My theory about Karpov and Korchnoi's rivalry is this:

In January of 1970 (just before Fischer's big comeback), when Karpov is on the verge of joining the elite, the top of the chess world looks like this:

Spassky
Fischer
Petrosian
Korchnoi
Larsen
Tal

...not necessarily in this order. I leave out Stein, who was turning in some poor results in the late '60s and seemed very much in decline by this point.

Now then, three years later, by January of 1973, Fischer is gone, and Spassky, Petrosian, and most especially Larsen have been badly humbled by Fischer. So who does this leave from the elite of the elite? Korchnoi and Tal. Tal, with his ill health, is always a question mark, so that leaves only Korchnoi. And of course Korchnoi winds up becoming Karpov's only true rival.

You may have missed something here. Notice the 2700+ results in the late 60's and early 70's below.

http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/...

Though this by no means constitutes irreversible evidence, as in the career path of Tal:

Tal offers a staggering display of entering the top 10 in 1957, to on 4 occasions move <out> of it briefly, sometimes a bit longer and the drop is steeper, but only to re-establish himself back well in the Top 10, until <1988>, which marks his "last" appearance in the top 10 ...

Utterly baffling, after more than 30 years. Smyslov of course, again according to the Chessmetrics calculations, <45> years well in, and closely to, the top 10.

I can only guess that you didn't look at the links.

Top 10 is being ranked 6th-10th, not 10th.

Top 10 is being ranked 6th-10th, not 10th.>>

I looked at the links. The point is that he was *sometimes* as low as 10th (as in 10th throughout the entire first half of 1968), AND we're talking about a man who might well have been WORLD CHAMPION. Imagine Karpov EVER sinking to 10th (prior to getting old), and you can see that 10th, by World Champion standards, definitely represents a decline.

Plus, unlike many here, I've always been suspicious of ChessMetrics, and certainly don't consider it to be the final word. If there were a similarly detailed, well organized Elo site, I think ChessMetrics would be all but ignored.

A <non> discussion. Because of his failing health Tal had many ups and downs, surely, and drops out of the Top 10 are expected --- YET --- Tal was so talented that he easily established himself again within the elite, amongst I should say.

So what's the point, Eggman?

That in case of Karpov a drop from 1,2 to 10 may indicate a decline??

Congratulations on that one, smokin hot logic.

There are no rules, mostly there are exceptions to the rules, and the rule may have to move down a few tiers, becoming a trend, or tendancy.

"Inconsistency" because of breaks with tournament play isn't really an appropriate term, and Despite Tal's unhealthy life-style he still creamed most of his opposition, for a period of <over> 30 years.

Stein broke into the top ten in 1964. After that, unless I missed something, his rating never went above 2759 or below 2718 (his rank ranged from #3 to #12). His rating peak was the mid-1960s, but it was just about 10 points higher then than in 1972. His rating obviously did go down a bit in the late sixties and come back up a bit in the early 1970s. But it never changed by much for the last decade of his life.

You've genuinely lost me. I'm trying to respond to your post, but I'm not sure what you're saying, or what position I'm supposed to have taken that you're taking issue with.

I said Stein was in decline by a certain point (the very late '60s). I don't think that "decline" implies "permanent" or "irreversible."

Me deducing from your "Stein decline" reasoning that it was permanent and irreversible, and you now saying that is not what you meant, is clearly a misunderstanding, for which I take full responsibility. Until I have looked at it again.

I would point out that I was the first one in recent threads to mention him. My piont was that in the mid-to-late '60s, no one was clearly the best, and there were about a half dozen players whom you could argue were #1, Stein among them (together with Spassky, Petrosian, Fischer, Korchnoi, Larsen, Tal, and maybe also Geller).

But by the very late '60s, Stein was getting some inconsistent results, indicating that, at least at that point, he was no longer a player who was arguably #1. He was more of a top ten player, which of course represent a decline (not necessarily permanent) in status.

Could he have come back? Sadly, we'll never know.

...not necessarily in this order. I leave out Stein, who was turning in some poor results in the late '60s and seemed very much in decline by this point.>

..and I, amongst some others here, am trying to say that Stein was still very much a WC contender and amongst the elite up until his death. I use ratings to demonstrate this, but also linked specific performances in the 70's as well.

Even Nigel Short, who won the candidates, didn't really seem like a possible world champion (except when he was very young of course and his future was up in the air). His winning of the candidates was a pretty big upset, and even then no one gave Short a chance against Kasparov, except for Short himself, of course.

I think the phrase I ought to use is "second to none." Short, Timman, Beliavsky, Ljubojevic, and so many others I could mention, never seemed "second to none." They were among the elite, but it was obvious that there was a wide gap between them and the World Champion.