217 ( +1 | -1 ) Kasparov on KarpovIn a recent chat at playchess.com Kasparov shares interesting views on his rival...
QUESTION FROM CLIFFHANGER: WHICH CHAMPION WAS FURTHEST AHEAD OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES.
That's a great question. [Thinks for a minute.] There were some short periods in which some were far ahead. Fischer in the early 1970's. Lasker at the end of the 19th century. That was a huge gap. Alekhine in the early 30's. Karpov in the late 70's, if you don't include Fischer, who took himself out of the picture.
In Volume Three I argue that Karpov had a very good chance to beat Fischer in 75. I would even consider Karpov the favorite in 75. He was more flexible, he was from a new generation. Karpov's chess was multifaceted. Fischer would have had a very hard time, and I think Fischer knew that. I doubt Fischer would have avoided a match with Korchnoi and Spassky.
Fischer was watching. Karpov beat Spassky in a more convincing way than Fischer did in 1972. Spassky played better against Karpov in 1974 than against Fischer in 1972, and he lost 7-4!
QUESTION FROM FREDERIC: DO YOU THINK KARPOV WILL LIKE THE BOOK?
I try to be impartial, but I don't know if Karpov will like the book. It's a deep analysis of his contributions. The section on Karpov is still in production. I'm not sure if we will cut it into two parts. But most of the analysis is done. And I can say that up to 1996 Karpov was at the cutting edge of chess.
QUESTION FROM MIKGUNN: WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH KARPOV NOW?
My relationship with Karpov now is writing about him for the book. I have tapes about him, that's enough!
I look at the key games in a player's career, then analyze them, reach a first draft on the computer. Then I dictate my conclusions into a tape and send it to Plisetsky. He makes corrections on dates, facts, adds anecdotes, etc. and sends it back to me. It's a complex procedure.
Fischer I did last year, more than 50 games. I did some work on this trip to the USA. I do it anywhere. I little analysis here and there. It's ongoing, you can't stop. It's always expanding. At some point I could see this on a DVD or online, so as not to be limited by book size.
51 ( +1 | -1 ) Maybe Kasparovis trying to convince people that he is the greatest all of time, afterall he beat Karpov but never played Fischer. I'm not trying to take away from Karpov, he was a great champion but Karpov favourite in 75?
As for: "I doubt Fischer would have avoided a match with Korchnoi and Spassky."
I think we should remember that Fischer was and still is an irrational, immature and unreasonable man, it is very difficult to predict what he would have done but it's not like he didn't cause any trouble in the '72 match.
100 ( +1 | -1 ) It is interestingKasparov pretty much refuses to comment on relationship between him and Karpov. I suppose they get along nowadays after they no longer have to face each others in long and bitter matches for the title. As chess players they have always respected each other of course, like Kasparov pointed out in 80s they were the only players who knew what was going on in their games...
That is one reason it will be interesting to see what Kasparov has to say about Karpov and his chess ("deep analysis of his contributions - Kasparov). Ironically, maybe it is his greatest rival who helps him to get the respect he truly deserves...?
Fischer - Karpov 75 match...I refuse to comment on that one because otherwise I will soon be crusified by Fischer fans who consider any suggestion that Fischer might not have won 10-0 a blasphemy or at least bashing Bobby "demi-god" Fischer...
I just copy and paste the comments of Kasparov, who knows a lot more about chess than I do :-)
61 ( +1 | -1 ) ."I just copy and paste the comments of Kasparov, who knows a lot more about chess than I do :-)"
Well I seem to remember a while ago in a discussion about who would win in a Morphy v Capablanca match someone quoted Fischer to back up the case for Morphy and you (rightly in my opinion) pointed out that you can't just accept one person's words as truth, no matter how good they are at chess.
It does sound like a very interesting book, I hope he has looked into the games thoroughly. On the chessbase page a review by a GM was mentioned, does anyone know where I can see it or other reviews of the book?
283 ( +1 | -1 ) Replies..."Well I seem to remember a while ago in a discussion about who would win in a Morphy v Capablanca match someone quoted Fischer to back up the case for Morphy and you (rightly in my opinion) pointed out that you can't just accept one person's words as truth, no matter how good they are at chess."
...And I still believe in my statement. Please note I never claimed Kasparov was correct/wrong. I simply copied and pasted his statement. About the discussion you were referring to...there some people failed to realize that the comment by Fischer wasnt meant to be taken LITERALLY.
"Is there some special reason you decided to share this with your friends here? lol"
Yep. Kasparov has mocked Karpov several times in the past plus the fact is so have many chess fans. I find his comments interesting.
"Fischer would certainly have found Karpov a handful, but on the other hand don't you think Karpov would have found Fischer a more difficult opponent than Korchnoi?"
If Fischer 75 was still in top form, defitenitely. I believe Karpov 1974 was better compared to his opponents than mere results show. He beat Spassky 4-1 (plus draws) but played some of the games - including the one he lost - in fever. In Korchnoi match he was leading 3-0 but lost 2 games mainly because of inexperience. Still, he was making heavy progress as a chess player and reached his peak only years later. I have pointed out before that I believe Fischer 72 was stronger than Karpov 75, but the truth is I am too far from champion level :-) Therefore my beliefs are nothing more than my beliefs and naturally I am always ready and willing to change them to one direction or another if someone who knows better proves me wrong. Nothing is more idiotic than a patzer like me stating "I say player A was stronger than player B no matter what people who know more than me think"...
"Who has a bigger ego than Kasparov? I always take what he has to say with a grain of salt. There has never been a more self-serving champion than Kasparov."
To give you an example it is true his comments about politics and history often make very little sense (remember his claim that ancient Rome never existed?), but when he talks about chess - leaving conspiracy theories and all the other stuff out - his comments usually have high value IMO.
