|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 254 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-30-02 | | skakmiv: Karpov is such a great defender! :) |
|
| Nov-29-02 | | centercounter: Karpov has both the positional mastery of a top level GM and the nerves of a computer. It's a shame that GM Karpov has not had the recent success he is capable of, but from what I've read, he has a lot of the old fire back and is working hard at his game. I still maintain that Karpov, even now, would soundly beat Ponomariov in a match, and would give Kasparov or Kramnik a run for their money in a match environment. |
|
| Nov-29-02 | | skakmiv: I totally agree, centercounter. |
|
| Nov-29-02 | | Kulla Tierchen: Karpov is a bit of a swine and played the hypocrite to his Soviet masters, but he is one of the greatest players ever. His style and psychology are such that at fifty years old he would be difficult still to beat in a set match, all the more so if it is one of short duration. These days I prefer him to Kasparov. |
|
| Nov-29-02 | | Vilkacis: Karpov compelled Tal to draw a game at Montreal in 1979 so they could share first place. He robbed Tal of a last great achievement. I will take Kasparov between the two. Not a lovely choice. |
|
| Nov-29-02 | | ChessPraxis: Karpov is continually maneuvering. He constantly has the whole board in view. On one move he may expand in one sector, on the next move threaten in another, and then follow that up with a defensive consolidation. I get the sense from Karpov's games of him looking in one direction and then another, always keeping at least a slight edge over his opponent. And if the opponent ever makes a tactical or strategic slip he gets whacked. People sometimes compare Karpov's style with Capablanca's. I can see that they are similar in some respects - but Karpov always maneuvered, Capablanca did so only when he had to. I truly enjoy playing over Karpov's games. I think that they're fantastic. |
|
| Nov-29-02 | | PVS: Imagine Capablanca's results if he had worked as hard as Karpov and had had twenty top grandmasters doing research for him for twenty years. His raw talent must have been staggering. |
|
| Nov-30-02 | | Kulla Tierchen: Imagine the results of Spassky he had worked as hard as Karpov or Fischer had he had twenty top
grandmasters doing research for him for twenty years. |
|
| Dec-16-02 | | Samuel Maverick: "I think that he quality of chess books was much better in former times. For the first steps in chess I would recommend the books of Lasker and Capablanca. Lasker's Manuel of Chess and Chess Fundamentals. For more serious books I would recommend the book by Fischer and also Larsen wrote a good book." —Karpov |
|
| Jan-17-03 | | Rovieira: The guy is a genius . No one better after him !But you cannot compare with Capablanca and Fischer . |
|
| Jan-19-03 | | Kenneth Sterling: Had he been able to find just one win among those final 21 games with Kasparov in 1984, how different chess history might have been! |
|
| Jun-12-03 | | ksadler: Why does no one respect Karpov? In this article (http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skitt...), Spassky says that in 1974 Karpov was the best player that he had ever played, Fischer included. |
|
| Jun-12-03 | | Larsker: <Why does no one respect Karpov?> There are reasons we all know:
Politics is part of it. In the match Karpov-Kasparov, Anatolij was seen as the candidate of the ruling communist party and Kasparov as the rebel - or in the West, a sort of freedom fighter. Also, Kasparov is Jewish, Karpov isn't. Karpov's fysical and mental stamina isn't quite as robust as, say, that of Kasparov - something which Gary exploited in their match in 1984. I have read articles that were outright hateful and condescending towards Karpov but if we forget the old hatred for a moment, I've also read that many GM's admire Karpov. Just take a look at what he did to the reigning European champ Maceija. Karpov was the World champion 1975-85 between the two giants Fischer and Kasparov. He became the champ because Fischer didn't defend his title. That leads many to believe that he was a sort of interim champion before the next "real" champion. I think it's another case of perception becoming reality. Repeat for long enough that Karpov was only a place holder only a real champ came along, and you'll end up believing it. In fact, Karpov is the real deal. |
|
Jun-13-03
 | | lostemperor: I think although his style may not appeal so much as Kasparov's, it takes pure talent to play as Karpov more so than as Kasparov, who also has more bookknowledge. Indeed had Karpov beaten Kasparov with 6-0 or 6-1 or even 6-5 in 1984, he might have taken Kasparov's place in chesshistory (since in the next WC-cycle 1987 Karpov'd have remained champion due to the 12-12 clause which is not my idea). Cruel, he was one win away from being champion from 1975 to 1990 (or longer). |
|
| Jun-14-03 | | siimens: the 1984 match had been on for almost half a year, there was 'no problem' since Karpov was 5-0 up but when Kasparov was coming back and started to win, the match was suddenly stopped, it was for Karpov's sake not Kasparov's... yes he was close in 1987 but Kasparov won the last game and as a defending champ kept the title, 12:12, simple as that |
|
| Jun-14-03 | | skakmiv: Perhaps Karpov would have won the last game when the match was tied 5-5, just like when he played Korchnoi in 1978. |
|
| Jun-15-03 | | bobo7up: to say kasparov won over karpov because of superior book knowledge and that karpov is far more talented is going a bit too far. in fact aren't the best games in their matches like game 16 (85) game 22 (86) produced by kasparov? its better to not compare but say that they are players of very different styles and which style one likes is a matter of personal preference. |
|
| Jul-17-03 | | fred lennox: Karpov impresses me as an attacker but of a unique kind. He can be liken to a wrestler, not so much in the opening before he gets "footage" but after. He'll "press" the opponent more and more. He is uncanny in gaining space without loosing his balance, perhaps unequal. He'll know right where and when to press so as to throw the opponent off balance and smother him.
