What precisely allowed Kasparov to succeed over Karpov?

Hello!

This is a question that just occurred to me. I know the typical legend has it that Kasparov's strengths over Karpov mainly consisted of superior opening study supplemented by superior play in dynamically imbalanced games(in addition to younger age). However, after briefly thumbing through Karpov's strategic wins volume 2 (I think), Karolyi mentioned that there were times after the 1986 match that Karpov actually managed to outplay Kasparov in the opening while Kasparov actually succeeded in grinding Karpov down in technical positions(!) When I hear such things, the final match game of 1987 comes to mind, where Kasparov, needing a win to draw the match and retain the title, played "pure" positional chess to win against Karpov. These things remind us that top-level chess is not as simple as people make it seem at times. Now, all of that being said, could someone shed some more light on their match games, their respective strengths and weaknesses, and what ultimately allowed Kasparov to win most of the matches? 

Thanks,

chessman1504

This is very simple, Kasparov had to play like Karpov; if you compare another world championship match, Alekhine had to play more like Capblanca to win the match.

yureesystem was on spot, Kasparov said in his book that he had to adjust his style to Karpov after his 'attack from all guns' style in first match brought him 0-5 loosing score. After that he started to play more patiently and positionally, waiting for Karpov to make mistakes and open himself to attacks.

IMO...It was youth, and motivation.

I'd say both their understanding of all areas in chess (positional, messy or technical) and abilities were the same, but Karpov was known not to be comfortable with computers and software like Kasparov was.

Kasparov, if anything, was a pioneer with chess on computers, so I think there is no question he was much more influential than Karpov in the way high level chess is studied today.

Opening preparation and using computer with game-base to go through a lot of games. Combine this with a winners mentality , the right amount of a "twist" and the willingness to study and train hard and daily for many years. And then all you've got left is natural talent.

His twist he has in common with GM's like Fisher , Kortchnoi to name a few. His natural talent is only outclassed  by Magnus , the resurrection of CapaKarp the God of positional , effective and energy-efficient play.

Well...ive read speelmans and tisdalls book on  "Moscow Marathon". And i guess that during that time Kasparovs endgame skills was not yet at par with that of Karpov. It was indeed opening preparations that gave Kasparov the edge over him (Scotch on the rocks in 90 WC, Qc2 against the Nimzoindian etc.) plus the ability to take risks. Plus the FIscher attitude of detemination to win. The funny thing is when they were both past their reign (meaning on equal ground). Karpov defeated him , i think that was in 2009.

This is an interesting and thoughtful post. Here's an interesting over-simplification: What if Kramnik is thought of as a Karpov that's an openings monster and psychologically stronger as well as younger and possibly more motivated? This would partially nullify Kasparov's first and second advantages in their 2000 match.

Here's another interesting question (at least to me): Kasparov always talks about Carlsen's deep positional judgment, his ability to judge a position cold, yet supreme calculator and tactician Viswanathan Anand claims he plays like a chess engine! He said he is very confident in his calculating abilities, in particular. What is with the (slight) discrepancy?

While Kapov had a good friend in the Department of Propaganda, which oversaw the Department of Sports, Kasparov had a Connection on the Central Committee.

If not for this, it is unlikely he would have been allowed to even challenge Karpov.

@crazyim

Feel free to disagree with me on this point, many do. But as far as psychology, I think Karpov had the advantage.

I point to their 1986 match. After 16 games, Kasparov had built up a commanding 3 game lead. But he then went on to lose the next 3 games! Tieing the score. Fortunatly, Garry was able to win game 22, and hold the lead.

Whatever way you slice it, the battles between these two were incredible. In every (24 game) match, it always came down to game 24. As opposed to say, Fischer-Spassky, which was concluded at game 21.

For being so far above the rest of their peers, it seemed there was only the finest hair separating Anatoly and Garry.

All of these guys can calculate and have deep positional judgement. What I think Anand is saying is that Magnus is not second guessing himself at this point. Sometimes more or too much experience or knowledge makes one check and verify things more as one gets older.

This doesn't happen in chess only, I think most of us in our jobs and careers do take time to come to work related decisions when we get older as we have more experience and knowledge to work and sift through.

chessman1504 wrote:

Here's another interesting question (at least to me): Kasparov always talks about Carlsen's deep positional judgment, his ability to judge a position cold, yet supreme calculator and tactician Viswanathan Anand claims he plays like a chess engine! He said he is very confident in his calculating abilities, in particular. What is with the (slight) discrepancy?

.

I think Kasparov and Anand were both saying the same thing about Carlsen's play: it is nearly mistake-free. Especially in quiet(ter) positions.

Heres, the real truth, the Soviet empire was collapsing around them, and needed money, so the player who raised the most money for each game, would win or it would be Siberia for other comrad.

it has to be said, Kasparov NARROWLY beat Karpov in any of their matches. Their head to head match record is very close. Even ONE extra game win for Karpov at any point and chess history would be very different

I think the main reason is that Kasparov simply was the better player. At his peak Kasparov was 150+ points higher rated than when he won the title, and Karpov only finished ahead of an adult Kasparov in one single tournament, Linares 1994.

Karpov did not make good use of psychological advantage. Look at their first match: leading 4:0 after 9 games, he did not push for a win but allowed dozens of draws before scoring his 5th point. In subsequent matches, he took a day-off after winning two (or even three) games in a row instead of trying to push further.

Kasparov learned a lot from Karpov, too. Match after match, he got stronger and stronger in the endgames and positional play. Both admitted they learned from each other but Kasparov did that more efficiently in my opinion (also Karpov had more to offer as a teacher because he was much experienced player with a very deep understanding of chess).

Kasparov worked harder. Both came with numerous opening novelties but Kasparov's overall theoretical preparation was incredible. Karpov had to work more at the board which costs energy but this is character - Karpov was more a tournament/match fighter while Kasparov made enormous analytical/scientifical work at home.

Anyway, as it had been stated here - they were really close to each other. There was Kasparov, Karpov, a huge hole and the rest of the players.

"when they were both past their reign (meaning on equal ground). Karpov defeated him , i think that was in 2009"

Kasparov won their 2009 rapid/blitz match 9-3.

I.think the whole thing was rigged. Kasparov came from a rich family and USSR could not pay him much, so kasparov paid karpov off, off courrse karpov put up a good show right up to the end so no one would become suspicious.

QED

Well einstein99 karpov was the "pet" of the chess associations, i hope you were kidding. Kasparov, is a bit more wild and unpredicable. I would say it is partially a time trouble on Karpov's part, and then he would blunder. It was unfortunate for him. But i do think Karpov did get outplayed in their matches.