< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 230 OF 230 ·
|Jan-28-15|| ||keypusher: < The Rocket: <Put me in with the Know-Nothings, then. If Topalov was ever an all-time great, it was between Kasparov's retirement and the Kramnik match.> Topalov is still Topalov. It's not as if he figured out chess in 2005. He was always a consistent top 5 player. >|
Wait, consistent top-five makes you an all-time great? Quick, alert Alexander Beliavsky (and a few dozen others).
Anyway, through 2005, Topalov's top ranking (in 1997) was #6. Karpov was just a bit better.
<As to your list: I doubt Botvinnik loses much either outside of his matches.>
While he was the champion, he didn't play much outside of his matches. If I get interested I'll figure his numbers out.
|Jan-28-15|| ||The Rocket: Topalov just so happened to be a top player next to Kramnik, Anand and Ivanchuk. You don't seem to realize just how great these players are/were. |
Beliavsky and Ljubojevic are <not> all time greats. And these were rivals of Karpov. Of course anybody in the world championship contention world is an all time great the bigger you make the list. But that's a separate point.
|Jan-28-15|| ||keypusher: <The Rocket: <Also, the greatest all-time great Karpov had to face was (of course) Kasparov. The greatest all-time great Kasparov had to face was Karpov.>
Not in the 70s and early 80s (outside of 3 games and one simul). You referred to an era without Kaspy.>|
Well, this is getting ridiculous.
This whole discussion got started because Perfidious said that from the mid-70s to the early 80s, when Karpov lost, it was front-page news. You piped up and said
<That's true of all current world champions except Euwe.>
Now I have no idea what that means. I picked up that sentence and looked at it from different angles and I couldn't make any sense of it. There's only one current world champion, and Euwe lost the title 78 years ago.
But it did get me wondering about how often world champions lose. I knew I had counted up Karpov's losses during the 70s one time, so I found that post, and then I decided to compare him to other world champions. I didn't bother with Botvinnik, because he played so little as champion, and I didn't do Tal or Smyslov, because they only reigned a year each, and presumably the vast number of games I would be looking at would be the matches in which they gained and then lost the title. Fischer didn't play any games as champion, and I wanted to look at people who preceded Karpov, because they would have provided the standard of comparison for Karpov once he took the title. So, that left Petrosian and Spassky.
After I did the work and posted the results, you piped up again and listed who you thought were the great rivals of Karpov and Kasparov. (You really seem to have it in for Karpov, for some reason.) And then when I pointed out you'd left out Kasparov as Karpov's great rival and Karpov as Kasparov's great rival, you piped up with <Not in the 70s and early 80s (outside of 3 games and one simul). You referred to an era without Kaspy.>
HUHHH? The only reason I mentioned Kasparov at all was that you brought him up.
You just sort of rocket from one non-sequitur to another.
Anyway, <The Rocket>, no offense, but I'm done dealing with your queries and observations for now. I might look up Botvinnik's record as champ if I get interested.
|Jan-28-15|| ||The Rocket: <But it did get me wondering about how often world champions lose>|
And I was proven right. Most if not all active world champs rarely lost. Current, meant the reigning one in any era. I see no harm in phrasing it like that.
I have nothing against Karpov but don't tell me his rivals are comparable and equate his low loss record to those guys who will not make any list outside of those that got beat by Karpov.
Over and out.
|Jan-28-15|| ||perfidious: Botvinnik's zenith was <before> he won the title, from 1941 through his victory in the match tournament. To judge Botvinnik by his record as champion will sell him short, in my opinion.|
|Jan-28-15|| ||Lambda: Karpov and Kasparov played five world championship matches, they're the two most closely compared players in history. And Kasparov, after 144 games, finished +2. There's virtually nothing to choose between them. Wherever you have one, the other must also be thereabouts.|
|Jan-28-15|| ||plang: <There's virtually nothing to choose between them.>|
I realize the matches were all close but Karpov never won any of them so Kasparov has to get the advantage there.
|Jan-28-15|| ||perfidious: Even a somewhat larger margin would not constitute incontrovertible superiority of one player over another, given the number of games played.|
Tournaments? Different story overall, particularly by the time Karpov entered a decline phase--yes, yes, I too am aware of Linares 1994, but that was the exception, not the rule.
|Jan-29-15|| ||The Rocket: You don't rate players based on their head to head stats to their closes rival. In such case, Nadal would be superior to Federer, even several years ago.|
|Jan-29-15|| ||perfidious: <rocket scientist--not> No-one here is doing so; Kasparov's superiority overall was indisputable.|
|Jan-29-15|| ||keypusher: <The Rocket: You don't rate players based on their head to head stats to their closes rival. In such case, Nadal would be superior to Federer, even several years ago.>|
You rate players based on several things, including on their head-to-head stats against their closest rival -- especially when they've played about 200 games with said rival.