Many of his games are like this. |
|
| Jul-17-03 | | Benjamin Lau: <I think although his style may not appeal so much as Kasparov's, it takes pure talent to play as Karpov more so than as Kasparov, who also has more bookknowledge.>
I agree with bob7up. Kasparov is just as talented as Karpov, just in a different area- tactics. And while he may have more book knowledge but that shouldn't count against him. After all, it takes hard work and a strong work ethic to study all of that information so that you can start out with an advantage in the opening. |
|
| Jul-31-03 | | uponthehill: Without help of KGB, and a psychic terror performed by the Soviets and the Phillipinian communist militia (lead by Campomanes) toward Korchnoi, during their first match in Phillipines, Karpov would probably loose. Karpov is one of the darkest persons in chess history- he was always loyal to the communist regime, he made a lot of dirty tricks to his opponents (such as not shaking Korchnoi's hand at Baguio). It was the only time I remember, when all my family, including mother completely not interested in sports, gathered together before the TV- it was Karpov-Kasparov match in 1987. We were watching the transmition here in Poland on a small black and white TV. I was a little boy and I asked "who are we for?". "Kasparov. Karpov is a communist, Karpov is bad" replied my father. I remember my mother being very worried when Karpov was winning and all family happy when Kasparov was scoring. Those re my first chess memories- those were the days :) |
|
| Jul-31-03 | | PVS: <Karpov... was always loyal to the communist regime> While they held power he certainly was. Interestingly it turns out he was an opportunist rather than a convinced communist. Of course both Karpov and Kasparov were members of the Communist Party. They were the champions when an unprecedented increase in prize money came about, and both behaved in an unseemly manner at times. Korchnoi was not always a gentleman and did abandon his family when he left "the prison camp that [wa]s the Soviet Union." I am ambivalent towards all three, but find much to admire in their chess. |
|
| Jul-31-03 | | aulero: <Interestingly it turns out he was an opportunist rather than a convinced communist.> I did not know this fact, but I suspected it strongly. Perhaps the same can be said of Botvinnik, but in this case I am hesitating. <I am ambivalent towards all three, but find much to admire in their chess.> Very well said: all of us should share this opinion. |
|
| Jul-31-03 | | uponthehill: That's true that somehow Karpov changed to better after fall of communism- and Kasparov changed to worse. But some facts from the past could never be forgotten... Korchnoi was a tragic person- we don't know if KGB was trying to harm him, and if he had to escape. I wouldn't want to be in his place- after his escape to the west via Israel he, as you've mentioned, left his family and that was the reason why always KGB had possibility to blackmail him. Broken life- thank God for him that communism fell and now he's got peacful retirement. Tal and Spassky also insulted Korchnoi- that was the price for Tal to not be chased. Spassky get the french passport for it- in the Soviet constitution the dual citizenship was formally allowed but that was the only example when it was approved by the power in all 70 year history of Soviet Union. History of chess and communism are linked. Thank god, now there is no more communism and chess will live forever. But some great chess players were destroyed by regime and some others were disgraced. That's true that Karpow was opportunist- I've heard that he was hidding dollars won in the west in a secret bank account in West Germany. For sure KGB knew it but that's an example how Karpov tried to cheat the system. I don't know why, opportunists irritates me less than idealists. |
|
| Jul-31-03 | | PVS: I did not mean to imply that Karpov was a better person because he was not sincere. |
|
| Jul-31-03 | | PVS: <Tal and Spassky also insulted Korchnoi> Actually Spassky did not sign the infamous letter condemning Korchnoi and neither did Karpov. Only in the former case was it an act of courage. Korchnoi said at the time that "Boris was a true friend." |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 254 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
