Top 5, according to Karpov (from Chess Today, an excellent daily chess newspaper! Check them out if you have not seen it)
In an interview for Komsomolskaya Pravda, Anatoly Karpov, answering the question, provided his list of the five greatest players of all time:
Capablanca
Alekhine
Fischer
Karpov
Kasparov
While the three most solid players, according to Karpov, are:
Capablanca
Kramnik
Karpov
Do you agree with Karpov’s list? 
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
He puts himself above Kasparov. Hahaha. Not very classy to include himself
Interesting that he puts himself below Fischer.
humble man that Karpov.
MY LIST
Morphy
Lasker
Capa
Fischer
Kasparov
Kramnik
Nothing wrong with puting himself in his list. He talks about the chess player not the man. I believe he deserves it. Although I didn’t put him in “MY LIST” (above)
but what about anderssen and tal, anderssen was the player with the most beautuful imagination.
and tal was the lightest and most powerful comet in history.
sorry karpov but to mention yourself in all the lists is against good manners, besides that it is not true from my objective point of view
In fairness to Karpov, he probably belongs somewhere on these lists if Kasparov is there too. After all, didn’t they play a match or two?
it is very hard to make a list because you are comparing “apfel mit birnen”, how you say in english.
you can decide whether a player belongs to a list of timeless immortal names, but you cannot make a list with a numbered row. that’s my opinion. why? because:
each player represents some aspects of the game of chess, sometimes better than anyone else, sometimes as the only one. and chess has many many aspects which altogether define the art as a whole.
for example: smyslov is not the most famous (neither my favorite), but his play is like music, corcerning this aspect he is by far the best.
“humble man that karpov” is wonderful
My heroes of beauty and braveheart:
Tal
Anderssen
Judit Polgar
Bronstein
Charousek
My list would be:
Fischer
Karpov
Morphy
Capablanca
Tal
How Modest !
People, people… Karpov just put his list in alphabetical order not numerical order, for pete sakes!
Regards,
Paula
What an egotistical prat. No modestry at all… unbelievable
Karpov’s list just shows that one cannot be modest if he wants to be a World Champion.
Wasn’t it Fischer who once said that he likes to see his opponent’s ego crushed.
BTW what’s so good about Kasparov? The only reason he beat Karpov many times in the past was due to the poor health Karpov was in. Karpov had a great lead during their first WCC, I don’t see why Kasparov even deserves to be considered as the best player of all time. And his playing style is crap, he always tries imitate Fischer, but sucks at it. I hope he might return to chess world again and get owned by the players nowdays. Also I hope one day Karpov gets to rematch him and kicks his ass.
To ananym:
“BTW what’s so good about Kasparov? The only reason he beat Karpov many times in the past was due to the poor health Karpov was in. Karpov had a great lead during their first WCC, I don’t see why Kasparov even deserves to be considered as the best player of all time. And his playing style is crap, he always tries imitate Fischer, but sucks at it. I hope he might return to chess world again and get owned by the players nowdays. Also I hope one day Karpov gets to rematch him and kicks his ass”
OK you are kidding right? Their first match was iterrupted but neither one of them wanted to quit -> which means that Karpov wasn’t that bodered with his health (BTW arpov won that match)… Then Kasparov won, and I haven’tread anythihing about Krapovs health problems at the time … It is tru that Kasparov never won agains Krapov like Ficher did against Spassky but that doesn’t mean hes not a great player … plus I think that one must look not only at the world championship matches when it comes to Kasparov but at Lineares and other turnaments – one can say that he was totaly dominant in those event (there were some exception years when Karpov kicked back – but those were exceptions) Kasparov won every magior turnament many times in a row – his dominance of chess was clear to everyone and this certainly makes him one of the greatest players if nt the greates player of all time!
P.S. When is comes to Kasparov – Krapov duels – one must admit that this were two giants of the game – two contrasitng syles of play batling it out and it was clear that both were superiour to anyone else at the time – Karpov won the candidates matches many times in a row – which makes him clearly one of the top players at the time – and in my view the difference in strenght between the two was minimal – this is why both shuld be in a list bcause there is no Kasparov without Karpov!
D.K.
Nothing to say about his lists, but just having in mind that petrosian , lasker and so were not that far away to appear in the list!
