Tournaments a Go-Go

Yeah, guess Aronian got a few new fans after his mini-match against Topalov, me included.

Very refreshing to see a new top gun who manages without spending much of his life analyzing opening theory :)

Not that Karpov's drawing tendency was *that* strong...he was more of a middle-packer, not quite at the level of a Leko, Kramnik or Smyslov...

That's because he crushed everyone for most of his career. More a comment on his style and drawish tendencies for the last ten years of his career. It was sad to see someone as great and competitive as Karpov start to coast before he hit 40. If he'd kept up the work there is no doubt he could have stayed in the top ten (by playing instead of by not playing) for another five years and produced many more great games. Same goes for Spassky, but he was never so competitive. And now Kasparov just leaves. Sigh.

If my memory serves me right, Tolya Karpov has won more tournaments than any other player in history. He lost only 2 opponents in 'classical matches' - Kasparov and Nigel Short.

There are two problems with Karpov's supposed record tally of 150 tournament wins:
(a) It includes lots of minor events. If all tournaments are included in the tally, Karpov would be at least 100 tournament victories behind a player like Tony Miles.
(b) If only major tournaments are counted Karpov's tally is impressive but perhaps not a record. More importantly, there is a question mark over the period 1975-1985 when if Karpov needed help from his compatriots playing alongside him in an event outside the USSR, he seemed to get it. (Most damning was Spassky's account of his visit from the KGB when he made the mistake of beating Karpov in Linares in the early 80s.)

The other usual strike given against Karpov's tourney record is that he didn't have to play in tournaments against Korchnoi during Viktor's peak years. They played the three matches 1974-1981 but didn't play a single tournament game together from 1973 to 1984. The deal not to allow Korchnoi into events with Soviet players relegated him to playing in many relatively second-class events. But his tourney record was formidable and there is little doubt he would have whittled down Karpov's numbers from 74-84.

All said, Karpov has a heck of a match record. Remember Kasparov 'won' a match by drawing 12-12 and won the next one with a +1. Even in 90s, he beat Ananad and Kamsky in the FIDE WC matches.

I said it before and I will say it again.

I NEVER considered Karpov to be a legit Champion. He stole the title from Fischer and everyone helped him to stay on top. it was all phoney in my mind.

It is nice to see some other people posting here about some of the problems with Karpov's record.

Fischer won all his games from his own personal hard work. no help from people or from computers. Karpov had all kinds of help from other people and from computers. Kasparov got more help from computers.

Fischer was the last of the individual Champions who did it on their own. he had to do all the analysis himself. no Fritz showing all kinds of analysis.

and Karpov's match record is very dirty. they held Korchnoi's family hostage while he played Karpov. give me a break. Karpov proved only that he was a cheater.

Spassky was honest. he insisted on playing Fischer. no running away or help for him. he could have walked off with the match without playing.

How come FIDE was siding with Karpov against the Champion Fischer. it was not right. FIDE should have supported the champion against the challenger. it was a total political set up against fischer in 1975 with Karpov at the top of the dirty play. And dont tell me Karpov had lilly white hands. that is rediculous. that is what Karpov wants you to believe.

Without commenting on anything else you wrote, tommy, I do want to know what you mean by "stole the title from Fischer."
(Note: That you would have preferred for Fischer to remain champion is not an explanation.)

Charles,

In his knowledge of chess history, Tommy has a few weak spots.

Re the failed 1975 title defense, Fischer demanded that the first player with ten wins would win the match; but that the challenger would have to win by two games. That is, to win the match, Karpov would have to get ten wins before Fischer got nine.

I was a Fischer-fanatic at the time, and have never had much use for Karpov-the-person. But Fischer's unreasonable title defense demands sure looked like an excuse to avoid playing Karpov.

Thank you, greg. I knew that, but it might be tommy did not; otherwise I cannot understand his use of the verb "steal".

Man you people disparaging Karpov are insane. The man
easily has a legit claim for second best player of all time. Guaranteed every single person slagging Karpov in this thread has a rating under 1500.
Morons.

