Studying Karpov

Would like some advice about what to study when looking at Karpov's games. I just bought the new book on him about his strategic wins and am looking at volume 1. Thanks.

I would look at his more boring wins against inferior opposition and try to imitate his technique in winning without risk.  I have a game collection by Mednis called "How Karpov Wins" Not real exciting but more instructive than say looking at spectacular Fischer or Kasparov wins. "A man has got to know his limitations"- Dirty Harry.

Karpov... is not an aggressive player. Unlike Bobby Fischer's spectacular octo-forks and Kasparov's ballsy tactical moves, he whittles you down one by one, gaining material one point by one point. Thus, he's not exactly very interesting to study.

Why don't you get a book on Deep Blue's games.

 One man's garbage

 ... is one woman's potential recycled resource in order to save the whales.

How anyone can call this boring/not interesting/not instructive I don't know...

@Above game-Yeah, it's a good game. Karpov basically trades in some material in exchange for his Queen going around the board and annihilating the black queenside.

 That's like saying "X sacrificed material to checkmate Y's king". Why does Karpov's Queen enjoy such freedom despite the material deficit?

If you want to learn game winning technique, study Karpov,Petrosian or Capablanca. If you want to come up with spectacular combinations that don't quite work out because you are not quite good enough to pull them off, study Tal or Kasparov, etc.. The latter category seems to be the popular choice! More fun but is it more effective for most players?

Studying Capablanca as a prelude to studying Karpov isn't a bad idea.  Karpov's style gets compared to Capablanca's a lot.  Capablanca was a major influence on Karpov.  And in Karpov's own words: "The ideal in chess can only be a collective image, but in my opinion it is Capablanca who most closely approaches this..."

Because when black took his sacrificed material, he put his pieces in positionally devastating squares, allowing Karpov's queen to wander around and force black to make certain moves.

You mean this one?

For future reference, I got it from here: http://www.pgnmentor.com/players/Karpov/

I think I've learned a lot, not so much from Karpov, but from the people who annote his games. For some reason, he seems to be the type of player that good writers can use to make excellent points. Piece positioning for example. Also the above mentioned "How Karpov Wins" show that he is a very practical player in the sense that, if he is in a position that many Grandmasters would agree to a draw, he plays on, believing, mostly correctly, that he is  the better player and that, sooner or later, the other guy will crack under pressure and Karpov will come out on top. Chessrube, I would be interested in what you, or anyone thinks of the book you have.

Karpov is a positional player mostly. Once his pieces are where he wants them to be, then he gets tactical.

I don't think you can call Petrosian a passive player.  He was wonderful with his exchange sacrifices. 

Let's say he was "deliberate" then...