fischer was soooo cute!! lol
Comparison
Sort:
SwingingLondonTown wrote:
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.
I mean, both FED & KAS play innovative...
nameno1had wrote:
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.
An old man who has started to slip? Karpov and Kasparov were far and away the best players of a chess era. It's too bad Karpov never won a match (although he way always really close).
At then end of the marathon 1984 match Karpov-Kasparov, Kasparov had won 5, Karpov 3, with 40 draws.
In the 1985 Karpov-Kasparov match Kasparov won 5, Karpov 3, and 16 draws.
The 1986 match saw Kasparov win 5, Karpov 4, with 15 draws.
1987 was 4 wins apiece and 16 draws.
1990 was Kasparov 4, Karpov 3 with 17 draws.
In ~6 years these players played 144 WC match games with Kasparov scoring a total of only 52%
And Karpov / his team wasn't so classy in the Karpov - Korchnoi match.
karpov's involvement with the kgb didn't seem to be very gentlemanly.
waffllemaster wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
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.
An old man who has started to slip? Karpov and Kasparov were far and away the best players of a chess era. It's too bad Karpov never won a match (although he way always really close).
At then end of the marathon 1984 match Karpov-Kasparov, Kasparov had won 5, Karpov 3, with 40 draws.
In the 1985 Karpov-Kasparov match Kasparov won 5, Karpov 3, and 16 draws.
The 1986 match saw Kasparov win 5, Karpov 4, with 15 draws.
1987 was 4 wins apiece and 16 draws.
1990 was Kasparov 4, Karpov 3 with 17 draws.
In ~6 years these players played 144 WC match games with Kasparov scoring a total of only 52%
And Karpov / his team wasn't so classy in the Karpov - Korchnoi match.
Yeah and my point is 10 years prior is when Karpov was on top. Most people fall off a bit 10 years after they were on top.
Kasparov's style was based exclusively on opening theory. He won most of his games at HOME not over the board. As Karpov mentions in his intervies, his only concern was how to reach a position which Kasparov has not analyzed at home and from then on Karpov was sure he can outplay Kasparov. Karpov does not have strong memory like Kasparov. He relies on his skills and understanding of the game.
waffllemaster wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
At then end of the marathon 1984 match Karpov-Kasparov, Kasparov had won 5, Karpov 3, with 40 draws.
That's not true. The 1984 match was practically won by Karpov. He was leading 5:0 after 24 games...
nameno1had wrote:
Yeah and my point is 10 years prior is when Karpov was on top. Most people fall off a bit 10 years after they were on top.
I think the KK matches made them both stronger. It's hard to say Karpov was starting to slip when he was competing so evenly with Kasparov. (And when he was so far above everyone other than Kasparov).
So not sure how you can say he was slipping when there's no comparison. Karpov beat everyone in 1975-1980... and was still beating everyone in 1985-1990 (with Kasparov just edging him out each time).
He turned 40 in 1991, so these matches were played in his 30s, so it's hard to argue from an age standpoint too IMO.
karpov, fischer, kasparov and batgirl will always stand as the elite.
nameno1had wrote:
Karpov is class act.
Not so classy, if you know his history.
Oct 20, 2012
0
#52
bobyyyy wrote:
I also read that Kasparov in at least one game against Karpov made some very strange faces to try to distract Karpov. Legal but a bit unethical. Not something a normal grandmaster would do.
Don't believe everything you read. Over-the-top faces and body language was just Kasparov's way. I doubt he would have done it to distract Karpov.
goldendog wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
Karpov is class act.
Not so classy, if you know his history.
I'll have to do some detective work, something I never had to do with Kasparov, he put his foolishness on display for everyone to see.
Immryr wrote:
karpov's involvement with the kgb didn't seem to be very gentlemanly.
How voluntary was service always to the KGB....did he really have a choice ?
A classy gentleman who dominated world chess for many years.
Somehow, however, Kasparov just seems to have more charisma. Maybe that is a measure of Karpov's gentility.
A great pity that he owed part of his reign to Fischer's oddities and then the Kasparov/Short breakaway. But that is hardly his fault.
nameno1had wrote:
goldendog wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
Karpov is class act.
Not so classy, if you know his history.
I'll have to do some detective work, something I never had to do with Kasparov, he put his foolishness on display for everyone to see.
Kasparov rubbed people wrong in a very personal way so his bad press got pushed pretty freely.
was he really a pussy riot fan ?
and he was into rubber too ? jeepers!
This comparison doesn't seem to be particularly serious, not just because it equals the levels of Kasparov and Kramnik, but also because of the various reasons Karpov is placed ahead of Kasparov. It is often claimed that Kasparov won against a Karpov that was past it, but Karpov peaked around the years of his matches against Kasparov, during which the latter was quite young. A huge majority of the games between the two were played in Kasparov's early 20s. In the many tournaments they both played an adult Kasparov finished behind Karpov only once, and it took a dozen years before that happened.