Man you people disparaging Karpov are insane. The man
easily has a legit claim for second best player of all time. Guaranteed every single person slagging Karpov in this thread has a rating under 1500.
Morons.

Lest someone pay attention to tommy (which they shouldn't, -ever-:

1. Fischer resigned the title, it was not stolen from him. He resigned by letter to FIDE, not only without pressure, but before it was even entirely clear who his challenger would be (although almost certainly Karpov's destruction, 7-4, of Spassky has something to do with it). Fischer wanted an interminable match with -as usual- ridiculous conditions. By 1975 everyone was tired of bending over backwards for him, even if they did a bit of it in the 1975-match negotiations. I remain convinced that Karpov would have defeated Fischer convincingly in 1975.

2. Spassky was honest - perhaps too honest. Fischer would have lost the match by forfeit or points had it not been for Spassky's insistence that they keep playing.

3. Karpov would have had little or no control over the Party's actions on his behalf in the 70's and 80's, nor were the majority of his opponents from the Soviet Bloc. Karpov was the most dominant player in chess history before Kasparov, and deserves immense respect. After 1995, he seemed to lose interest in serious play, although he is still a strong grandmaster.

4. There was no set up against Fischer. For ten years the whole chess world did whatever the nutty little jerk wanted so he's play and they'd have the benefit of the interest of an American population too myopic and self-obsessed to be interested in a sport not dominated by one of their own. In 1975, while negotiations were ongoing and his third or fourth self-contradictory rejection of the new terms was being digested (and kowtowing to it -again- was considered), Fisher threw the title at FIDE and retired to spout anti-Semitic invective.

Good riddance.

Fischer has done and said many awful, unforgiveable things....most having nothing to do with chess.

However, to say that the chess world bent over for him for 10 years to pacify the myopic americans is not accurate. Fischer fought hard for playing conditions to be at an extremely high level. He wasn't the first but certainly the most influential in raising standards for professional play. His methods may have seemed nutty but you can't argue the fact that he made alot of inroads in improving the environments in which top level chess is played. He could be very insightful....for instance, his arguments against a canidates tournament vs a match still hold completely true and were indirectly regurgitated by many here during the San Luis threads.

Also...you've been reading to much of Kasparovs my great predecessors if you think Fischer would have lost decisively to Karpov in a match. I love the books but his Fischer commentary is biased at best and pure propaganda at worst. He seems to have an aggressive agenda to debunk the Fischer mystique. Its quite impossible to say for sure what the outcome of that match would have been but I believe it would have been very closely contested (personally I think Fischer wins).

In a recent interview on ChessCafe, Kasparov stated that he in 1975 Karpov was a slightly inferior player (to Fischer) with excellent practical chances to win. Anything beyond that, he said, is pure speculation. That doesn't sound like wild propaganda to me, just a reasonable assessment. Now, I haven't actually read the book; he may be more extreme there.

Garry has said for years that Karpov's chances were seriously underestimated. They have certainly grown "worse" over the years, as Fischer has been promoted to demigod while Karpov's impressive win over Spassky in the candidates has been forgotten. Karpov's own comment that he would have been the underdog (I don't recall the exact way he put it) was another factor that has shaped perception.

Karpov outplayed Spassky in very impressive fashion. While we can't be sure Fischer would have played under any circumstances - regardless of the rules and opponent - facing the familiar Spassky (or Korchnoi, who he had faced various times) again would have been much less unsettling. On a purely chess and sporting level it's hard to say because Karpov never had a chance to measure himself against Fischer. A three-year layoff would have made Fischer's task even harder, something he was surely aware of.

If anyone ever had the understanding, insight and chess knowledge to make an accurate prediction of the hypothetical outcome of Krpov-Fischer, that would be Kasparov.

Fisher might have been a little crazy, but he was no fool in chess: Karpov was a new breed of Soviet player, far better than the generation Fischer faced.