"How convient that Kasparov has said something you agree with and you can quote him as someone who know alot more than you about chess."
Even when he says things I disagree with I still cant claim he DOESNT know more about chess than I do :-)
16 ( +1 | -1 ) good topic.Thanks for posting this, peppe_l. I may just buy Kasparov's new book, it looks interesting.
47 ( +1 | -1 ) yes "every one has an axe to grind"and no matter how sharp that axe gets it will never be sharp enough to change history. Lasker never played a match against Rubenstein, Nimzovitch never got his match against Alekhine, Keres never got his chance to play Alekhine. Capablanca never got his return match. and because they never happened we can never know for sure what the result would have been and no amount of debate can ever create a result.
21 ( +1 | -1 ) CorrectI believe I too have tried to point this out in several threads.
I just thought since there have been millions of Fischer, Tal and Morphy threads I guess Karpov deserves at least one :-)
13 ( +1 | -1 ) Why not! and Why nota thread on :
Baron von Heydebrand und der Lasa? or Louis Paulsen or William Steinitz Siegbert Tarrasch or Arvo Matti Myllyniemi
93 ( +1 | -1 ) No need for sarcasmAlthough it is true chess public IS forgetting some of the greatest players in history - namely positional players like Smyslov, Petrosian etc. The rule from times of romantic era of chess is still more or less true - "no sacs, no fame"
Karpov may not be the most underrated champ ever but even you must agree the amount of Karpov threads here is nonexistent compared to the amount of Fischer and Tal threads. I may be wrong but I do believe he is sometimes overlooked because of his positional style, or perhaps even because of his personality or political background...?
But then again I have to admit sometimes I get the feeling that chess public wants everything to follow the formula <1.e4 c5 -> Dragon/Najdorf -> sharp attack -> decisive result> Maybe I am wrong. At least here at GK I dont see the usual "Karpov is boring!" all the time :-)
I am looking forward reading your thread on Arvo Matti Myllyniemi :-)
77 ( +1 | -1 ) a book on karpovhi 2 all !
of all the chess champions' playing styles, it is karpov's that i really would like to emulate. he is practical, efficient, and precise. his play may seem boring to many, but when you read his analyses, you will see that his chess is actually very exciting .
now, here is what i propose : all who like karpov's chess can pool their talents and resources and write the book : KARPOV IN THE EYES OF A REGULAR GUY .
the contributors must submit games and his/her own analyses, and possibly the contributor's game(s) which have some elements learned or derived from karpov's games.
also, maybe some anecdotes and trivia n karpov.
wouldn't this be great !
ok! i am in ! who else would like to participate ? we can talk about profit-sharing later .
62 ( +1 | -1 ) Karpov is pretty coolI have five books covering Karpov’s games, I am sure I could find at least one interesting game to annotate from that little lot !! ;0)
Karpov – Korchnoi by Bill Hartston
Karpov – Kasparov 2 by Raymond Keene
Karpov – Kasparov 3 by Raymond Keene
Battle of the Titans, Kasparov v Karpov by Raymond Keene
The best of Karpov by P R Markland
Hmmm....not too sure about that last one. Perhaps it could have been re-named "How I nearly beat Karpov.....if only I hadn't lost my Queen, two rooks and a Knight !!"
102 ( +1 | -1 ) How Karpov WinsBy Edmar Mednis is very good book on Karpov. It has all Karpov wins (93 in total) from 71 Alekhine Memorial to 74 Candidates Final (plus second edition has 7 extra games from period after 74). The notes by Mednis are both interesting and instructive, more focused on plans than mazes of variations. Also he covers various aspects of chess game like competition, psychology...Basically you get 100 annotated games, a "thesis" of how Karpov REALLY wins (in reality not all games are perfect masterpieces you find from Best Games books) and a story of how Karpov became top player and eventually world champion.
The book has 400+ pages and I believe you can still find it for a bargain price.
The only flaw of the book is descriptive notation, but you can get used to it quite easily.
This gem may not have his absolutely best games, but it is hard to imagine a book that explains the style of early Karpov better than this one.
To everyone : buy this book and I promise you will learn I lot!
306 ( +1 | -1 ) ZeroscapeNice idea! The difficulty is Im not sure has there ever been a player as difficult to understand as Karpov. It is always easier to analyze & evaluate sacrifices and combinations where you can concentrate on forced lines. For example the games of Tal are easier to understand because you see immediately what is happening - he is going for the king and it is the brilliant execution of a straight-forward plan that makes the game so great (of course I am talking about more or less typical Tal game, naturally he scored many wins via positional play or endgames as well). But why not give it a try anyway? :-)
Here are 4 example games of Karpov...
Typical Karpov squeeze - he gets slight initiative out of the opening and keeps its till the end despite of several exchanges. This game also decided 1981 Merano championship match.
Look at the position after move 16. You have no lesser guy than Garry Kasparov playing black, surely quick draw must be the result? not if your name is Anatoly Karpov! :-) He finds a way to snatch a pawn but the stiff resistance by Kasparov forces him to play a masterful endgame.
Here is one Karpov classic where it seems clear he attacks on kingside and lets black dominate queenside. But what happens? And how about his famous queen maneuvres? It may look like he is merely moving back and forth, but that is not the case...
The last one may look like a strange choice - it is not really a typical Karpov game and possibly not even his best game in Linares Super GM tournament 1994, where he finished undefeated 21/2 points ahead of second place finishers, Kasparov and Shirov. His performance rating was almost 3000! So, why this game? Because it shows great positional players are not lousy tacticians, plus its a good example of Karpov accepting the challenge of new generation.