How patronising can you get? I'm a beginner and will most likely flounder in the bottom rungs and so what, however this doesn't mean we can't appreciate the play of the finest players. Anyone can be a good theorist, putting into practice is not always as easy.
Comparison
Sort:
I woudln't worry about it too much, seems swinginglondontown is just trying to convince himself, eg Karpov didn't win the 1984 match (much less convincingly).
Estragon wrote:
Before Linares in 1994, Kasparov declared that whoever won such an event was entitled to call themselves the "Tournament Champion of the World." Who gives a rat's patootie about other lesser tournaments that year? In the truly major event, Karpov was +9 =4. When did Kasparov dominate such a field?
Karpov had played top events for 25 years but never been anywhere near a result like Linares 1994, so impressive at it is, it isn't particularly representative for Karpov even during his best decades. He played Linares six more times between 1983 and 1995 without winning (in 1991 he shared 7-8th and in 1992 he was 4th). That doesn't make Linares 1994 any less impressive, but apart from it the ten best tournament performances by Kasparov/Karpov as listed by Chessmetrics are (all by Kasparov):
Tilburg 1989
Linares 1999
Linares 1993
Belfort 1988
Linares 1992
Amsterdam 1988
Belgrade 1989
Linares 1997
Niksic 1983
Wijk 1999
Chessmetrics work hard at what they do and I am far from being dismissive of the comparisons that emerge. But I am (humbly) with Kasparov on this one. That Linares tournament was quite an event. To win it was significant. To win it in such style - well!
It is a point in Karpov's favour, it seems to me, that he worked so hard as world champion. Not for him hiding away, conserving energy and preparing for the next challenger (which had been the approach of earlier title holders for some time). Rather he enterred everything, putting his reputation on the line time after time and draining a little of his energy and powers of concentration with each event. Of course he could not, and did not, produce his very best every single time. But he won such an impressive number of events that I wonder if his feat will ever be equalled.
Reviewing the thread we are possibly working towards a concensus that Karpov had the better positional strength and Kasparov the better tactics in complex middle games. Which coincides with received wisdom.
Something which it is nice to see is that Karpov's repute seems to, at last, have lived down the accusation that he was simply a pawn of the chess/USSR establishment. Whatever there is in that it hardly has anything to do with the moves he made on the chess board and so it is nice to see that it is the chess he played which is the thing which abides, the politics falls away.
johnyoudell wrote:
Chessmetrics work hard at what they do and I am far from being dismissive of the comparisons that emerge. But I am (humbly) with Kasparov on this one. That Linares tournament was quite an event. To win it was significant. To win it in such style - well!
Definitely, even if I think that if winning Linares makes you the tournament world champion this should in that case be every time. To Chessmetrics the strongest editions of the tournament were 1992 and 1993, both times won clearly by Kasparov with +7, and in all Kasparov won Linares nine times. Anand and Ivanchuk both won Linares more times than Karpov, so in general the latter's results weren't the best in the tournament even if he made up for that with some margin with the 1994 result.
Oct 21, 2012
0
#67
Yes, but that yr, Kasparov himslef said, Linaires seperates men from boys, and that he would regard the winner as the WC.
Kasrapov is a jerk somtimes
SwingingLondonTown wrote:
Karpov was better tactician than Kasparov. He was better at calculating complex positions. In more of the games where home preparation was not involved Karpov outplayed Kasparov. He won the 1984 match convincingly and drew the 1990. Unfortunately, Karpov is vastly underated by beginners, who are majority of the people playing chess, because a beginner cannot appreciate the Karpovian style. Not only was Karpov better over the board but he was a real gentleman as well. On the contrary, Kasparov seems to have some behavior problems.
Wrong, Karpov himself mentioned Kasparov is better than him at handling complex position. The first time Kasparov and Karpov faced in world championship, that was a very young inexperienced Kasparov..
nameno1had wrote:
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 ?
well.... kasparov did not agree to being a kgb agent despite the fact this would give him certain advantages....
Estragon wrote:
Chessmetrics has Von Bardebelen over 2700 at his peak. If you believe that, you are a fool.
What is strange with that? Chessmetrics is something entirely different than Elo so it's not as if anyone is claiming that he played chess on the same level as a 2700 Elo player today. von Bardeleben was a strong player and one example of his decent results is Hastings 1895, where he won against Lasker, drew Tarrasch, and finished with a solid plus score in a strong field, ahead of players like Schlechter, Janowski and Blackburne.