Karpov won more tournaments, but that doesn't say much since the tournaments Kasparov won were stronger. Taimanov won more tournaments than Fischer but that doesn't make him a stronger player. As for Kasparov winning his games only thanks to home preparation made by his team, that is naturally far from true. Karpov probably depended much more on his team, especially in the matches against Korchnoi. All top players in the Soviet Union had to cooperate by serving Karpov opening preparation for the matches. Karpov was of course a strong player and one of the greatest ever, but Kasparov is something entirely different.
SwingingLondonTown wrote:
Not true really. Karpov has better understanding of the game... Most of Kasparov's wins over Karpov were prepared at home by his buddies. This is no skill. On the contrary, Karpov relied mostly on his skills to outplay his opponents. The order should be as follows:
Karpov>Kasparov=Kramnik
Nope not only Kasparov beat Karpov because of good openings, Kasparov beat Karpov because of Kasparov's tremendous talent, Kasparov is a calculating machine. Karpov in interview told that Kasparov is superior compare to him in complicated and tactical positions. Karpov's second in his match(four GM) against Kasparov are all world class grandmaster so in terms of seconds in their matches they are actually equal. Another thing Kasparov also has nerve of steel. There is a critical positional game between them where both players are really out of their preperation, Kasparov beat Karpov because of his composure..Saying that Kasparov beat Karpov because only of opening is not correct..
Take a look at the brilliance of a young Kasparov in this game, at such young age Kasparov's talent was already in display.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=15940
GM Seirawan
When it comes to initiative Kasparov has no equal- GM Beim
Estragon wrote:
fabelhaft wrote:
This comparison doesn't seem to be particularly serious, not just because it equals the levels of Kasparov and Kramnik, but also because of the various reasons Karpov is placed ahead of Kasparov. It is often claimed that Kasparov won against a Karpov that was past it, but Karpov peaked around the years of his matches against Kasparov, during which the latter was quite young. A huge majority of the games between the two were played in Kasparov's early 20s. In the many tournaments they both played an adult Kasparov finished behind Karpov only once, and it took a dozen years before that happened.
Karpov won more tournaments, but that doesn't say much since the tournaments Kasparov won were stronger. Taimanov won more tournaments than Fischer but that doesn't make him a stronger player. As for Kasparov winning his games only thanks to home preparation made by his team, that is naturally far from true. Karpov probably depended much more on his team, especially in the matches against Korchnoi. All top players in the Soviet Union had to cooperate by serving Karpov opening preparation for the matches. Karpov was of course a strong player and one of the greatest ever, but Kasparov is something entirely different.
One need not claim Karpov to be better than Kasparov to note how closely they competed, or how Kasparov's career +9 was padded in Karpov's later years.
Kasparov did indeed win the key games in their matches, but not by domination. And Karpov's tournament wins are indeed significant, and include Linares 1994, which may have been the strongest tournament up to that time, after Karpov was a top challenger for the title, yet he won it with the astounding score of +9 in a field of 14 (including Kasparov, Shirov, Ivanchuk, Anand, Gelfand, Kamsky, and Kramnik).
Karpov came up in the era of adjournments and seconds, as did Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, and Spassky. He was also just before the advent of useful computer programs, although he did adapt to some extent in later years.
Kasparov was better, he proved it head to head, but the difference between them was not so great. Karpov's losses to him include more egregious errors late in the game or in time trouble than start-to-finish displays by Kasparov.
Karpov's career score against Korchnoi was quite even up until Korchnoi reached 50 though, and their first matches couldn't have been much closer. In 1978 the resources the players had at their disposal were on a totally different level. All top GMs in the Soviet Union helped Karpov, and still it was 15.5-15.5 before the final game.
When the third of his five matches against Karpov was played Kasparov had just turned 23 and was far from his peak, while Karpov had his strongest period in the second half of the 1980s according to Chessmetrics. So it isn't all that surprising that Kasparov's career plus against Karpov (just like Karpov's career plus against Korchnoi) mainly was a thing of the last decade they played each other.
Karpov played many other tournaments than Linares in 1994, all of them as favourite, and didn't win any of them. Of course a result like Linares is enough to make other events unimportant, but it was the only time in his career that he did better than an adult Kasparov. Kasparov won all his tournaments in 1994 except for Linares, where he was second, and still that second place kind of defines his year. But there's no explaining away that Karpov was an all time great, and I rank him as one of the three greatest players ever, behind only Kasparov and Lasker.
Well kasrapov is better