who stole my bananas ? 
Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Who Do You Think Is Better?
Sort:
I like Karpov and Tal (and Anand) because they seem like normal, nice people. No ego, willing to play all challengers, played at the top level their whole lives, etc.
from what i have seen so far:
kasparov > karpov > Fischer >>>>> murphy
who's this murphy ?? - I thought he was just the guy I buy my spuds from
Reb wrote:
When did Kasparov ever win 20 games in a row against all GMs ?? Oh, he didnt.
This is worth repeating any time one of these topics gets started.
By the way anyone who tries to put Karpov ahead of Fischer is nuts :p even the Russians put Karpov as the underdog in terms of skill in the never-to-happen WC match.
May 2, 2010
0
#47
maybe next time make a thread that is called 'KFC' (Kasparov,Fischer or Calsen) who is better ?
zxb995511 wrote:
Chesspro76 wrote:
zxb995511 wrote:
mkirk wrote:
I have read his book 'Attacking Chess'. Yes, I see what you mean. Still, he should be a GM I feel
He didin't have the endurance for it, it seems. "A Grandmaster of chess not only knows but dominates all aspects of chess" and this is what he could not achieve. He was to caught up with "I have my own style" and "I can't learn to play like Karpov cuz I'm a natural attacking player" and that sort of stuff doesn't work in chess. To become a GM you have to (in my humble opinion and from what I have seen) master absolutely everything. You can't just ALWAYS play a position how you want to play it- often times the position will almost play you...and in those times you can't afford to "have a style" and that is what Josh never wanted to give up. The moment he saw that he HAD to learn to play in "all styles" and all positions he said he "lost the love of the game" which is a fancy way of saying he didin't know how to do anything other than attack and when he was being taught how to play in other ways he found it too boring\hard\annoying.
I see what you are getting at but why cant having your own style and being masterful at that get you to the level of GM (not saying he was but just in general). I mean if you beat most anybody to include some GMs do you not deserve that ranking even if you are not efficient in every playing style/position? I am not an expert, but part of what makes chess so great is that there are many ways of doing things in order to be successful.....
Everyone inevitably has a style and ways they like to play. Most positions have many ways to be played, but to reach the level of GM you must refine ALL AREAS OF YOUR GAME. No Grandmaster is "bad at endgames" he can be "slightly worse than another GM" or he could "prefer not to play endgames" but not "bad at endgames" he simply would not ever have made it to GM without endgame ability. It's the same with all other chess knowledge. You may not be "the best" at something in particular but to be a GM you must master even that which you do not prefer. The problem with having your own "uncompromising style" is that there are positions that PLAY YOU and that DEMAND that you play them a certain way or you will LOSE and if you are taking chess up as a carrer you can't afford to lose games... The issue with Josh Waitzkin in specific was his inability to learn to play in all positions and master evey style, so while he was a good attacking player he got frustrated in closed positions and didin't know how to squeeze a win out of simple positions with a positional plus- and this is what his coach was trying to teach him. The best player to EVER in terms of "squeezing a win from a tiny positional plus" was Karpov. Josh's coach was trying to teach him using Karpov's games how to play these kinds of positions- the thing was Josh got frustrated cuz it got difficult\boring\annoying. THE THING IS THAT THIS IS CRUTIAL STUFF FOR A GM. If you have this kind of weakness of not knowing how to play these positions than it is likely that you will either never make it or have every person you play against make the position closed and draw you or beat you cuz that is your weakness...so the point is that you can have your own style- if you are an amateur you have the luxury of never learning squat about openings but if you are aiming to be a GRANDMASTER this is not an option, same as learning how to play positionally- Josh understood this- but at the same time understood he could not do this (or didin't want to do this) so he simply gave up. That's all there is to it.
Well put, point taken.....
FIDE admits here http://members.shaw.ca/redwards1/ that todays ratings are grossly inflated. You can see for yourself that Fischer had the highest rating of all time once you correct for inflation. But, he quit too soon. Kasparov was almost as high, but for a much longer time. Karpov's prime was coming to an end when Kasparov's was beginning and yet they were almost equal when they played. (Garry Kasparov beat Anatoli Karpov 39 to 25, with 138 draws) but two-thirds of the games played were during Kasparov's prime and past Karpov's. (look at rectified ratings chart at bottom of link) Plus Karpov is still the most winning-est tournament player ever. So I think this shows Karpov was every bit of Kasparov's equal when you factor in that he had already dominated for 10 years before Kasparov reached his level and was petering out for 2/3rds of Kasparov's prime. Who's 'better'? You decide. :)
P.S. It took Kasparov 18 games against Karpov to win 1, and 51 games to win 2.
Ch3ck2Ch3ck, lol, buddy
By pure talent, Bobby Fischer. By pure winning percentage Bobby Fischer. By highest individual single year FIDE rated performance Bobby Fischer. Others arguing otherwise, are really arguing about players that had the advantage of preparation with seconds and digital assistants in the form of computers.
Show me someone in the current candidates series or whatever system is utilized to meet and challenge a champion that has won 19 games in a row WITHOUT a draw. At this high level. NO draws. None.
Next subject.
But any argument can be made against these points.
One thing is for sure. Bobby Fischer is the greatest because all the Champions today can point back to Fischer making the beginning demands to make chess a professional sport respectable around the world and with the trimmings of money.
That is an indelible mark of a champion and pioneer; wherein all players today benefiot from better playing conditions, better accommodations, better prize funds and speaking opportunities.
All because one person sacrificed everything to gain the prize.
SInglehandly, Fischer beat a champion, nation whose passion was and still is chess, a system designed within Russia to produce champions, and bettered Chess for all the world.
All through the rare gift of desire and drive for excellence.
