I am neither a fan of Kasparov nor of Karpov. But having played their games assiduously, I could not disagree with you more! I have played Karpov's games in the 60s (when he was young), and I have played Kasparov's games of 1976 (when he was only 13); Kasparov's brilliance is unique and unmistakable!

It was no surprise he dominated Chess circa 20 years. Karpov on the other hand though positionally astute, ground out wins and drew aplenty. I have to be honest and add that I did not see genius in Karpov's games, just technical mastery.# >

I have been studying both their games since the 1980s as in fact GM Murray Chandler used to show their games in a column he had in our NZ Listener. When you say he "ground out his wins" and talk about positional chess, what do you mean? That's how Kasparov won his games. Stylistically there is a relatively minor difference but is wasn't great. Karpov won some great attacking and combinative games and his games that didn't feature that so much - stylistically he was quite like Fischer in this sense that he was a "classical" player (and while perhaps a little less aggressive) they were both "principled players". In some ways Karpov, Capablanca and Fischer are in similar orbit...

Now I used to prefer Tal and Kasparov but it wasn't until I studied Karpov's games and lines that I got good enough positions to beat one IM etc But more recently I have played over (the games in) his book "Chess at the Top" and those games have beautiful wins against Timman, Korchnoi, Tal and others. It wasn't until Kasparov had played, and learnt from playing, Petrosian (who could also uncork some great combos - on on this site he calculated 20 move ahead!) Karpov and others that he became an all round player (Tal never did, he was genius for sure, but he loved tactics too much). While Karpov had lost to Kasparov in the World Champs (not with a huge margin, they were pretty evenly matched), during that time he won a major tournament ahead of Kasparov.

Far from being a "quiet" player, he played some great games (as did Kasparov of course). His use of the Keres Attack led to some fine attacking games. Study these GMs more closely. Kasparov, when we see his best games, like Fischer or Alekhine, combines tactical alertness with deep positional ideas. (He had learnt a lot from his matches).

This is important as it saves you from thinking that every game requires an attack. Some (probably more than we think) of Kasparov's games were very simple positional wins.

I agree that it is important to learn from all GMs with their unique talents and styles. And that is precisely the reason why I studied Fischer, Alekhine, Chigorin, Capablanca, Lasker, Kasparov, Karpov et al. I have to agree with you once more in that Kasparov and Karpov were closely matched, and that great GMs have both aspects of the game; that is, deep positional acumen and combinatorial expertise.

However, even though I have observed Karpov play aggressive Chess such as in popularising the Keres Attack and accept that as a mathematician he possesses great combinatorial calculating ability, Karpov's style is to me more reminiscent of Capablanca; a style that 'worships' technique over flashes of genius or intuitive disregard for the rules in pursuit of an objective, which in this case is winning. This is what I meant when I said that Karpov ground out wins. Karpov does nothing but you lose. Karpov generally plays many moves whilst seemingly doing nothing until when his opponent realises that they have a lost game and resigns.

Kasparov on the other hand is just as technically astute and can do the same, grind out wins. However in Kasparov's games, the general tendency is a knack towards creativity (genius=disregard for convention=originality) where Kasparov makes positional, vacating, demolition or deflecting sacrifices that culminate in a combination that either checkmates outright or costs the opponent heavy loss of material that resignation is the only reasonable thing to do. To put in my own words "Karpov wins in 60 moves, Kasparov in 40".

As for Tal, indeed he was very much enamoured of intuitive play but had to tone it down as GMs learnt ways of defending from his attacks. Fischer was perhaps in my eyes, the most well rounded player. Kasparov is also rather well rounded. Tal and Karpov, in my view, probably not. Tal and Karpov represented the extremes of Chess styles. But that is not to suggest that Tal was positionally ignorant nor that Karpov is a tactical novice. Not at all. Top GMs appreciate and are well versed in both aspects of the game, and that's what makes them great.

My point is: dont bother comparing these guys: see what is beautiful and interesting in Karpov (like Rubinstein his so-called technique is in fact often a game of subtle genius - it took me long time to see that in this respect Karpov was the = of Fischer (about the time they were due to have a match)...

Smyslov is a greatly underestimated player who played games of all kinds - beautiful attacks and combinations and subtle positional games.

But if you fixate on The Ego (Kasparov) or The Mad One (you know who he is) you wont learn from these many great chess players all of whom are wonderful players.

My point is that it's not that Karpov cannot attack or see into tactical motifs, it is that in my view Karpov has a tendency for defensive, prophylactic thinking, and advancing cautiously, slowly and quietly whilst avoiding complications and combinations. He even said so, comparing himself to a python that strangles it's prey crushing it slowly but surely.

With my energetic and impatient nature, one can see why I am not a fan of this kind of style. However, as you correctly pointed out the genius of Rubinstein, I may have to discard my prejudice against ultra-positional play and accept that there is genius even in this style.

I believe it is a matter of taste even though as you suggest, it is best to appreciate all styles and learn something from each. And it is for this reason that I learnt the Closed Sicilian Fianchetto Variation from Karpov's and Smyslov's games, players I would consider 'quiet'= ultra-positional.

Caro Kann - 63.2% wins, 34.2% draws

Sicilian - 59.3% wins, 34.9% draws

French - 67.7% wins, 22.6% draws

1...e5 - 55.1% wins, 40.8% draws

Scandinavian - 92.3% wins (12 wins and one draw).

In fact the only defence where he seems to be struggling is 1...Nc6 where he has scored the rather underwhelming 100% losses. Admittedly, from only one game:

Kasparov vs Short, 2015

And before we get too excited about finding a weakness in his opening repertoire, this was a blitz game where he lost on time.

The truth is that choice of opening is not really going to matter all that much if you find yourself sitting opposite either of the two Ks.

IMHO, it was only when Kasparov played 1.c4 when Karpov could fight on equal terms. Even so, in 1987, Karpov went +2 -3 (including the famous Game 24) vs the English/Reti.