You just don't want to do so in this case, because Karpov did so surprisingly well against Kasparov head-to-head.
|Jan-29-15|| ||offramp: I'm a big Karpov fan but to me Kasparov was almost always stronger. From the second match onwards Karpov was always on the back foot (although he was ahead in the second match).
He always seemed to be defending against huge attacks. He did amazingly well to keep the score so close over 200 games.|
|Jan-29-15|| ||plang: It is not easy to win a rematch with an opponent that you have already defeated. Just ask Smyslov or Tal (or Euwe). Kasparov's ability to maintain his title despite numerous challenges from Karpov was an impressive achievement. Karpov's feat against Korchnoi is also impressive.|
Alekhine against Bogoljubov and Carlsen against Anand also achieved this though you could argue that the these opponents were not as closely matched.
|Jan-29-15|| ||Olavi: <plang> I would also point out the four consecutive Petrosian-Korchnoi candidates matches 1971-1980, with Korchnoi taking the last three. The matches were shorter and Petrosian was no longer at his peak, but still remarkable.|
|Jan-29-15|| ||perfidious: The overall result of the Kasparov-Karpov matches is a testament to the greatness of both players.|
|Jan-29-15|| ||keypusher: <offramp: I'm a big Karpov fan but to me Kasparov was almost always stronger. From the second match onwards Karpov was always on the back foot (although he was ahead in the second match). He always seemed to be defending against huge attacks. He did amazingly well to keep the score so close over 200 games.>|
I think this is fair, and the first sentence undeniable. <The Rocket> I should say I don't like contemplating Lasker's score against Capablanca, though there isn't nearly so much evidence to contend with as with Karpov and Kasparov.
|Jan-29-15|| ||The Rocket: <No-one here is doing so; Kasparov's superiority overall was indisputable.>|
<Lambda> did infer such a thing. Can you read?
|Jan-29-15|| ||The Rocket: <Kasparov's ability to maintain his title despite numerous challenges from Karpov was an impressive achievement.>|
All of Kasparovs titel defences could have gone either way. Incredibly, they all went his way.
|Jan-29-15|| ||zanzibar: Absolutely agree with <perf> here. Each K-K match-up was epic.|
|Jan-29-15|| ||Lambda: It's amazing how such a clearly tiny difference can nevertheless be so clear.|
|Jan-29-15|| ||perfidious: Two of the very greatest players ever going at each other hard--no debating that.|
It is entirely possible that Kasparov would never have attained full flower without Karpov's implacable opposition, as was the case with more than one of his <Great Predecessors>.
|Jan-29-15|| ||Caissanist: This is why I think Kasparov was the best of all time. Karpov would have been absolutely dominant throughout the eighties if Kasparov had not come along, in fact he may well have reached his peak <after> he lost his title. He was indisputably the best player in the world, already one of the best in history, and still improving--and then he lost his title to someone who suddenly became even better. That's really the only time in chess history that that has happened.|
|Jan-29-15|| ||Catfriend: <Caissanist> Perhaps Capablanca - Alekhine?|
|Jan-30-15|| ||Lambda: Capablanca was strongest during the late 10s and early 20s, during which he played almost flawless chess. He started making errors in the mid 20s, leading to him twice finishing behind Lasker in tournaments then losing the title to Alekhine.|
You could almost make a case for Lasker actually, seeing as he seemed just as strong in 1924 as he'd always been, but when he lost the title he was in a bit of a slump due to the result of the war, so it's not quite the same thing.
(It's a shame Lasker and Capablanca had their match when Capablanca was at his best and Lasker was at his worst. If the war hadn't happened, having made friends again at St. Petersburg 1914, you can imagine them having titanic struggles for the top spot during the rest of the 10s to rival the Karpov-Kasparov battles.)
|Jan-30-15|| ||Caissanist: <Lambda> Yup, well said.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 230 OF 230 ·