1. Fischer
2. Kasparov
3. Karpov
right now Kasparov is better as Fischer is deceased and Karpov retired before Kasparov.
Fischer never had so much of today's technology and also in the past few years he did not have people helping him.
Karpov.
Fischer was so much scared of Karpov, that he ducked out of defending his World Champion title against him, so one can't seriously compare Fischer with Karpov.
And Kasparov only won against Karpov when Karpov started to get older and the age difference gave Kasparov a decisive edge. Before that Karpov was dominating him.
Karpov is the best positional player and the best endgame player, he's not so agressive but his chess understanding is deeper. Also he won more tournaments than anyone else.
Several posts in this and other threads discussing Karpov vs Kasparov claim that Karpov was the better player of the two but just was unfortunate that their games were played when he was past his peak while Kasparov was at his best. This is quite questionable. I think both players peaked in their 30s, and that Karpov was at his best around the matches against Kasparov, while Kasparov was at his best later.
Just looking at the tournaments Karpov played in the 1970s, they were much weaker than the later super tournaments, and his matches against Korchnoi were much less impressive than those against Kasparov. Going +2 over 56 match games 1974-78 against the 20 years older Korchnoi was no sign that Karpov was better than he was a decade later.
The fourth of the five matches between Karpov and Kasparov was played when the latter was 24 years old, and his best results all came later. Karpov was 36, and a much stronger player than the one that a decade earlier had 15.5-15.5 with one game to go against the 47-year-old Korchnoi. If Karpov ever "dominated" Kasparov it was in the first nine games of their first match, but then Kasparov was very young, and still scored +2 in the remaining 39 games of it.
I think, in terms of technical skills, Karpov has a slight edge over Kasparov. Kasparov has one thing that Karpov lacks, which is the sheer determination to win.
It is an interesting question who is the best chess player of all time. Any answer seems very subjective since players of different ages either could not possibly play against each other or if they were contemporaries they may have peaked at a different time. The ELO system can only compare players who play against each other but meaningless when it comes to players of different ages.
However with engines an interesting new possibility came about: you can analyze the games of past masters move by move and measure the evaluation difference between the moves they actually made and the value of the 'optimal' move. Of course you can debate the choice of the engine, the depth of the analysis, the selection of the games to be analyzed etc. but you have to admit that this method can produce meaningful results and guarantees a certain level of objectivity.
This study is a serious attempt to perform such an analysis: http://www.scribd.com/doc/132380754/Chess-Player-Analysis-by-Rybka-3-14ply
What strikes me most in this study, that it can reproduce correctly the 'playing style' of players purely based on measuring the complexity of the positions (how much the value of the position changes by depth) and the difference between the best of and the second best move.
Karpov and Kramnik comes out very positional, while Kasparov a very tactical player which is much the same that you would subjectively think about them.
As to the issue of best player it is worth mentioning that Capablanca and Fischer both made very accurate moves and blundered very rarely.
I have read his book 'Attacking Chess'. Yes, I see what you mean. Still, he should be a GM I feel
He didin't have the endurance for it, it seems. "A Grandmaster of chess not only knows but dominates all aspects of chess" and this is what he could not achieve. He was to caught up with "I have my own style" and "I can't learn to play like Karpov cuz I'm a natural attacking player" and that sort of stuff doesn't work in chess. To become a GM you have to (in my humble opinion and from what I have seen) master absolutely everything. You can't just ALWAYS play a position how you want to play it- often times the position will almost play you...and in those times you can't afford to "have a style" and that is what Josh never wanted to give up. The moment he saw that he HAD to learn to play in "all styles" and all positions he said he "lost the love of the game" which is a fancy way of saying he didin't know how to do anything other than attack and when he was being taught how to play in other ways he found it too boring\hard\annoying.
I see what you are getting at but why cant having your own style and being masterful at that get you to the level of GM (not saying he was but just in general). I mean if you beat most anybody to include some GMs do you not deserve that ranking even if you are not efficient in every playing style/position? I am not an expert, but part of what makes chess so great is that there are many ways of doing things in order to be successful.....
Everyone inevitably has a style and ways they like to play. Most positions have many ways to be played, but to reach the level of GM you must refine ALL AREAS OF YOUR GAME. No Grandmaster is "bad at endgames" he can be "slightly worse than another GM" or he could "prefer not to play endgames" but not "bad at endgames" he simply would not ever have made it to GM without endgame ability. It's the same with all other chess knowledge. You may not be "the best" at something in particular but to be a GM you must master even that which you do not prefer. The problem with having your own "uncompromising style" is that there are positions that PLAY YOU and that DEMAND that you play them a certain way or you will LOSE and if you are taking chess up as a carrer you can't afford to lose games... The issue with Josh Waitzkin in specific was his inability to learn to play in all positions and master evey style, so while he was a good attacking player he got frustrated in closed positions and didin't know how to squeeze a win out of simple positions with a positional plus- and this is what his coach was trying to teach him. The best player to EVER in terms of "squeezing a win from a tiny positional plus" was Karpov. Josh's coach was trying to teach him using Karpov's games how to play these kinds of positions- the thing was Josh got frustrated cuz it got difficult\boring\annoying. THE THING IS THAT THIS IS CRUTIAL STUFF FOR A GM. If you have this kind of weakness of not knowing how to play these positions than it is likely that you will either never make it or have every person you play against make the position closed and draw you or beat you cuz that is your weakness...so the point is that you can have your own style- if you are an amateur you have the luxury of never learning squat about openings but if you are aiming to be a GRANDMASTER this is not an option, same as learning how to play positionally- Josh understood this- but at the same time understood he could not do this (or didin't want to do this) so he simply gave up. That's all there is to it.