To my mind, the list is not a standing, each of the great players that are on it can have any place and any rank in it.
Paula,
Alphabetical order? You’d better check that list again!
Susan,
Do you agree with Karpov’s list?
No, I don’t. We had this subject already with different names, under the “who was the greatest chess player ever” discussion. My opinion is still the same: there is no way to tell. It is mere guessing (good or bad, irrelevant) who was better among those who never played against each other. Surely there can be a judgeable difference between Karpov and Kasparov (because they were contemporaries), but how can Capablanca be evaluated against Kasparov?
Perhaps one day in the future, when computers will be so advanced, somebody will figure out some objective way to perform such evaluation (yes, I know about such current effort, but that’s not good enough yet), but today it is mere guessing.
——————————
One anon said:
humble man that Karpov
I am not a big fan of overblown humility (surprise). A person, any person, in anything, should evaluate self for exactly what he/she is. No more, but no less either. That is what I find ideal.
Gabor
I agree with the names in Karpov list, but not with the order (even if it is comparing “apples with bananas”). My order is:
1. Kasparov
2. Fischer
3. Capablanca
4. Alekhine
5. Tal / Karpov (tie here).
C’est tout.
Hey guys, the list is good and Karpov deserves to be in. He was world champion for 10 years and won almost every tournament in his golden era.
david
There is nothing special about Kasparov, Karpov could’ve easily won over him. But due to health issues and such he unfortunately didn’t, he was hospitalised many times and lost 10 kilos! BTW if Karpov didn’t make any blunders that gave away his win, then I don’t see why he should be considered below Kasparov. I never liked Kasparov’s playing style, he is so boring. What annoys me most is that he’s a fischer wannabe, he thinks he is fischer! BUT HE IS NOT. He needs to know fischer was not that much of a fan with d4, kasparov thinks he’s so great. In 10 years time I can beat kasparov myself, and I mean it.
re anon
you think you can beat Kasparov in ten years? Forget it! I’d bet he would still be able to play at around 2700 then!
>He puts himself above Kasparov. Hahaha. Not very classy to include himself
>
It wouldn’t be very honest not to. In fact, he should have put both himself and Kasparov above Fischer, though Kasparov belongs above Karpov.
Alekhine, a guy best known for ducking a contractually required rematch belongs on the bottom of these 5.
>>
but what about anderssen and tal, anderssen was the player with the most beautuful imagination.
and tal was the lightest and most powerful comet in history.
sorry karpov but to mention yourself in all the lists is against good manners, besides that it is not true from my objective point of view
>>
Not sure you know what the word “objective” means. Look it up. In any case, very few people would put Adolph Anderssen on the all-time Top 5 list. Tal either, though he’d come closer.
>>There is nothing special about Kasparov, Karpov could’ve easily won over him. But due to health issues and such he unfortunately didn’t, he was hospitalised many times and lost 10 kilos!
>>
Hello? Hel-LOOOO? Nobody ever said he lost that match. But Kasparov displayed a small but definite superiority over him in the next 4.
>
BTW if Karpov didn’t make any blunders that gave away his win, then I don’t see why he should be considered below Kasparov.
>
Cause nobody else is throwing out 4 matches and counting only the one they kinda sorta like. That’s why you get the wrong answer here.
>
I never liked Kasparov’s playing style, he is so boring. What annoys me most is that he’s a fischer wannabe, he thinks he is fischer! BUT HE IS NOT. He needs to know fischer was not that much of a fan with d4, kasparov thinks he’s so great. In 10 years time I can beat kasparov myself, and I mean it.
>
Oh, I see. You’re trolling. People have called Karpov’s style boring, but never Kasparov’s. As for wannabe’s, it’s more likely that Fischer is a Kasparov (and Karpov) wannabe than the other way around. Fischer wanted to have the kind of career those two had; to enter every tournament in sight and win them all. He simply wasn’t strong enough to take his few defeats like they were. Fischer won a mere 10 international tournaments his whole career. Karpov has won 160+. No comparison. Kasparov was world number 1 longer than Fischer’s entire career lasted. Fischer just doesn’t compare with those two.
