Would prime Karpov have beaten Kasparov?
Sort:
How does Magnus get on that GREAT list, beating a 40-something old Anand twice (past his prime) and barely squeaking by Karjakin, who has never even played in a title match prior to last year?
When Fischer "stopped" playing chess in 1973/74, Korchnoi was the strong favorite to challenge him in 1975. Karpov himself said he (Karpov) would not be able to beat Spassky in the Candidates' semi-final and would need to wait until 1977 to advance. (In fact, Karpov said Spassky would easily beat him.)
As for Fischer against the French Defense (of which Korchnoi was the greatest practitioner):
"1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 Line. Fischer did not like to face French, and he tried his best to prove that this opening line is unsound. He did experience some trouble on this territory."
https://thechessworld.com/annotated-games/famous-games/top-10-openings-played-bobby-fischer/
(Just harmless speculation.)
Sep 2, 2017
0
#104
dannyhume wrote:
How does Magnus get on that GREAT list, beating a 40-something old Anand twice (past his prime) and barely squeaking by Karjakin, who has never even played in a title match prior to last year?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc_v9mTfhC8
Sep 2, 2017
0
#105
if they had the best of 24 format still in place for the first match, Karpov would have got lucky.
Hey Thushan 
.
dannyhume wrote:
How does Magnus get on that GREAT list, beating a 40-something old Anand twice (past his prime) and barely squeaking by Karjakin, who has never even played in a title match prior to last year?
This is a fair argument.
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
dannyhume wrote:
How does Magnus get on that GREAT list, beating a 40-something old Anand twice (past his prime) and barely squeaking by Karjakin, who has never even played in a title match prior to last year?
This is a fair argument.
There's not a lot of room in between those categories.
Come to think of it... name one player today who has played in a title match, and who is not past his prime (aside from Karjakin, obviously).
Dec 21, 2017
0
#109
Yes, Karpov was blowing Kasparov away 5 nothing in a match where best of 24 would have done the job nicely.
Dec 21, 2017
0
#110
or was it 5-0 on game 27 ? who cares, if Kasparov wasnt so tanked up on ice tea, Karpov would have crushed him.
Karpov only was 12 years older than Kasparov, so he was 34, is not old enough to said that he lose because of that, Carlsen beat him when he was 13 and again the age doesnt matter, if its truly a strong player he has to play really good even if he is really old, like Kasparov after a decade of not playing he played against the top players and could won some games and draw some others, you try to adjust all in favor to Karpov because you admire him but in the real world is not like that
"Iodized Salt's greatest advocate."
???
what does this line mean???
Karpov was in his prime in 1984/85/86, what are you talking about? he was an amazing player, but just a little bit worse than Kasparov, just assume it because that´s the truth
Jan 31, 2019
0
#114
I think ability wise, they were about as closely matched as you could get. What made the difference was Kasparov's will to win.
Yes. 5 games to 3.
Jan 31, 2019
0
#116
Morlaf_of_Sparta wrote:
"Iodized Salt's greatest advocate."
???
what does this line mean???
Lack of iodine leads to intellectual or developmental disabilities. In 1990, only about a quarter of the world were eating iodised salt. The implication is that Karpov is intellectually challenged because he perhaps was not eating iodised salt.
No. Kasparov is a player of much greater stature. Karpov benefitted from being the darling of the Soviet centrally controlled chess apparatus, which in turn controlled FIDE and its corrupt head, the man known as "Campo" (and there is a notorious anecdote of Campo whispering something to Karpov on a hot mic). Karpov v. Korchnoi was fundamentally unfair, because Karpov's family was allowed to travel with him to support him. The Soviets knew that if they let the Korchnois out of their country, they would never be seen there again.
Kasparov faced (and ultimately lost) humanity's last gasp against chess AI. He has also attained a leadership stature and popularity in modern Russia to the point where Putin can't have him easily whacked without jeopardizing his regime. In case any of you haven't noticed, people who stand in opposition to that guy frequently end up dead. I hope Putin doesn't read the chess.com forums.
Jan 31, 2019
0
#119
Wouldn't surprise me if Putin is on this thread... these are like silly boxing forum i check on occasion, would prime tyson have beat 02 Lennox, jajaja,
A few points please... check Karpov v Kasparov head to head, Kasparov is better, but not hugely so... what about 1987? Drawn series, Karpov probably should have won? His rating peak was early 1990s yes? 34 is not ancient for a player, stupid troll, is not the aging, is the miles... if somebody has played 25yr or whatever no wonder they knackered?
