just like to point out that Tal used to batter Fischer at chess as he did with so many he faced , but I love what bobby did in chess ,, of the two players Karpov and Kasparov I prefer garik but that is for his fighting spirit although I think it was wrong for the match between them to be so long and draining that it needed a break ,,, you cannot expect to get great results out of overtired minds

Prime Karpov was the second half of the 80s, during the matches with not yet peak Kasparov. When Kasparov won the title after in all 72 match games against Karpov, he was still more than 150 Elo from his peak.

hi

Actually Karpov kind of beat Kasparov 5-3 in their first encounter.

You already know your own answer to this question. You are only interested in shooting down anyone who disagrees with it.

In pure chess terms, Karpov understood chess little better than Kasparov. However, Kasparov had much greater physical and mental endurance and ability to work hard, both over the board and off.

It depends on what you mean by 'understand chess a little better'. There's no doubt that Karpov (like Kramnik) was a 'natural' player, having a great feel for where the pieces should go - better than Kasparov. However, Kasparov had a better feel for the dynamics, just like Shirov (who defeated Kramnik in the Candidates Final, but Kasparov gave Kramnik the right to challenge him anyway). For most of the 80s there was very little to distinguish between them in their matches (+2 in Kasparov's favour over some 125 games), but Kasparov was more successful in tournaments because he was more capable of imposing his own game on his opponents (thanks to his great opening preparation combined with his aggressive style of play) than Karpov was. Also, when Kasparov reached his peak in the 1990s, Karpov was on his way down.

I think Attack will beat Defence therefore Garry will beat Anatoly

We'll see. It will be an exciting match for sure.

Like said, very close player... but Kasparov just a little better...

Kaspy has more fans because he love to attack and sac, much sharper playing style... Karpov could attack awesome as well, but take much fewer risk, he was quite a bit like Carlsen i think... when said and done... Karpov is amongst top 5 player ever, no dispute...

As for these prime this v that nonsense... would 2002 Kasparov beat 1985 Kasparov and if so would 1975 Karpov defeat 1921 Capablanca? Would prime Capablanca defeat prime Fischer and if so would 1923 Capablanca defeat Deep Blue? And how about 1861 Morphy v 2013 Carlsen? And would prime Komodo demolish any of them?! the argument get a bit silly yes?

What's so hard to understand about that? In the 80s Kasparov was still developing as a player, while Karpov was at his absolute peak, but they moved in the same 'universe'. It's not a comparison of players from completely different eras (where later generations stand on the shoulders of the giants of previous generations). That said, Kasparov slightly outperformed Karpov when the latter was at his peak; so we actually know the answer.

Would prime Karpov have beaten Kasparov?

I think yes.

correct... but only the 1st time they met.... Karpov would have become a lot stronger still. and then, fast forward 10 years, Kasparov woul have struggled even more against Karpov...

thank you!

This is of course a contrafactual discussion, but if we give Fischer 'the doubt', i.e. assume that he had continued playing instead of retiring. I think there's very little doubt that Fischer would have won in 1975 and 1978 (Korchnoi nearly succeeded against Karpov). In 1981 it would probably have been closer contest, but if we once again give Fischer the doubt, i.e. that he retained his hunger, I think we would have seen him just shade it. In 1984, Fischer was 41 years old, and I think that it would have been one bridge too far against either Karpov or Kasparov. However, had Fischer continued to play after 1972, I'm sure the chess world would also have looked rather different. Not only did he have some rather radical ideas for chess, but we must also remember how the Soviet system rewarded failure. Taimanov and Spassky were both punished heavily for losing against Fischer, and the same fate would surely have awaited Karpov in the event of a crushing defeat in 1975.

34 years old an ancient by chess standars? It must be a joke

No, it isn't. Basically, the optimum age is the early 30s (still). At that age youthful freshness and enthusiasm combines with increased experience; it's the peak age for most players. In 1972, Fischer was 29 and was absolutely crushing everyone. For the World Championship matches in 1975 and 1978, he'd probably have been even stronger. Karpov played Kasparov when he was at his peak, while Kasparov was still developing (Kasparov was almost invicible in the 1990s when he reached his peak). However, up to your early 40s most players are still formidable. Look at Kramnik, Anand, Ivanchuk, Gelfand etc.