Karpov and Kasparov

At first I thought that Kasparov was the hero between the two of them. I understood that Karpov had only been world champion because he was a golden boy of the communist system. Until recently this was the only truth, but not too long ago I finished a book; 'Karpov on Karpov', where Karpov shares his memoirs regarding competitors such as Korchnoi to coaches like Furman.

In this book the story is that Kasparov, not Karpov had all the advantages. Karpov relates that his nemisis was given first-class treatment from an early age (one example is Kasparov having two separate GM coaches while still in his teens). Not only that, but Kasparov has always used the services a crack team of players, and that most of the games that he played and his victories could be mostly attributed to his team, not his own prowess.

As well, Karpov claims that Kasparov is a hippocrite in that Kasp was always supposed to be a champion of democracy in the media's eyes, but in the second World Championship Match between the two Kasparov retained the right to have the World Championship in the event of a 9-9 win total, as opposed to a set number of games to determine the winner after the original total was spent.

I was just wondering if any of you had formulated ideas between the two. Which one of the two is the hero, or are both of them merely zeroes?

Originally posted by prosoccer
At first I thought that Kasparov was the hero between the two of them. I understood that Karpov had only been world champion because he was a golden boy of the communist system. Until recently this was the only truth, but not too long ago I finished a book; 'Karpov on Karpov', where Karpov shares his memoirs regarding competitors such as Korchnoi to coache ...[text shortened]... d ideas between the two. Which one of the two is the hero, or are both of them merely zeroes?

They're both egomaniacal competitors who will stop at nothing to win. In that respect they're like most other high-level chess players most of the time.

Both of them had unreasonable conditions for defending their title.

They had the greatest long-term competition probably in the history of chess. I don't know what you'd compare to it, especially when you consider all the hate, and Karpov's ability to keep pushing himself.

I don't think either is really a 'hero' in any sense other than the chess sense, and they're both great chess heroes in the sense of being two of the top seven or eight players of all time. Kasparov has slightly more charisma, but that doesn't make him a better human being.

All great chess players are egotistical. I remember in Pal Benko's book, one champion had people removed from the stands because he though they were staring at him...

On that note, Benko seemed like a genuinely nice guy.

I think it's just really easy to be paranoid about your opponent. we've all been there, and see all the time people thinking their opponent got some kind of unfair advantage one way or another. that's why I think it's completely understandable both karpov and kasparov are inclined to think one had more resources than the other.

and karpov, that guy really throws quite harsh and provocative statements in almost every interview I've seen. 🙂 I'm always wondering how he got the image of being less charismatic. of the two, kasparov seems more diplomatic to me. but he's got his own outbursts as well, of course.

also the ussr times were no doubt full of weird play behind the scenes. we had our share of that in finland, there always was some weird hidden political agenda in everything that went on during the soviet regime. I think maybe people in other countries don't necessarily understand how incredibly surreal times those were. it left a mark in people who were in the middle of it.

still, though I maybe like kasparov better of the two, I just have to admire the fact that karpov was there before kasparov, and still is around today. I think both are heros, but only human at the same time.

Originally posted by Derfel Cadarn
Both of them suck. Long live Fischer.

It's a shame that we didn't get to see Kasparov, Karpov, and Fischer all battling throughout the eighties though. That would have been fantastic beyond belief. (It also would have meant that Fischer hadn't gone nuts, which would be an improvement over reality.)

Karpov didn't get to be world champion because he was the darling of the CP - he got the title because he won his way through the qualification process (no mean feat) and because Fischer didn't show up to defend his title.

The point about the holder retaining the title in the event of a tied match is also standard practise, and has applied to pretty much every recent world championship match.

Originally posted by Redmike

The point about the holder retaining the title in the event of a tied match is also standard practise, and has applied to pretty much every recent world championship match.

Originally posted by Derfel Cadarn
All great chess players are egotistical. I remember in Pal Benko's book, one champion had people removed from the stands because he though they were staring at him...

On that note, Benko seemed like a genuinely nice guy.

Originally posted by prosoccer
The reason as I mentioned it, as I said, is that Kasparov tries to keep the facade of being very democratic, but while creating the match himself, he failed to be.

Obviously it's all a matter of opinion, but I've never read anything bad about Capablanca.

Some wonderful written portraits of a few of the best known players of the first half of the 20th century is "Grandmasters I have known" by Hans Kmoch. It can be found here: http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/skittarch.htm

Originally posted by gambit3
Other seemingly nice chess greats are Lasker, Schlecter, Bronstein, Tal, and Spassky. Greats that do not seem to be so nice are Steinitz, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Fischer, Korchnoi, Short, Karpov and Kasparov. If there was ever a chess champion that was a Russian Bear it was Alekhine.

Originally posted by gambit3
Other seemingly nice chess greats are Lasker, Schlecter, Bronstein, Tal, and Spassky. Greats that do not seem to be so nice are Steinitz, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Fischer, Korchnoi, Short, Karpov and Kasparov. If there was ever a chess champion that was a Russian Bear it was Alekhine.

Originally posted by gambit3
Other seemingly nice chess greats are Lasker, Schlecter, Bronstein, Tal, and Spassky. Greats that do not seem to be so nice are Steinitz, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Fischer, Korchnoi, Short, Karpov and Kasparov. If there was ever a chess champion that was a Russian Bear it was Alekhine.