People tend to forget that it took a herculean effort by the best player ever (Kasparov) to deal with Karpov. In fact, I think that being down 5-0 in their first match and not falling into the abyss, made Kasparov into the ultra-strong, supremely confident player who went on to dominate the chess world in a way not previously seen.

In that sense, Karpov was the best thing that ever happened to Kasparov. Kasparov, needless to say, was the worst thing that ever happened to Karpov: it prevented Karpov from occupying the seat of "best ever" that Kasparov will forever rest his ass on.

Tgg--

I agree that Kasparov has the "understanding, insight, and chess knowledge" to make the best possible judgment re a hypothetical Fischer-Karpov 1975. (And I agree with the rest of your post.)

But predicting a Fischer loss in a 1975 match would remove him as a threat to Kasparov's "best-ever" status. In chosing Karpov over Fischer was Kasparov being objective or self-serving? Not knowing the answer to this question we can't accept without qualification Kasparov's judgment on the matter.

Good point, Greg.

1) Kasparov hasn't said Fischer would have lost to Karpov.

2) While it's not worthless to discuss hidden agendas and vested interests of people giving opinions, it shouldn't automatically invalidate them. Something can be both self-serving and entirely correct at the same time. Otherwise we end up forever conjecturing about motive instead of the information and opinions themselves.

He has been such a central figure for so long that I'm sure it's quite easy to invent a reason why Kasparov would be theoretically served by just about anything. Had he disparaged Karpov's chances against Fischer it could be easily written off as bashing his long-time nemesis, for example. So if you want to criticize Kasparov, you can't lose. If he compliments Karpov it's because he's building him up to make himself look better - he beat him after all. If he criticizes Karpov it's because they have a long history of mutual antagonism. Rinse and repeat.

One of the many highlights of Volume 5 is a long piece by Igor Zaitsev on how he thinks the Fischer-Karpov match would have played out, mostly from the opening perspective. Kasparov then has an extensive entry about how the this period (Fischer's inactivity) had been one of intense opening revolution. Three years of inactivity was a lifetime. Fischer always worked alone and the new necessities of preparation likely further disturbed him. The revolution he had helped start pushing prep to a new level had continued. Was he going to start working with a team?

Back in Volume 4 Garry spends more time on it. After paragraphs with all the contemporary predictions of Fischer's victory: "But I feel Karpov did indeed have good chances of winning." Stronger than I'd remembered, but I don't think I've seen him put a number on it, or call Karpov a favorite. Later he writes "Had Korchnoi, Spassky, or Petrosian qualified for a match with him, I think that Fischer would have played. Definitely! He would have confident in himself and this would have been a continuation of his era. But Karpov marked the onset of a different era!"

Lots of other interesting stuff. I don't see much of anything denigrating Fischer. It's all pyschological conjecture. As for status, if there is anyone secure in his status, as best ever and other things, it's Kasparov. The hypothetical outcome of the 75 match is the least of his worries.

Fischer didn't play. While this has turned him into a permanently undefeated idol in his own mind and in the minds of some fans, it should by all means be considered a bigger strike against his status than if he'd played Karpov and lost. Especially taken as a whole with his three years of hiding before that, which is often overlooked. Heck, I'm ticked off about Garry leaving the game after 20 years on top. Fischer did it after two! Obviously he was/is not a mentally healthy man, so it's not so much a matter of holding it against him personally. But the entire Fischer legend is built on 71-72 and disappearing, much like Morphy's history in many ways.

One important thing you're all overlooking: timing.

Fischer may or may not have been still at or near his peak in '75. (I don't want to get into this part in detail as it's not my main point -- but I'll just note that:
a) he came back stronger than ever after his previous layoff, from '67 through '69 after getting bounced from Sousse; and
b) several eyewitness accounts have been published that prove he was fully involved in chess study, training and unofficial competition throughout the '70s -- the Canadian GM Peter Biyiasas and the Argentine GM Miguel Quinteros being his most frequently cited training partners/victims.)

Far more important than evaluating Fischer from the timing / peak strength standpoint, is objectively examining Karpov's status in 1975, prior to the match that never happened.

