< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Apr-23-08|| ||positionalgenius: <Riverbeast> I can't believe I just read that.
Karpov vs Anand, 1998
Karpov vs Kramnik, 1994
Karpov vs Kasparov, 1988
Karpov vs Topalov, 1994
|Apr-23-08|| ||Riverbeast: Genius is a quality that is difficult to define, but most people know it when they see it. And for a chessplayer it's determined by the games. |
Karpov was a great champion. He had many of the qualities that make a great champion, as I've said before. But almost all of his games were played within the bounds of chess at the time. They rarely transcended those bounds.
Of the games you posted above, I would say only the Topalov game has some of that undefinable quality I'm talking about. The others were certainly finely played, but they
were products of the prevailing chess theory of the time. And Karpov played very few games like that Topalov game.
Not all champions are geniuses, and not all geniuses are champions.
This is just a subjective opinion, nothing more.
|Apr-23-08|| ||KingG: I would certainly consider Karpov a positional genius(no pun intended). I'm sure his use of prophylaxis advanced chess a great deal for example. And it's very difficult to imagine anyone other than Karpov being able to play some of the games he did. Even Kramnik said Karpov made moves that he simply didn't understand.|
|Apr-23-08|| ||positionalgenius: <Riverbeast> My screenname is a tribute to karpov,so logically I will take offense to someone belittling karpov's abilities.
1.OK,are you talking tactical genius? I have multiple refutations here.
a. Karpov was world chamion for ten years and inflicted many defeats on the greatest chess player ever Garry kasparov. Their rivalry is generally considered the greatest chess rivalry ever.
b.His groundbreaking style confused GMs for years,and he won over 180 tournaments!
c.Match wins include wins over spassky,3 over Korchnoi and of course his narrow losses to kasparov.
d.Morozevich is a great player,but he is nowhere near the level karpov was.
e.The funny thing about this is that Morozevich's favorite player of all time is anatoli karpov!
To close <Riverbeast>,you may admire morozevich alot but there are many who would strongly disagree with your post. It would be like a kibitzer 20 years from now:<<<<<Morozevich is a great player but ________ is far more original and a genius...>>>>>|
|Apr-23-08|| ||Riverbeast: <kingG> You could be right about that. Prophylaxis is a powerful and intangible concept in chess that few guys mastered (Karpov, Petrosian...I don't know if there are too many others). |
Your point has me thinking that I could be wrong. Perhaps Karpov is a sort of genius
|Apr-23-08|| ||Ziggurat: <Prophylaxis is a powerful and intangible concept in chess that few guys mastered (Karpov, Petrosian...I don't know if there are too many others).> Those are of course the important ones, but on the tier below one could perhaps add Ulf Andersson and Arthur Yusupov. Nimzowitsch should have a honorary mention as he introduced the term into wider use.|
|Apr-23-08|| ||Riverbeast: <but on the tier below one could perhaps add Ulf Andersson >|
Ulf Andersson is several tiers below, in my opinion. His style of prohylaxis not only prevented his opponent's winning chances, but his own as well.
|Apr-23-08|| ||Ziggurat: <Riverbeast> :-) You have a point there, but still he was easily in the top ten during the early 80s.|
Speelman mentions a particularly strange prophylactic win by Andersson in a column (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/200...)
<18 Ra2! This lovely prophylactic move shores up the queenside while White prepares slowly to strike on the kingside. It reminds me of a win years ago at Hastings by Ulf Andersson against George Botterill when in even more extraordinary fashion Black doubled his rooks behind a pawn on a6 blockaded by a White pawn on a5!>
|Apr-23-08|| ||Shams: the problem is that "genius" is too loaded a word to be of any use.|
|Apr-29-08|| ||The Rocket: "Karpov was world chamion for ten years and inflicted many defeats on the greatest chess player ever Gary Kasparov " |
I disagree I think Karpov was at least as strong as Kasparov, Kaspy won his matches mostly by winning a game more than Karpov, to me that does not justify Kasparov as a stronger player than Karpov. All of the matches between them could have gone either way, as for the late 90s karpov was past his peak and Kaspy was at his peak!, so one could easily think that kaspy had surpassed him.
|Apr-29-08|| ||slomarko: <All of the matches between them could have gone either way, as for the late 90s karpov was past his peak and Kaspy was at his peak!, so one could easily think that kaspy had surpassed him.> this is absolute nonsense. they played 5 matches and Karpov didn't manage to win even one. yeah they could have gone either way but they didn't: Kasparov won 3 of them, one was drawn and one unfinished. he was the better player not with a big margin but still a better player. period. and by the way Kasparov reached his peak only in the mid 90s.|
|Apr-30-08|| ||The Rocket: "he was the better player not with a big margin but still a better player."|
If the matches could have gone either way as you agree, how can Kaspy be the better player, result wise yes he was better in the matches, but from a playing streight percpective no
Apart from the close the world-championship matches, Karpov is the most succesfull tournament player of all time.
