Although I agree that Karpov should have won the first match and was the better player in 1984, nothing changes the fact that Karpov lost 3 matches after that and could not capitalize on the perfect chance in 1987.
Kasparov or Karpov. Who was the better player in their prime?
Sort:
It seems that Kasparov learnt from his losses to Karpov whereas Karpov faded.
So Karpov was better in 1984 but after that Kasparov was better!
Oct 21, 2023
0
#4
“”The matches were razor close between them. When Kasparov first played Karpov he was 21 and Karpov was 32. They played 5 matches and they were super close even when Karpov was in his late 30s. Some of the matches were even tied where the champion retained his title.””
In many sports you reach your prime years and then you begin to fall into the “ Bell curve”
At equal age Karpov would have been the far better player as a subjective view.
In tennis even the great Federer faltered at higher age. It’s normal but at his prime he was like Karpov……in the sense he found a way to win.
Hence, unlike most I rate Karpov the better player in “ best player catagories” rather than results only comparisons.
Oct 21, 2023
0
#5
Unlike Kasparov ( and Federer😇😇) Karpov was not flamboyant and as such most much preferred to watch Kasparov’s chess “style”
“”Karpov's "boa constrictor" playing style is solidly positional, taking minimal risks but reacting mercilessly to the slightest error by his opponent. As a result, he is often compared to José Raúl Capablanca, the third world champion.””
Kasporov obviously. he had the ability to adapt to his mistakes and never stopped getting better
Kasparov was more than 150 Elo from his peak rating when he won the title against Karpov. The latter was a great player but doesn’t come close to Kasparov at his peak. Most of their match games were played when Kasparov was well below 25 years old and far from his best.
It’s weird how when ur young u wanna be older and when ur old u wanna be younger and ur only in ur prime for like 5 years before it starts going downhill
Oct 21, 2023
0
#9
Oct 21, 2023
0
#10
Yes idilis. I agree with that forum . It was clearly the minority view and ridiculed at times “ laughing” but Karpov had a very stoic brilliant mind who found a way with his “ boa constrictor” style of suffocating his opponents. Just as Boris never recovered from the psychological battles with Bobby I sense that Karpov never really recovered from that 6 zero destruction he could have registered with Kasparov in that first battle for dominance.
Kasparov: it is not even close:
http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=199510SSSSS3S062926000000111000000000000010100
Thanks nice work
!!!
Kasparov is the best chess player of all time. I agree with the poster that Karpov is better in 1984. This wasn't the last of the story. Kasparov dominated comtempoaries much like Fischer (close) for a longer period. I tend to believe that Karpov had a more correct style of play but Kasparov is the best of all time and even changed the way computers were used in chess. This while being the best for decades. In his day the rating inflation wasn't the same. Compare his wins draws and losses to best players of that time. For the record Fischer is second and Carlsen is third and sadly, not losing sleep. Carlsen, stays third because to many scummy people are willing to cheat against him now.
I think Kasparov is better
Oct 28, 2023
0
#16
Classical games: Garry Kasparov beat Anatoly Karpov 28 to 20, with 119 draws.
This record shows a relative evenness of one player against another.
More likely the draws gives the true picture of the closeness of these two great players.
what is interesting was Karpov’s ability to play multiple draws as he got older and as Kasparov moved to his “ zone” of peak performances.
World championships in chess seems to be also about stamina and “ staying” power over the duration of the contest.Not “only” the talent of each player particularly if they are close in ability.Just like a five setter in tennis it seems
Karpov's peak was not quite as high as Garry's. Garry was so good for so long that he ended up being the axis around which chess orbited for 2 decades. Karpov had this level of dominance during his time as champion, sure, but for half the tenure Kasporov did. What he could've achieved beyond this was ultimately thwarted by Kasporov and his dominance. Garry, prime for prime, is also objectively better than Karpov. Ratings inflation aside, Karpov has a lower winning percentage overall through his career compared to Gary. While only a 4% difference, Gary's 69.5% to Anatoly's 65% speaks volumes in the correct context. Gary won more often against players in a field that had improved greatly since Karpov first won the title. Beyond this, while Karpov as a young champion in the 70s went on the longest undefeated streak in history with 9 consecutive victories against the strongest competition in the world, Kasporov shattered this record when he went 14 matches undefeated; again against a slightly more level, less soviet-dominant playing field than when Karpov had his own streak. Kasparov even once played a game against the entire world, where grandmasters would gather and send their moves in to be voted on and chosen based on majority. This is one of the more insane feats in chess history for not only the accomplishment but also the time period and context of the situation.
It is ok to prefer Karpov, absolutely, but it is objective that Kasporov was the stronger of the two prime for prime.
At their first major head to head world championship Karpov was leading 5 to zero against Kasparov .When Karpov was in his zone.But after 31 games without a win for Kasparov the older player showed fatigue. This was not chess of two fresh minds anymore and the younger chess player just showed more stamina rather than better chess. Karpov in my mind was clearly the better player but as the years rolled on the age difference became a factor. I disagree with most players when rating the two for this clear reason. Had Karpov won 6 zero he would have had a psychological long time advantage.