Karpov during his ascent to the chess world's summit was nothing like Kasparov, Fischer or even Spassky. And - here's my main point - Karpov was nothing like Karpov himself! That is, the Karpov of 1972-1974 was only a barely discernible shell of the powerhouse that he grew to become during his years on the throne.

Yes, he may already have won at least one chess Oscar by 1975. But neither his results nor the quality of his play came close to the dominance he came to demonstrate in the late 1970s through early 80s. If you go back and check the history, I believe you will find that nearly all his first-place tournament finishes in world-class events came after 1975; that is, after he already was champion.

I recall seeing Karpov on the cover of Chess Life soon after he won the World Junior in 1970 (1971?). They published some of his games, which as I recall were remarkably unimpressive for a soon-to-be World Champion.

So, the point I'm making is, the arguments made by Garry and by those on this thread who assert Karpov could have beaten Fischer in 1975, are built around an anachronism. All of you are, perhaps without realizing it, comparing Karpov at his peak with Fischer at his peak. But that's not the question, is it?

I think the facts strongly indicate that even at his peak, Karpov could not have beaten Fischer at his. (Mig raises the '74 Karpov-Spassky match as evidence Karpov was already better than Fischer then. Yet Karpov's win quite clearly was neither AS decisive nor as impressive from the chess quality standpoint, as was Fischer's win over Spassky in '72 -- not to mention Fischer's demolition of his 3 candidates match adversaries. I'll also note that Kasparov's armchair psychologizing of Fischer as fearing Karpov more than a more experienced opponent, is the best proof that Garry was not objective but was driven to his conclusion by bias and self-interest.)

If my argument sounds familiar, it should. This is the same argument that was made by Korchnoi -- both at the time, and I believe he has stuck with it since. I recall Korchnoi saying that he felt a duty to beat Karpov (in their '74 candidates' final that wound up being a de facto championship match) because the latter "wasn't yet ready" to handle Fischer.

One important thing you're all overlooking: timing.

Fischer may or may not have been still at or near his peak in '75. (I don't want to get into this part in detail as it's not my main point -- but I'll just note that:
a) he came back stronger than ever after his previous layoff, from '67 through '69 after getting bounced from Sousse; and
b) several eyewitness accounts have been published that prove he was fully involved in chess study, training and unofficial competition throughout the '70s -- the Canadian GM Peter Biyiasas and the Argentine GM Miguel Quinteros being his most frequently cited training partners/victims.)

Far more important than evaluating Fischer from the timing / peak strength standpoint, is objectively examining Karpov's status in 1975, prior to the match that never happened.

Karpov during his ascent to the chess world's summit was nothing like Kasparov, Fischer or even Spassky. And - here's my main point - Karpov was nothing like Karpov himself! That is, the Karpov of 1972-1974 was only a barely discernible shell of the powerhouse that he grew to become during his years on the throne.

Yes, he may already have won at least one chess Oscar by 1975. But neither his results nor the quality of his play came close to the dominance he came to demonstrate in the late 1970s through early 80s. If you go back and check the history, I believe you will find that nearly all his first-place tournament finishes in world-class events came after 1975; that is, after he already was champion.

I recall seeing Karpov on the cover of Chess Life soon after he won the World Junior in 1970 (1971?). They published some of his games, which as I recall were remarkably unimpressive for a soon-to-be World Champion.

So, the point I'm making is, the arguments made by Garry and by those on this thread who assert Karpov could have beaten Fischer in 1975, are built around an anachronism. All of you are, perhaps without realizing it, comparing Karpov at his peak with Fischer at his peak. But that's not the question, is it?

I think the facts strongly indicate that even at his peak, Karpov could not have beaten Fischer at his. (Mig raises the '74 Karpov-Spassky match as evidence Karpov was already better than Fischer then. Yet Karpov's win quite clearly was neither AS decisive nor as impressive from the chess quality standpoint, as was Fischer's win over Spassky in '72 -- not to mention Fischer's demolition of his 3 candidates match adversaries. I'll also note that Kasparov's armchair psychologizing of Fischer as fearing Karpov more than a more experienced opponent, is the best proof that Garry was not objective but was driven to his conclusion by bias and self-interest.)