|Apr-30-08|| ||JuliusCaesar: The Rocket, I have to agree with Slomarko on this one. Kasparov was the better player of the two. Slightly but nevertheless clearly better than Karpov. Not only did he best Karpov in their many matches for the world title, he also came ahead of him in the vast majority of tournaments in which the two competed together, including the 1988/1989 World Cup series. |
|Apr-30-08|| ||Sleeping kitten: Kasparov clearly better than Karpov? I wouldn't say that.|
As far as I remember, the 1987 match (Sevilla) looked like a miracle salvation for Kasparov, didn't it?
Kasparov was 12 years younger than Karpov. If one wants to compare them, one should compare Kasparov's results with Karpov result's 12 years before.
|Apr-30-08|| ||slomarko: <As far as I remember, the 1987 match (Sevilla) looked like a miracle salvation for Kasparov, didn't it?> well Kasparov blundered badly in game 23 to give Karpov a 1 point advantage. in the last game he duly outplayed Karpov positionaly in a high-pressure situation. so in that sense it was a miracle salvation but in my opinion the draw in that match was realistic, i wouldn't say that Kasparov stole anything.|
<Kasparov was 12 years younger than Karpov. If one wants to compare them, one should compare Kasparov's results with Karpov result's 12 years before.> well ok in 85 Kasparov became the world
champion. Karpov wasn't the world champion in 73 it took him a full 2 years more (and only because Fischer refused to play).
|Apr-30-08|| ||JuliusCaesar: This is one discussion that I really cannot fathom at all. Of all the debates raging on this site about who was better between two chess greats, this is one where we actually KNOW the answer. We'll never know whether Fischer would've beaten Karpov in 1975 or whether Morphy, Capablanca or Alekhine would've thrashed Anand or Kramnik. But in this case we are on solid ground. Kasparov is the greater player by any reasonable standard you care to apply.|
|May-04-08|| ||The Rocket: "But in this case we are on solid ground. Kasparov is the greater player by any reasonable standard you care to apply." |
Well Kasparov lost to Kramnik without winning a single game, why dont you think that Kramnik is the best of all time then?, when you think that Kaspy is stronger than Karpov winning with smaller margins than Kramnik did against Kasparov.
|May-05-08|| ||RookFile: Karpov was a very practical man. He sat down at the board and said: "I'm going to beat you." What that meant was, the first opportunity he had to go for an endgame advantage, he took it. That meant less middle game brilliancies, but he was very effective with this technique.|
|Aug-17-08|| ||timhortons: karpov really is a great player! to engage with moro in his advance age is not an easy task.|
|Aug-20-08|| ||Woody Wood Pusher: I like Moro, but at his peak Karpov would have eaten him for breakfast! Karpov shows real fighting qualities in this game, the age difference is so great, let alone the rating. What a Champion!|
|Aug-20-08|| ||blueofnoon: It's interesting that in his famous interview Korchnoi gave Moro as a genius but he didn't even mention to Karpov.|
Of course Korchnoi's opinion could be as much biased as anyone can imagine, but Karpov in his prime was assited by likes of Tal, Smyslov, Polugayevsky not to mention Zaitsev so I am not entirely sure to what extent Karpov's ideas were inveted by himself.
|Feb-25-09|| ||M.D. Wilson: Botvinnik would have loved you, blueofnoon. Fischer once said "You're a genius if you win; you're not a genius when you lose". Karpov's achievements as World Champion and tournament record, as well as his personal record against a host of super-GMs entitles him to be placed next to Garry Kasparov as the second greatest player of all time. I think that's only reasonable.|
|Jul-07-09|| ||percyblakeney: <Kasparov lost to Kramnik without winning a single game, why dont you think that Kramnik is the best of all time then?, when you think that Kaspy is stronger than Karpov winning with smaller margins than Kramnik did against Kasparov>|
You can't single out the worst result of Kasparov's career to evaluate him. Compare the results of the players in top tournaments like Linares and Wijk aan Zee, match results over decades, and you get a better comparison.
|Jan-06-10|| ||Matsumoto: 10. Bd2 and 11. Qd2 is a brilliant idea!|
|Jan-06-10|| ||Matsumoto: 10. Bd2 and 11. Qd2 is a brilliant idea ... albeit not new, instead of the more mudane 10. g3!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·