Karpov is second best. But after that, you're looking at Karpov in third, and it's a long way down to Karpov in fourth.
Okay, Karpov is the best ever but who is second best all time player??
Sort:
Your original statement is false because your argument is invalid.
Karpov won more single tournaments than kasparov, but kasparov beat him in their head to head matches, I don't give a crap about how close it was. Kasparov was more dominant in his reign as World Champion during those years. It can be argued that his competition was even more difficult too, and his opening preparation was light years ahead of the competition: a testament of how amazing he was.
In light of recent events, my opinion has not changed.
Please re-word your argument or change it to recieve a normal response from other people.
If not, then please try again, and I will post the same response that you are incorrect.
I believe you are a troll though, so will it matter?
It's Karpov all the way down to 1100 patzer Karpov.
yes you are all very nice and i like that your stick with your favorite players, but the truely best was of course FISCHER!!!
Fingerly wrote:
Karpov is second best. But after that, you're looking at Karpov in third, and it's a long way down to Karpov in fourth.
Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Karpov, Anand, Karpov, Karpov again, Yereslov, then finally Karpov for a while till you get to Kasparov.
goldendog wrote:
It's Karpov all the way down to 1100 patzer Karpov.
lol
Randomemory wrote:
Your original statement is false because your argument is invalid.
World Champion for 16 years.
160 tournament wins (two times more than Kasparov)
Head to head with Kasparov +19 -21 = 144, despite being 12 years older than Kasparov. Most of Kasparov's wins were because of his superior opening preparation which is not a skill to admire. Usually Karpov would outplay him in equal positions.
Who is the troll now you troll?!
I don't need to argue with you, why don't you ask any decent chess player. They don't think of Karpov when they think of chess. They think of Kasparov, Fischer, or Carlsen. I somewhat admire your will to argue that Karpov is #1, but it will be in vain, as most people will unfortunately laugh at you.
Why are you using age as an excuse btw, they were both playing amazingly when a lot of those games were played. Opening preperation at that level is quite admirable imo. Botnivik was WC for what, over 20 years? He is never discussed at all as the best either.
Randomemory wrote:
I don't need to argue with you, why don't you ask any decent chess player
Ahaha, so now that is a valid argument...to laugh at!! What next? Maybe Kasparov was better because Karpov was communist. I know you can do better.
GreedyPawnGrabber wrote:
Randomemory wrote:
Your original statement is false because your argument is invalid.
World Champion for 16 years.
160 tournament wins (two times more than Kasparov)
Head to head with Kasparov +19 -21 = 144, despite being 12 years older than Kasparov. Most of Kasparov's wins were because of his superior opening preparation which is not a skill to admire. Usually Karpov would outplay him in equal positions.
Who is the troll now you troll?!
When I saw the title of the thread I knew who had started it.
But, this really isnt a bad argument. I have said for a long time that the perrenial question "Who is the best, Kasparov or Fischer" was premature becase the difference between Kasparov and Karpov was razor-thin. its difficult to try to fit Fischer in a space with so little daylight. I don't think Fischer could do any better than 3rd place.
Edit: or first place of course. I just dont see how one can meaningfully fit Fischer between these two.
Think about it this way - if Fischer is indeed 2nd best behind Kasparov, then what would be the match record between them, given the record Karpov had with Kasparov?
We don't know how good fischer could have been unfortunately. But what's in the past, is in the past. We can speculate who would have won between Karpov and Fischer, but we aren't sure.
Groucho Marx is the number 3...
Randomemory wrote:
...as most people will unfortunately laugh at you.
He doesn't mind, as long as he attracts "attention".
We can't say Karpov is second best or anything he's beaten some top players and has an impressive record but others have beat him in tournament matches to who's to say who's bettee
Tal was the best... and Petrosian was one of the hardest players to beat. If you doubt this, search for pictures of Mikhail Tal. His stare will make your head explode from the sheer intensity. Also, he snuck out of his hospital while dying and still beat Kasparov to win the Blitz championship in Moscow. That has to count for something.
pfren wrote:
Randomemory wrote:
...as most people will unfortunately laugh at you.
He doesn't mind, as long as he attracts "attention".
definition of troll:
Apr 18, 2013
0
#18
Randomemory wrote:
I don't need to argue with you, why don't you ask any decent chess player. They don't think of Karpov when they think of chess. They think of Kasparov, Fischer, or Carlsen.
While it can be argued about who is in the #1 spot, Karpov certainly belongs in any discussion about the chess greats, as he was undeniably one of the strongest.
Anatoly Karpov is the greatest chess player ever. Who is the second best though?