President_max post #66
lol pure brilliant!😆
Would prime Karpov have beaten Kasparov?
Sort:
alexm2310 wrote:
So if peak Karpov was early 90s, what about Kasparov? I believe he hit his rating peak in 2001 but idk if that's when he played his best chess. Peak Karpov almost definitely beats 85' Kasparov imo but who am I to say? Wasn't even born yet to watch it all
Kasparov was already no.1 in 1985, which he held till 2000, whenever he hit his peak (I believe that was in 2000 or so), he was a class above the others, just like Fischer or Capablanca.
Even though I fully realise that Vlad is making jokes, Kasparov was always better than Karpov, and we have all the evidence we ever need.
Even peak Karpov was a good 70 Elo lower than Kasparov.
There is no what if.
Smoggyabbainopadano wrote:
Karpov was crushing Kasparov 4-0 in their first match but then suddenly it was interrupted.All his advantage went lost.Now how can u play well again after they stole u four points?
It was 5-0 when the match was stopped (with first to score 6 being the winner) and Kasparov got to start over at 0-0.
Dodger111 wrote:
Smoggyabbainopadano wrote:
Karpov was crushing Kasparov 4-0 in their first match but then suddenly it was interrupted.All his advantage went lost.Now how can u play well again after they stole u four points?
It was 5-0 when the match was stopped (with first to score 6 being the winner) and Kasparov got to start over at 0-0.
It was 5 wins to three and 40 draws. Not 5-0.
Do not speak nonsense.
alexm2310 wrote:
Ok, thanks Gnrf. I'm of the opinion that Karpov was better until 85 (at least, he was a better match player). Once the match went awry Kasparov raised his game, Karpov couldn't. Perhaps match play was Kasparov's weakness? After all, he lost to Kramnik and I've just never thought of Vlad as actually better.
That's just called natural progression. Of course someone had to beat Kasparov eventually, just as Alekhine beat Capa, and so on, even though they were also the most dominating players of their time.
Feb 28, 2017
0
#68
Karpov has 6 letters, that's not prime man! but Anatoly Karpov is prime. Unfortunately, 13 was always Kasparovs lucky number, so no matter how many times Karpov could get to 5-0, he was destined to lose 6-5.
Feb 28, 2017
0
#69
i just don't know what Kasparov was doing with the Berlin, but if you look at those games, he played crap! Kramnikkers took full advantage of the blunders, but a real low point for Kasparov.
There's a million and one reason why a top player loses a match.
I never really looked at those games deeply (nor would I understand a single move of it), but I thought it natural that after 15 years, Kasparov would fall. It's just what it is.
If it's not Kramnik, then it would've been someone else.
bluejunk wrote:
if not prime karpov, then maybe optimus prime would have beaten kasparov.
I'm sorry but @president_max already made this joke. And did a much better job in fact.
So and so in his 70's peak could have beaten so and so in his 80's peak, etc etc.
I have never seen a thread filled with so much pointless mental masturbation.
Mar 4, 2017
0
#75
Dodger111 wrote:
So and so in his 70's peak could have beaten so and so in his 80's peak, etc etc.
I have never seen a thread filled with so much pointless mental masturbation.
Masturbation is never pointless ...
Dodger111 wrote:
So and so in his 70's peak could have beaten so and so in his 80's peak, etc etc.
I have never seen a thread filled with so much pointless mental masturbation.
I beg your pardon!
alexm2310 wrote:
Don't bother Vlad, can't you see he's above all this? Some people are just better than us.
Fair enough.
We are recruiting members for my new chess club. Please consider joining. https://www.chess.com/club/intellectual-chessists-society
If they had the 24 game limit Karpov would have won. He was up 5-0 in their first match.
Karpov was at his peak in the early 90's, not 70's.
Haven't seen you in a while.
I'm all for good trolling, but not this kind.