they will play better moves. It doesn't mean that Michael Adams is greater than Karpov.

atarw

To decide whether Adams is better than Karpov, I would look at the record between them, and deeply analyze their games. I would than collect a list of inaccuracies, mistakes, and blunders made by each side.

The side who made the most mistakes would be worse.

Of course, you will have to compare the records against other players, something which will take a long time.

Of course each generation will learn from the previous, you cannot stop that. Whoever makes the most use of their knowledge  will win. Karpov can learn from computers, he can learn from other people too.

Its not like Adams can only learn from other players and computers.

Scottrf

None of that was my point. What if they can't play each other, and have no common opponents? You have to look at their achievements against their generation. Just looking at their raw ability when one may have a lot more information available to them is doing a disservice to the older player and a bit narrow minded.

Morphy probably wasn't stronger than any of the current top 100, but he also had a lot less theory to work with, so it doesn't mean they are all greater chess players than him. You have to look at how he did in his time.

1RedKnight99

Perhaps Kasparpov is the best.

atarw

Of course I realize that it is biased to the younger players, but to measure raw ability and moves is the only way to truly gauge strength. 

And it does mean Morphy was worse than the top 100, the only difference is that he was playing with a handicap.

And even if they have no common opponents and never faced each other, you can still gauge strength, but the difference is that you need to point out the opponents mistakes as well, as the opponent's strength matters too.

Scottrf

Well, yeah, of course objectively newer players are stronger in general, but it's not a particularly interesting or fair way to compare players across generations.

sirrichardburton

For a very long time they were neck and neck but finally Kasparov became the stronger player,but i think Karpov is vastly under-rated due to all the attention Kasparov got. I think its rather like Ali-Frazier you can't think of one without the other one coming to mind.In both cases one is deemed the best but the other is at least his best rival.(btw both Ali and Kasparov are both masters of self-promotion while neither Karpov or Frazier had that skill).

blake78613

Both Ks had an army of seconds helping them.  They both had seconds going over their opponents games with a fine tooth comb and preparing opening novelties specifically for that opponent.  Kasparov benefited more from this because of his extraordinary memory.  It was next to impossible to get Kasparov into a middlegame that he hadn't seen before and had analysed.  Both played in an era of adjourned games.  Both avoided making critical moves before adjournment and would have their seconds analyse while they rested up.  Both had endgame weakness.  Karpov's weakness was that he wouldn't take the necessary risks to convert and edge into a win.  Kasparov's endgame weakness was more serious. Kasparov had trouble holding slightly inferior endings.  I have heard it estimated that Kasparov's team added about 200 rating points to his strength (his opponents also had seconds so they were playing somewhat above their true strength, but nobody else had the quantity of high quality seconds that the two Ks enjoyed)

Roma60

2 of the greatist players ever but if i have to choose one karpov comes out on top because he as won more tournaments then anyone else. and also he is a first class gentleman.

beardogjones

Karpov, Kasparov together  illustrated the richness of chess that

these contrasting styles both thrived. (even if previous sentence is

ungrammatical).

MSC157

It's like comparing Roger Federer with Rafael Nadal! :)

Both are great, but RF is slightly better IMO - so is Kaspy!

Mr_Spocky

Kasrapov is better. Hes espiccaly good at tatics

GreedyPawnGrabber
MSC157 wrote:

It's like comparing Roger Federer with Rafael Nadal! :)

Both are great, but RF is slightly better IMO - so is Kaspy!

 Bad comparison! Karpov is the Federer of chess and Kasparov is like Rafael Nadal.

yourChess

Kaaporov. Anatoly Karpov is worse

nameno1had

Always picking on the old men when they've started to slip a bit... I see how it is.

Though I like Nadal better than Federer, I like Karpov far better than Kasparov. Kasparov is arrogant and Karpov seems very humble and respectful for even Fischer, who was a crack pot that ducked him in many peoples opinion. Karpov is class act. Kasparov would have put him down and put himself onto a pedestal as usual.