Anatoly Karpov was in many ways a complete chess player in that he excelled both at tactics and positional play. There were however weaknesses that did crop up on occasion.

While an excellent calculator and tactician over the board, Karpov did not play double edged positions very well. These types of positions seemed to conflict with his positional instincts that were not pertinent to every position. Kasparov made this point that Karpov wanted to "play like Karpov" even when the position did not warrant it, and instead required concrete and sometimes unorthodox play (hence "concrete").

Karpov circumvented this weakness most of the time by employing opening variations that restricted his opponents counter-play and played to his own strengths. His Be3, dxe5 variation in the Kings Indian Defense against Kasparov was brilliant and Kasparov admitted that he never got anything out of them, while Karpov played as if he was born to handle those types of structures.

So in some positions, it felt like Karpov perfect chess.

Hmm? Karpov played better chess and more of it in the 70’s. He also earned or maintained the WC twice as many times. He also actively maintained champion status against all for the rest of the decade.

And Fischer had one big weakness throughout his career: at any moment he could quit. This is a weakness that tips all others.

Not specifying a time, Spassky said Karpov was. Something along the lines of not understanding what Karpov was looking for at the board.

Kramnik has noted, and Karpov agrees, that our birthday boy did not value the initiative nearly as much as most top players, and his tendency to patiently clean up his position while oozing down the board was likely the reason why so many had a difficult time playing against him.

Happy Birthday Maestro Karpov and thank you for all the great games.

Hi Joshka:

I just noticed this:

"You write in your bio a meeting with Karpov for over an hour!! Wow.....what time period was this? I met him in Miami around 2004 was able to ask him questions about Fischer and what he was preparing and what not. thanks in advance!"

It was 1984. I never mention Bobby. Figured he must have been asked that a lot.

We were too wrapped up in chess history. He was impressed with the signatures we had in the visitors book...Alekhine, Capa, Blackburne...etc and etc.

The walls were covered in b/w pictures of the old masters. He like a collage of about 20 b/w pictures we had made up of the old guys.

He knew most/all of them think I had to point out who was who just once.

Showed him the pieces the boys used to analyse the 1825-1829 corres match on and the letters from London.

Then he was gone..... I felt like I had just spent an hour with the Pope.

Karpov's 'The Spanish' probably meant he had things up his sleeve as Black v Fischer's 1.e4. Maybe have to look at his and Geller's Black Lopez's after 1975 to see if any stunners were unearthed.

Know Karpov used the Zaitsev as Black so maybe (and this is just a guess) he had an improvement in Fischer vs Stein, 1967

(sorry for taking so long in replying.)

I respect your opinion and I know this is Karpov's page . But ! lol .. You really rate Karpov that high ? And Bobby that low ??

Bobby's main enemy was Bobby. Purely chess I think he was a better player than Karpov.

Karpov is a very great chess player. He's part of my youth in getting into chess . For a time in the early 80's he developed a mystique which only the very , very best chess players do ... and it took quite possibly the best chess player of all time to topple him ..