If my argument sounds familiar, it should. This is the same argument that was made by Korchnoi -- both at the time, and I believe he has stuck with it since. I recall Korchnoi saying that he felt a duty to beat Karpov (in their '74 candidates' final that wound up being a de facto championship match) because the latter "wasn't yet ready" to handle Fischer.

Many good points, Mig,

During the period where Karpov was a threat, Kasparov generally denigrated him. Later, when Karpov faded, Kasparov praised him more often.

Agreed. You can't simply write off Kasparov's possibly self-interested comments re Fischer/Karpov; as in any historical "document" you have to consider the source and take the truth where you find it.

Agree that post-1972, Fischer deserves no credit for being a "great player." You can't be a great player if you don't play. The world's greatest chess player may be a Tibetan yak farmer; but if he's not playing in public, who cares?

"...if there's anyone secure in his status, as best ever and other things, it's Kasparov."
Kasparov has always acted like one of the least secure people in public life. He seemed miserable whenever the spotlight shone on anyone else. Kasparov's "exploits" as discussed ad nauseum in this blog aren't the sort of things which tend to come from a secure individual.

Yes, he should have been secure in his accomplishments. Was he? I don't think so. Maybe this insecurity was something that drove him.

This is all fascinating, I appreciate the various arguments. I appreciate that Kasparov never flat out says that Karpov would have won or lost against Fischer, but merely states that he had decent chances. (By the way, I love Predecessors Part V!)

But I wonder if there is someone out there with even greater insight into this matter than Kasparov: Now, it would perhaps be hard for this person to be objective, but what would Korchnoi's opinion be on the ill-fated 1975 match. Kasparov has analyzed all these 1970's games and matches of Karpov and Fischer, but Korchnoi was there, playing against these guys, and although no one
will ever have the authority to say who would have won or lost, I'd be curious to hear Korchnoi's objective opinion.

RS,

See my above comment re: Korchnoi on Karpov vs Fischer. I'm going from memory, but I'm pretty sure Korchnoi did say (at the time, at least) what I attributed to him: that he felt a responsibility to stop Karpov from being the challenger, because he felt Karpov hadn't developed enough as a chessplayer to be ready to meet Fischer. (That is my opinion, too.)

I don't know whether Korchnoi ever altered his view. And, as you suggest, it would be hard for him to be objective about the question -- perhaps even harder than for Kasparov.

Excellent Posts Jon!!

I just reread parts of Volume 4 (gotta get 5!) and its pretty obvious who Kasparov thinks would have won.
Kasparovs assertion that "Fischer was afraid of Karpov" is the most damning evidence of him spouting more propaganda than history. They said he was afraid of Spassky too....Its also ridiculous to say that Fisher would not know how to play against Karpov. Karpov would have spent a long time under Fischers mental microscope before the match. It makes much more sense to say that Karpov would be the one with preparation problems....How in the world would you go about preparing for Fischer when he had clearly demonstrated a new and diverse opening repetoire vs Spassky. He could have played anything against Karpov!
Also...I don't think its accurate to say Fischers legend is all about 71-72. The legend really started nearly a decade before with the "game of the century" and continued with his impressive international and US Championship record throughout the 60s.

Have we hijacked this thread yet or what? :)

While I of course respect Garry's opinion on the result of a Fischer-Karpov match in '75. I believe Boris would have had the most authoritive vision on the outcome. He had just played Karpov in a match in '74, 2 years after struggling with Bobby. I'd love to research the comments from Boris in this time period, as I believe his thoughts from that time period are crucial.

Chesswise, the main problem is three years of inactivity and the degree to which opening preparation had grown in both significance and rigor during those three years. Karpov was a new breed, working with a full-time team, basically considered a sort of Terminator project to get the title back from Fischer. I don't know about Karpov being the favorite, but we know how psychologically tough he is and the impression his chess was making. While I don't think it was the main factor in the forfeit, I do tend to agree with Kasparov's statement that Fischer would have played much more readily against Spassky or Korchnoi. "Definitely" is a bit strong about someone as unpredictable as Fischer.