Oct 22, 2012
0
#74
SwingingLondonTown wrote:
I think that Karpov is the best player in the history. Do you agree that he lost his matches against Kasparov because the latter had better opening preparation? If it were not for Kasparov's home prepared openings, Karpov would reign the world for another 10-15 years...
This is a classic misunderstanding of what happened. In 1984, Karpov dominated the first half of the match by beating Kasparov's openings.
In the following game, Kasparov needed to win to retain the title. A draw would not be good enough. Kasparov did not use his brilliant opening preparation to win. Rather, he played a fairly non-descript opening with the idea of playing on Karpov's nerves as the game became more tense and more complicated.
Karpov was one of the greatest players of all time. But Kasparov was slightly better than Karpov in the opening, in dynamic positions, and psychologically. Kasparov's edge when they were both near their peak was mostly due to his determination. If the situation in 1984 had been reversed, there is no way Karpov would ever have been able to hang on the way Kasparov did after going down 5-0.
jambyvedar wrote:
SwingingLondonTown wrote:
Karpov was better tactician than Kasparov. He was better at calculating complex positions. In more of the games where home preparation was not involved Karpov outplayed Kasparov. He won the 1984 match convincingly and drew the 1990. Unfortunately, Karpov is vastly underated by beginners, who are majority of the people playing chess, because a beginner cannot appreciate the Karpovian style. Not only was Karpov better over the board but he was a real gentleman as well. On the contrary, Kasparov seems to have some behavior problems.
Wrong, Karpov himself mentioned Kasparov is better than him at handling complex position. The first time Kasparov and Karpov faced in world championship, that was a very young inexperienced Kasparov..
I am affraid I have to agree with Kasparov being the better tactitian. Probably the biggest difference between these two players is the fact that Kasparov's aggression and tactical style with the black pieces in particular usually was enough to nullify the advantage of Karpov having the white pieces. It is the reason for the difference in match scores. Karpov was more likely to draw with white, while Kasparov was more likely to win.
Team Kasparov was slightly better than Team Karpov. It remains undecided who was the better individual player. In my opinion it was Karpov, but no way of really knowing. I have a very high opinion of Anand and would like to have seen what he could have done with a Soviet type support team behind him. As for Fischer, I am afraid he was too much of an individualist to be a cog in a machine. It is kind of like comparing Joe Namath with Bart Starr. Namath was the superior athlete, but could have anyone fit in more perfectly with the Green Bay machine than Starr?
blake78613 wrote:
It remains undecided who was the better individual player. In my opinion it was Karpov
Karpov didn't win any of their matches and only finished ahead of Kasparov once after he left his teens, and that happened first in 1994. For me it's impossible to say that Karpov was the better player of the two. Karpov's greatest achievement is being so close to Kasparov, but the latter was the better player with some margin as I see it. The matches were close, just like Karpov's first matches against Korchnoi were close, but Kasparov's results are incomparable, for example not finishing behind another player during a ten-year-period, winning ten super tournaments in a row, being ranked #1 for more than 20 years, etc.
Karpov's achievements are far greater than those of Kasparov. Not only Karpov won 2 matches against Kasparov and drew one, but he has more tournament wins and let's not forget that he was World Champion from 1993 till 1999.
Oct 23, 2012
0
#79
SwingingLondonTown wrote:
Karpov's achievements are far greater than those of Kasparov. Not only Karpov won 2 matches against Kasparov and drew one, but he has more tournament wins and let's not forget that he was World Champion from 1993 till 1999.
Karpov won no matches against Kasparov actually.
Oct 23, 2012
0
#80
And to the people saying "Kasparov is better at this and Karpov better at that": How do you even have a clue about these things? Both players have near superhuman abilities in all areas of the game compared to all of us participating here, and it seems to me that one would have to be pretty damn strong (perhaps master level at least) to make a reasonable judgement call on such matters. They would also of course have to extensively and deeply analyze many of both of their games.
Karpov was better tactician than Kasparov. He was better at calculating complex positions. In more of the games where home preparation was not involved Karpov outplayed Kasparov. He won the 1984 match convincingly and drew the 1990. Unfortunately, Karpov is vastly underated by beginners, who are majority of the people playing chess, because a beginner cannot appreciate the Karpovian style. Not only was Karpov better over the board but he was a real gentleman as well. On the contrary, Kasparov seems to have some behavior problems.