1. I am not pro-Kasparov, I just think he is better
2. If this remains just a debate and not a personal war, I think it will be okay.
3. Let's look at a survey I have made (I have voted in it, but there are ten votes in total), with the top ten best players ever. First gets ten, second gets nine, etc., for each vote (The scores are from chessgames.com).
Kasparov 99 (candidate)
Capablanca 71 (candidate)
Karpov 64 -vs. Kasparov: 25W, 39L, 137D
Fischer 63 (candidate)
Morphy 45- never played any of the candidates
Lasker 38- vs. Capablanca: 2W, 6L, 16D
Alekhine 25- vs. Capablanca: 7W, 10L, 33D
Steinitz 16- never played any of the candidates
Tal 14- vs. Fischer: 4W, 4L, 5D
Anand 13- vs. Kasparov: 8W, 26L, 43D
You be the judge.
It's an interesting approach but unfortunately it's too flawed to be of any use, for the reasons already given.
If tennis player 'A' beats player 'B' but loses to player 'C', what if anything can you infer?
I agree that Karpov seems to have had some problems with certain match play situations, but these seem to be limited to those occasions when he was ahead and only needed draws to win the match: he was crushing Korchnoi in '78 (3 ahead with only 5 to play) and almost blew it; and needing only a draw in the last game against Kasparov to become champion in '87, he lost (against 1.Nf3 of all openings, if my memory serves me right). This flaw aside, I'd say he was very strong in match play.
In terms of match play only, I think it's quite possible that the wily old Korchnoi would have been not far off his prime in '78. GM's deteriorate with age at very different rates (cf Karpov and Smyslov), and what he'd lost in sharpness he may well have made up for in experience and the art of psychology. Don't forget that Karpov had the weight and expectation of the Soviet authorities "behind" him, with all the pressure that implies.
Chess results are far too situational to be boiled down to numbers, so I agree with dannyhume that the opinions of GMs who played both Fischer and Kasparov would be more instructive.
I think it's false to conclude that Spassky was long past his best in 1974. He reached the candidates final in the next cycle and in the 1981 candidates cycle he tied with Portisch 7-7 in the 1st round, but Portisch advanced due to having won more games with Black (1 to Spasskys 0)
And yes, Korchnoi is something of an anomaly in that his prime was in his 40's. The guy is still playing competitive chess at the age of 80 in case you've forgotten
Here is the full, updated list.
Kasparov 109 - Candidate
Capablanca 81 - Candidate
Fischer 71 - Candidate
Karpov 71 - vs. Kasparov: 25 W, 39L, vs. Tal: 2W, 1L, vs. Botvinnik: 1D, vs. Spassky: 16W, 3L, vs. Korchnoi: 35W, 17L. vs. U.Anderrson: 15W, 2L
Morphy 49 - vs. Anderrsen: 11W, 3L
Lasker 42 - vs. Capablanca: 2W, 6L vs. Steinitz: 26W, 8L, vs. Pillsbury: 5W, 5L, vs. Euwe: 3W, 0L, vs. Flohr: 0W, 2L, vs. Alekhine: 3W, 1L
Alekhine 27 - vs. Capablanca: 7W, 10L, vs. Botvinnik: 0W, 1L, vs. Euwe: 28W, 20L, vs. Flohr: 5W, 0L
Steinitz 17 - vs. Pillsbury: 6W, 8L, vs. Anderssen: 11W, 11L
Tal 14 - vs. Fischer: 4W, 4L, vs. U.Anderrson: 3W, 1L, vs. Botvinnik: 12W, 12L, vs. Spassky: 7W, 9L, vs. Korchnoi: 6W, 13L, vs. Euwe: 1D
Anand - vs. Kasparov: 8W, 26W, vs. U.Andersson: 2W, 2L, vs. Carlsen: 14W, 9L, vs. Kramnik: 25W, 16L, vs. Korchnoi: 12W, 0L, vs. Spassky: 1W, 0L, vs. Tal: 1W, vs. Topalov: 28W, 16L
Anderssen 11 - never played anyone below him on this list
Botvinnik 10 - vs. Capablanca: 2W, 1L, vs. Fischer: 1D, vs. Euwe: 2W, 2L, vs. Spassky: 1W, 0L
Spassky 9 - vs. Kasparov: 2W, 2L, vs. Fischer: 11W, 17L, vs. Korchnoi: 18W, 25L, vs. U.Andersson: 1W, 0L, vs. Flohr: 2W, 0L
Carlsen 7 - vs. Kramnik: 8W, 10L, vs. Korchnoi: 1L, vs. Topalov: 10W, 3L, vs. U.Anderrson: 1W, 0L, vs. Kasparov: 0W, 1L
Kramnik 5 - vs. Kasparov: 21W, 22L, vs. Korchnoi: 8W, 0L, vs U.Andersson: 1W, 0L, vs. Topalov: 27W, 15L
Phillidor 5 - Never played anyone else on this list.
Korchnoi 4 - vs. U.Andersson: 6W, 5L, vs. Topalov: 1W, 4L, vs. Kasparov: 1W, 18L, vs. Fischer: 3W, 3L
Ulf Andersson 4 - vs. Topalov: 1W, 1L, vs. Kasparov: 0W, 5L, vs. Fischer: 1L
Topalov 3 - vs. Kasparov: 6W, 19L
Flohr 3 - vs. Capablanca: 1W, 2L
Pillsbury 2 - Never played anyone below him on this list, or a candidate.
