<At Linares 1994, Karpov had the benefit of playing most of his opponents in the round after they'd faced Kasparov. Must have been worth at least two extra points.> That is Kasparov propaganda, at any rate I don't see what a difference it should make. By the way, Kasparov was worse against Karpov in their game that tournament. Looking at Karpov's games at linares 1994 we also see at least two famous games, quality of his play was generally high.

You can think it, but I don't think it's <clear> that that's the case at all. I think Karpov could've creamed Fischer (Botvinnik and Tal, too). That may be a controversial belief, but I don't think the converse is any less controversial.

As for Karpov's best result, apart from Linares -- with a tinge of melancholy, I've got to say it was going 5-0 against Kasparov. Ah, if only he had risked a little more to win it, even if it ended up being 6-2 or 6-3. Tolya, you know you haven't the stamina for a marathan match, didn't Korchnoi teach you anything? If he had wiped Kasparov out, I think there wouldn't be any question that Karpov was the greatest ever.

Not if you ask Kasparov, according to him Karpov was at his peak during the time he was supposed to meet Fischer, after he he had beaten Spassky.

a) In chess, we usually don't have ALL the best players in the most prestigious tournaments. Unlike the Grand Slam in Tennis, Golf(except injuries) or in the Formula one (where each Grand rix involves all the contenders). Even with the inflation, Kasparov has participated in much stronger tournaments than Karpov did. He keep on playing tournaments where the overall opposition was very weak (a bit like morozevich).

For example in 1990 :

Karpov played in Reggio-Emillia (Cat 16) was 3rd (6/10) and the strongest opposition was made of Ivanchuk (2660), M.Gurevich (2645) and U. Anderson (2635).

In Haninge (cat 14) he was 3rd (7,5/11) he faced U.Anderson (2630), Ehlvest (2620) and Polugaevski (2610), there were 4 players above 2600 Elo, 6 players above 2500, and one 2465 (even at this time it was "weak" for the elite)!!

In Biel (cat 14, wich he won) he faced no one among the top ten elite (U.Anderson was out at this time)!

Kasparov played and won Linares (cat 16) where he has faced Ivanchuk (2660), Salov (2645), Beliavski (2640)(9 players above 2600 and 2 players above 2500).

These facts are not clear evidences, but are just an illustration of my point. If Linares and Reggio-Emillia share the same standart, Haninge and Biel were clearly below. So what really mean the victory at Biel?

b) We just don't know what would have happened if Fischer was playing at this time. And of course playing in the same tournament wich is not obvious.

Kasparov barely managed to pull even in '87.

+4 =5 after 9 games in '84 still remains on the board, despite whatever later results mentioned. Kasparov never showed clear superiority until the 90's, as Karpov entered his 40's.

Match play is not as accurate as ratings over the long haul anyway, since they are infrequent and often effected by outside influences.

Of course we know that Karpov can be as good as #2 in the world through his mid-40's, permanently sliding from that perch mid-way through '96, at age 45. Kasparov retired before even reaching that age, and after just slipping to #2 in the ranks behind Anand (chessmetrics).

One can argue that Kasparov is the greatest chess player, but his advantage over Karpov is statistically insignificant.

Not if you ask Kasparov, according to him Karpov was at his peak during the time he was supposed to meet Fischer, after he he had beaten Spassky.>

Kasparov meant "peaked" in terms of chess growth and development to one's game. Kasparov said that Karpov grew as a chess player during roughly two periods.

The first being his run-up to his match with Fischer in 1975 and the second being the multiple matches against Kasparov in the 84-87 period.

It makes sense. A chessplayer only grows if he is pitted against the strongest opposition out there. By 1974, Karpov had conquered the chessworld with the sole exception of Fischer. Unfortunately their match couldn't take place so Karpov was never placed in a situation where he could test himself against the strongest player. The entire 1975-84 period left him clearly dominant over his contemporaries. The second big trial for Karpov was the K-K matches but at that time, he was already in his mid 30s. He couldn't grow that much from it.

It could also have ruined Karpov. Karpov himself derailed the career of Andrei Sokolov by defeating him so severely in 1987 that he never again was a threat.

Kamsky decided to leave chess after his one-sided loss to Karpov also.

So it is not clear Karpov did not profit from Fischer's withdrawal.>

Is that what MGP says? I thought Kasparov said that the height was in the early 1980's ,around the time of the Merano match, when he had taken his game even higher after Baguio. It certainly wasn't in 1974, even if Gary think that.

<vanytchouck>

What you say is true, but I don't think anybody gives the 166 tournament wins as the primary reason why Karpov is so great. It is a testament to his longevity and fighting spirit, but he has many other, more significant accomplishments.

Everette
<Match play is not as accurate as ratings over the long haul anyway, since they are infrequent and often effected by outside influences.>

<One can argue that Kasparov is the greatest chess player, but his advantage over Karpov is statistically insignificant.>

These two statements appear to contradict each other. Not only was Karparov's highest rating much higher than Karpov's (Karpov never broke 2800), but the difference between Kasparov's rating and that of the #2 player was greater than the difference between Karpov and the #2 at his peak, whenever you place that (if he was even #1 at his peak).

Fischer would have put a great deal of pressure on the Karpov of the early 70's. It is plausible his Sicilian could have forced Karpov to give up 1 e4 as White a decade earlier than Kasparov's did. Then all bets would be off.

In all likelihood Karpov would have still become Karpov, but a crush would have hurt him for years.

<SetNoEscapeOn> Think how those players -Sokolov and Kamsky- lost to Karpov. Karpov never relaxed the pressure because he knew from his own experience young players rely on opportunism rather than perfect technique.

Fischer would have adopted the same attitude toward a young Karpov, who had a habit of getting into difficult positions and escaping.