Actually I change my list:
Fischer
Karpov
Tal
Morphy
Adolf Anderssen instead of Capablanca
Kasparov is a Fischer wannabe. Seems obvious talking about Fischer all the time. He is a try hard! Karpov is a different story, he is cool! I really like Karpov’s style and its not boring, Karpov shows originality in his games unlike other GMs. How dare you say Karpov’s boring??! Kasparov is just a wimp, he can never live up to the great reputation of Bobby Fischer ever!
i dont think he answered to objectively, do you?
Some people really get on your nerves, they just open their mouths without thinn¡king, like chimps!!!
I better leave this gospel.
>>What an egotistical prat. No modestry at all… unbelievable
>>
Yes, your hypocrisy is unbelievable, I agree. I doubt you could find any world champion who didn’t consider himself one of the best ever.
At least Karpov doesn’t pretend to still be champion, like Fischer does. Nor does he play exhibition matches with the world’s #100 player and pretend that they’re championship matches.
1.Fischer
1.Capablanca
1.Karpov
1.Kasparov
1.Alekhine
1.Morphy
1.Lasker
MY list:
1-2. Morphy/Alekhine
3-4. Fischer/Kasparov
5-6. Karpov/Tal
Karpov is one of the best chessplayer of the history…
Nobody can contest that…
I am agree with karpov with the same name , but not in the same order…
Much (nonsense!) is said about the order in his greatest-of-all-list, but the very first things that should come to one’s mind is that it’s the order in time!
Every self-called chess-player should recognize this, really.
MY LIST…AGAIN
All 14 WCC one after another in their coming to the throne order.
Please don’t even think about including the fake FIDE world champions after Kasparov split. This is considering match play stronger than tour play.
Polin
Susan,
Is the movie going to be a strictly a bio of yourself, like Searching For Bobby Fischer?
And what did you think of that movie?
No, it is a documentary about the human brain and chess, mine, specifically.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
I loved Karpov’s picks! Here are mine:
1. Morphy – he completely demolished his peers and was head and shoulders above them.
2. Fischer – from 1970 – 1972 he also demolished the whole Soviet Chess Empire and toppled them all by himself! He also was head and shoulders above them all.
3. Capablanca – From 1911 until 1923 he was head and shoulders above them all! In fact, just do some research and see how many games Capa lost during these years! It will astound you!
4. Lasker – He held the title longer than anyone and won more tournaments in a longer time frame against the world’s elite players than any player ever. Sorry, Korchnoi or Kasparov or Karpov do not compare with the good Doctor’s results in longetivity. Just think from 1895 to 1936 he still competed with equal footing against the best!
5. Alekhine – A more profound deep chess player I do not think has ever existed. He is the first true modern player who completely studied openings, opponents, and played all types of positions well. He had an incredible will to win!
6. Karpov – A great player and a modern day Capablanca. He dominated the chess world for ten solid years in both tournaments and matches and destroyed Kasparov in their first match.
7. Kasparov – After the first match with Karpov, he learned and took charge of the chess world from 1986 to 2006. Only Kramnik blemished his record by beating him in the match. Contrary to what Kasparov says, I do not believe he really wanted to play another match with Kramnik again just like he does not want a rematch with Deep Blue again as both beat him. He is a great player but I prefer his games from 1984 – 1991, after that he started weakining. A great player but he never was able to dominate head and shoulders above his peers like Fischer did in 1970-1972 and this his big huge ego cannot take, so he talks a lot of rubbish in his predecessor books trying to make himself to be the greatest of all time. He is one of the greats but not the greatest! Sorry Champ!
Susan,
How about showing some of your sister Sophia’s paintings sometime.
I am a painter myself and would be interested in seeing them.
no no no
1) tie Susan – Judit – Sphia
4) me
5) you
Manyankin,
A strong contribution to this discussion, well done.
Personally I think Kasparow had more opponents towards his own strength as for example Fisher or any other WC before him had. Likewise will it become more difficult to remain dominating over longer periods.
Indeed, Kasparow between 1985-1991 reigned souvereign, but also till deep in the 90’s. Who doesn’t remember tournaments in which he strove for nearly 100% and was discusted he drew against Anand with black pieces.
We still wait for a new ‘Federer’ after Kasparow.
I have a list of the greatest players who never got world champions. With all respect to the latter, there is no doubt that the WC will be remembered, while the deprived ones have to be kept in mind.