Euwe 2 - vs. Capablanca: 1W, 4L
Good list, but I thought Karpov never lost to Tal.
Also, 1 of Botvinnnik's victories over Capablanca was a simul.
Didn't know Lasker had positives against Alekhine and Euwe and never once played Botvinnik.
I saw the LIttlest Hobo play chess on TV, therefore:
Littlest Hobo googleplex
Or maybe it was checkers.
Put simply, to say that Fischer would have dominated the chess scene for many years is pure speculation.
To suggest that Kasparov would dominate world chess for 15+ years is fact.
By the way, weren't you the same one that said that stealing isn't wrong?
there is some debate who's better fischer or karpov, it's something which i greatly would want to know myself, however i will never know
I must apologize. Apparently I need to either write s....l....o....w....e....r or type LOUDER!! Because I've had to repeat many things I've already posted and laid to rest, but I shall be patient, and try again.
To 'ontomorrow'-you said basically that I did not have enough material to come to my conclusions. Did you read my original post? I studied way more than I posted, but 'boiled it down' for brevity. If you don't understand the phrase 'boiled down' I understand. You reduced my formula to 'nonsense' apparently because it does not cover enough possibilites. Good point. But then, what does? Are we to consider who might have a cold? Who slept better? Who has the 'Indian sign' over who? Nothing can take in all contingencies. That's why it's not 'proof'. But to suggest it's unworthy as 'evidence' is to me hypocritical. As I will demonstrate.
WARNING: If you are stronly 'pro-Kasparov', and have high blood pressure, or just one of those people who get mad when they hear things they don't like, then you might not want to read the following.
Usually, I've presented 'evidence', the following however are 'facts'. Yes, I have actual 'proof' to back it up.
Things that cannot be validly claimed in determining who would win a match between two players.
Longevity-Anderssen was considered the #1 player for over 10 years, Morphy retired at age 21. Match score: Morphy 7 Anderssen 2
Ratings and tournament dominance- Capablanca not only had the higher rating, and dominated tournament play for years, but he actually dominated Alekhine in tournament play, Alekhine never won a game. Can you imagine if [not that I'm that old] I would have dared to suggest that Alekhine would win a match against Capablanca? I would have been laughed out of town.
Match score: Alekhine 6 Capablanca 3 / Sorry 'checkmateibeatu' but 'surveyed' grandmasters would have backed Capa.
Please lay these sorry defenses of why Kasparov would win the 'match' to rest. I noticed 'ontomorrow' never took to task those who promoted these provably unsound criteria.
Logic in reverse- If you start with the premise that because Kasparov is a great dominant tournament player, so therefore he is not only a great dominant 'match' player, but apparently the greatest 'match' player of all time, then obviously if Karpov plays him tough [in terms of total wins and losses in all the matches], then it stands to reason that Karpov is one of the greatest match players of all time as well [probably second best]. Now, if Korchnoi at 47 is in his prime when he plays tough against Karpov, then he must be a very great match player as well. But wait, Korchnoi lost to Spassky in the candidate matches leading up to the 1969 World Championship to Spassky by +3. No matter, Korchnoi wasn't in his prime at 37 when he played Spassky, he was in his prime at 47 when he played Karpov, and if you can't believe that, then believe that Korchnoi had the 'Indian sign' over him. Not enough to win though, just to make it close.
Really? You're coming at me with 'this'? If Korchnoi was playing his best chess at 47, then he was also 'probably' playing better than anyone ever has at that age. Contrast the great Kasparov who is about 48 now.
Smyslov was indeed in his 60's when playing in candidate matches in the 80's, but Smyslov was 'world champion' when he was in his 30's. There is frequently a big difference between still being strong, and being in your prime.
According to 'ontomorrow's' reasoning can we even say that Kasparov is a better match player than Karpov. Maybe Kasparov just had the 'Indian sign' over him, or perhaps Kasparov was just in possession of a better sleepin aid.
Some posting term tips for newbies;
Nonsense=anything that may infer that Karpov and Kasparov are not the two greatest 'match' players of all time.
Myth=the blasphemous notion that Fischer could beat Kasparov in a match.
Relevant= [ah, don't worry about that, most don't]
Who beat who beat who=this doesn't matter, it is completely meaningless [unless it shows something favorable to Kasparov]
Could someone please define better?
I am not pro-Kasparov. I think getting you to know that is a lost cause by now, though.
These are all facts.
When I say 'pro-Kasparov' I simply mean you favor him in a match. I am not 'RJFWC'.
It is not meant to be derogatory. I like Kasparov as well. Thanks for updates on how people are voting. It's interesting.
Some posting term tips for newbies;
nonsense. all of it
Thanks for your thoughtless yet pointless post.
Korchnoi's awesome, but I don't believe he's seen his prime since his 30's.
Korchnoi himself, aslong as Kasparov and alot other seems to be under the impression that Korchnoi had his prime around 1978. Korchnoi himself claims that the few years before this, was when he really started studying and analysing properly, claiming that he wasted his best years by not being serious enough. He needed to study the initiative, and he did so by playing through a collection of Alekhine games.
More about this can be read in Kasparov's my great predecessors, aswell as in the various Korchnoi books he has written.