I don't think Fischer forfeited his title because he was afraid of Karpov per se. He was afraid of ever losing, period, which translates into afraid of playing. Note that it wasn't just the title forfeit. He didn't play for three years prior and 17 years after that. This was not about format and probably not much about chess.

My comments about the Fischer legend and 71-72 refer to the "best ever" discussion. Of course his accomplishments as a prodigy and such also mark his place in history. His 20-game win streak and the 6-0 candidates matches are another league. Obviously he was not just some three-years-and-out champion. That said, with the same chess accomplishments and a different nationality it's a very different, much more modest, legacy. But that's stacking up too many hypotheticals.

My impression of the thrust of Kasparov's arguments was that these were the things Fischer would have had on his mind when contemplating the match with Karpov. Obviously nobody knows what state Fischer's chess was in. But it's a valid and interesting argument that largely because the period represented such an explosion in theory, Karpov 1975 vs Fischer 1972 will remain the greatest unplayed match.

Amen to that Mig...we missed out on a great match. Karpov (and maybe Gary too) probably feel a little unfullfilled that they never faced Fischer across the board. I remember really enjoying a Chessbase presentation a while back that had a fake (initially presented as real) game between Fischer and Karpov supposedly from the late 70s. I'm off to go buy MGP Volume 5...I can't wait!!

No reason for Karpov or Kasparov to feel unfulfilled. Given Fischer's state of mind, Fischer-Karpov or Fischer-Kasparov was probably as likely as Karpov or Kasparov versus Capablanca.

I'll take active players over inactive "legends" anytime. Give me all those Karpov-Kasparov WCC games that did happen. Who cares about the Fischer title defense(s) that didn't?

It's fun to debate the "what if's" in sport, whether it be chess, individual sports, or team sports. Who would have won Alekhine-Capablanca II? Who would have won in Tyson vs. Ali if both were in their prime? Sampras vs. Federer with both in their prime, etc. etc.

p.s. I'd take Alekhine, Ali, and Sampras, by the way, but who knows...

Now let's say that Karpov got a lot of help from the state, other GMs and God himself during his rise to the top and his time as the major rival to Kasparov. Two logical effects must however be observed in that case:

1. His level of play had to drop significantly after the collapse of the Soviet party machine in late 80's.

2. His success against Kasparov owed a lot to opening innovations and success in games that were postponed to the next day: ie situations in which help from his team was most readily available.

To what degree is either of these statements true? In my recollection, while Karpov expectedly aged in the 90's, he stayed as the world's #2 well beyond anticipated point and won several of the strongest tournaments ever. As far as the match play, I was still relatively young but I recall the games featured brilliant midgame strokes by both opponents and if anything it was Garry Kimovich who showed proclivity for endgame comebacks and opening innovations.

Last but not least, lest we forget, by late 80's several renown Russian GMs and trainers were at enough liberty to be on Garry's side and he had quite a team to back him up in those matches. So if you give Karpov +2 for having a strong team, Kasparov deserves a +1 at least.

Fisher-Karpov is an endless source for fun and bitter discussions. I have to say that I favor Kasparov's analysis of the situation. Fischer was brilliant for three years of his career. The rest of it is perhaps best compared to Tal, genius combinations, sporadic victories and general acknowledgement as a major talent. Fischer was not somebody who had the mental fortitude to consistently produce good results and my guess is that by 1975 his skill was back to its usual level. Facing somebody who is methodical and slow-paced as Karpov, I see him getting frustrated and irritated, eventually not showing up to a game and wearing a scuba helmet to block out the Sionist KGB agents' mind control.

This could be the big favour for the dissertation service to take your hot enough knowledge about this good topic for the dissertation discussion creating. Thence, all the students would have got an opportunity to buy the great quality writing thesis.