1. Carl Schlechter, tied with Eduard Charousek
2. Aaron Nimzovich, tied with Siegbert Tarrasch
3. David Bronstein
4. Viktor Korchnoi
5. Paul Keres
One might argue that a lot of names are missing, such as Junge, Chigorin, Reti, Morphy, or myself. ;). Morphy was not a World Champion since then, there was no championship, but including him would lead to a lot of subsequent questions – what about LaBourdonnais, or Lucena? I wanted to avoid getting into that trouble.
>>3. Capablanca – From 1911 until 1923 he was head and shoulders above them all! In fact, just do some research and see how many games Capa lost during these years! It will astound you!
>>
That’s a little optimistic. 1911 was Capablanca’s tournament debut. It’s far from certain that he was “head and shoulders” above everyone then. It’s quite possible that Lasker would have beaten him if their 1911 match had come off. Even 10 years later, it was close until the old man tired out. Certainly Lasker beat him out in their first head to head battle. When Capa became the best is almost impossible to say.
>>
Not sure you know what the word “objective” means. Look it up. In any case, very few people would put Adolph Anderssen on the all-time Top 5 list. Tal either, though he’d come closer.
>>
you are not very intelligent or you have no sense of humour.
check my comment and try to understand once again.
there are two good reasons to put anderssen in the list:
1. he touches my sense of beauty and braveheart most (among others). plus i have a very personal opinion, free of all what is considered to be correct. you should try to free yourself from the expectations of others, try to find out your “self”.
2. maybe he deserves it even in a “correct” list, but many people did not try to explore his achievements deep enough.
is van gogh “better” than picasso? you can not answer this question objectively, because the question itself is wrong.
it depends on your taste, and on what you are lookung for to get pleasure from a work of art.
>>
A great player but he never was able to dominate head and shoulders above his peers like Fischer did in 1970-1972 and this his big huge ego cannot take,
>>
You seem to place a big premium on dominance, rather than playing strength. If dominance is what matters, then the greatest player is someone who doesn’t even make your list: Philidor, who was hands down the best player in the world for a half century.
Dominance is kind of arbitrary, though. The reason Fischer is more dominant than Kasparov is because one of them had to bang heads with Karpov and the other didn’t. That’s simply an accident of time.
>>
so he talks a lot of rubbish in his predecessor books trying to make himself to be the greatest of all time. He is one of the greats but not the greatest! Sorry Champ!
>>
You also seem to deal a lot in jargon. You take issue with nothing in the books, yet assure us that whatever it is you’re talking about is wrong. Kind of silly. Fischer’s three years of dominance was indeed impressive, but Kasparov was clear #1 for longer than Fischer’s entire career. There’s not much comparison here.
According to Darwin we have to make Kasparow the best of that list.
Former world champions in the past formed strategic rules, many a times by beating opponents in instructive, sometimes funny, miniatures. Later champions took that knowlegde in their luggage and went on.
His list of ‘most solid’ seems correct. I would personally sub Lasker for either Alekhine or Capa on the ‘top five’ though.
I think Karpov is the #2 WC of all time (with Kasparov being #1) so there is no doubt that Karpov should be on the list.
I think his list is in CHRONOLOGICAL order, rather than a ‘ranking’.
If you have a careful look at the ‘top #5’ list you’ll notice that the players are listed IN THE ORDER THAT THEY BECAME WC.
So it is not Karpov being immodest.
capa lasker krammnik kaspy sultan kahn
I wonder if Karpov including himself onto the both lists was just showing sense of humour. Not necessarily that who ones he regards best – after Capablanca (if he ever even have given the subject too serious thought) 🙂
>>According to Darwin we have to make Kasparow the best of that list.
>>
Darwin never said, or implied, any such thing.
>One might argue that a lot of >names are missing, such as Junge,
I don’t think anyone with any sense would argue for Junge. He was a talented junior, who might have gone far if he’d lived longer. Nothing more. There are plenty of talented juniors who never get near the world title.
Lets be honest.The greatest player ever is all the way FISHER, nobody gets close to his mind. He is an inovator the rest are just copycats.
My list is like that,
1.Alekhine
2.Fisher
3.Capa
4.Botvinnik
5.Kramnik