Both are still high calibre opponent... the reason Kasparov is favoured is more about style and charisma, Karpov had much quiter, dry style, boring? Much more a grinder, quiter person, he wasn't so fit, would tire at long match... prime K v K... nearly even, Kaspy just better...
Jan 31, 2019
0
#120
just like to point out that Tal used to batter Fischer at chess as he did with so many he faced , but I love what bobby did in chess ,, of the two players Karpov and Kasparov I prefer garik but that is for his fighting spirit although I think it was wrong for the match between them to be so long and draining that it needed a break ,,, you cannot expect to get great results out of overtired minds
I mean no disrespect, but you seem to have a serious gripe against Fischer. You've made some seriously absurd claims such as "one of the best? Debetable." "Most top chess players will say Kasparov, Karpov or Carlsen." Both of these statements are not true, when Carlsen was asked he said Fischer or Kasparov, when asked later he said Fischer saying his energy and precision are unmatched in the history of chess. Kasparov still held Ficher in high regard, as did Karpov claiming that he and Ficher at their prime were better than Magnus. Hell, if you look at ratings Fischer was 2785 in 1972, 125 points ahead of 2nd place Spassky at 2660. Karpov reached his peak rating in 1994 of 2780 some 35 and points ahead of 3rd place, 30 points behind #1, Kasparov. Several studies have come to the conclusion that at his peak, Fischer was the most accurate player in history. Remember, Fischer did it ALL by himself, no teams of GM's analazying for him, no goverment funding, no coaching, and he tore apart the field, which consisted of 3 world champions (Spassky, Petrosian, Smyslov), and 4 world champion caliber players (Keres, Korchnoi, Geller, Larsen) in 1968, 1971 and 1972.
It is not debatable, Fischer is one of the, or the greatest chess players of all time. In fact chess.com had a historical tournament of 16 world champions, and Fischer won by dispatching Spassky 8-4, Karpov 7.5-4.5, Magnus on tie-breaks 6-6, and Kasparov 6.5-5.5. It's obviously hypothetical and thus virtually meaningless but nevertheless there is a reason why he has reached a mythical status among chess, his domination over his peers in 68/71/72 is only rivaled by Paul Morphy, and unlike Morphy, Fischer was facing the afforementioned legends of the game.
Sorry, had to get that off my chest.
Anyway on the question, Kasparov and Karpov were nearly equal in strength,
All their matches were extremley close and Karpov had a good chance of winning each and every one, as they were all decided on the last game. But Kasparov in the end was slightly better. And at their prime Kasparov is still slightly better. Their match history says it all, (for Karpov) +19 -21 =144.
Their rivarly is without a doubt the greatest in history, and their achievements immortal. Karpov was #1 for 10 years, and #2 for over another decade and he won the most super tournaments in history, whilst Kasparov was #1 for 20 years.
Fischer was great, but he didn't play against great. There is no doubt in my mind he feared Karpov and chose not to play than be defeated. Karpov crushed kasparov initially, but Kasparov literally wore Karpov out the second time around. I'm not saying that makes Karpov the greatest, because even though Kasparov's strategy was like Ali's "rope-a-dope" it worked and he gained the title. what I feel made Kasparov the greatest, was his staying power and ability to overcome all comers except when Deep Blue gained sentience... okay just kidding... Deep Blue got an opening library programmed in.
Are you kidding? The 60s and 70s was a golden era of chess. So many all-time greats like Tal, Botvinik Smyslov, Petrosian, Keres, Spassky, Korchnoi, Geller, Resehveskey, Larsen, and of course Fischer, and Fischer dominated them in 68, 70, 71 and 72, like no other had before or since. As to why Fischer wouldn't play, we'll never know, you saying he was scared of Karpov sounds silly to me. If Spassky had not given into Fischer's demands in 1972, perhaps we'd be saying Fischer was scared, but we know how the match turned out, wasn't very close, even with Bobby forefitting game 2.
IMHO, Fischer feared a title match against KORCHNOI. (Karpov's close win over Korchnoi in 1974 was a major upset that Fischer did not anticipate.)
Not sure Bobby would have won even one game as white against Victor in 1975 if all those games began 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5!
Not sure if you're trolling.