Talk:Anatoly Karpov

message: About his peak Elo rating: it can't be 2725 - I remember him having a higher grade than that, and Chessbase says he was at 2780 in 1994 . I guess that's his peak, though I suppose there's a slim chance he was higher before 1976 (which is when the graph seems to stop), so I won't add it (I'll see if I can check it somewhere). Also, where do the details of his "overall record" (1,118 wins, 287 losses, 1,480 draws) come from? Does this record just include top-level games at normal time controls (as I think it ought to) or does it also include blitz games, off-hand games, simuls and so on? Also, when is it up to? Karpov is sitll playing, so his record is always subject to change. --Camembert
Yeah, I remember him being at 2780 too, I'll use that as the number.  I got the win/loss from www.chessgames.com, which is prety accurate for now.--Etaonish 13:23, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
Arguably his 2720 (around the time of the match with Kasparov?) was more meaningful than his later peak, due to ratings inflation. Anyway, Kasparov and Kramnik are the only ones to have passed the 2800 mark.
****************
Anand and Topalov have since attained the 2800 mark. ````  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abenr (talk • contribs) 00:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: older entries

message: I'm a little bit disappointed that next to nothing is said about Karpov, when not playing chess. -- Pjacobi 15:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps some speaker of Russian has a lot more sources available, but without promising anything, I'll put it on my to-do. See for example: http://www.russiatoday.ru/en/top100/most_fam/3177.html -- Pjacobi 18:51, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Karpov, when not playing chess

message: I seem to remember something about Karpov not washing his hair when he was on a winning streak or something. Was this just a myth? Mintguy (T) 22:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Hair

message: An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Anatoly_Karpov article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add  to this page. — LinkBot 00:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Anatoly_Karpov|Link suggestions]]

message: The statement about his private chess library consisting of 9000 books must be removed together with the external reference (the reference doesn't exist, or at least not anymore) unless we can find a different but suitable reference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlombaard (talk • contribs) 10:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of incorrect references

message: This doesn't make sense but I am not sure what the truth is...
Under "Rival" section this sentence appears:
"Instead, in the final game, needing only a draw to win the title, Karpov blundered on his 33rd and 64th moves and lost, ending the match in a draw and allowing Kasparov to keep the title."
sYx66 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Karpov lost the final game and therefore the 24-game match was a draw. David Sneek 16:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistakes

message: In the  "Towards Retirement" section, it is mentioned that Karpov achieved an ELO rating of 2985, yet in the "Elo Rating System" article, it mentions that "Only Garry Kasparov of Russia, Vladimir Kramnik of Russia, Veselin Topalov of Bulgaria, and Viswanathan Anand of India have ever had a rating of 2800 or above." One of them is wrong. Any thoughts?
:No contradiction there: it doesn't say his rating was 2985, but that his performance rating at that one tournament (Linares 1994) was 2985; in other words, he scored a result there that would normally be expected of a 2985 player. David Sneek 09:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you get 2985 from? Google led me to a site with some chess records (but no references) that gives 2899. That number is mentioned in a chessbase article as well. Besides that, there is no official way to calculate a TPR, so I find it strange to mention this at all. 82.74.127.243 (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating

message: In the "Notable games" section it is stated that in the game Viktor Korchnoi vs Anatoli Karpov, Moscow 1973 Karpov could have won his opponent's queen in the final position. Apparently that is not true, 41. ... Ne3 42. Nd2 leads to a roughly even game maybe with advantage for Karpov, but certainly without a forced queen win. So i think the part about that game should be removed, or at least rewritten, if its still to be considered as a notable game, even with Korchnoi apparently resigning in a position not ripe for resigning.
Desaran (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I've also removed the 1974 game 2 win - that was an opening laboratory win, it's a backhanded compliment to Karpov to put that into his most notable games. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable games

message: Maybe someone, who has the time, should add this fact to the article in a coherent and factual way.
Yes, but there needs to be a reference. 82.70.155.252 (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Karpov is a multi billionaire

message: Byrne, GB Robert - The New King, Anatoly Karpov, The Road to the World Chess Championship, 1976 Bantam Books, Inc.
Karpov, Anatoly - Chess at the Top 1979-1984, Pergammon Press, english translation 1984 K.P. Neat
Karpov, Anatoly - Karpov on Karpov, Memoirs of a Chess World Champion, translated 1991 by Todd Bludeau
Levy, David - Karpov's Collected Games, All 530 Avaliable Encounters: 1961-1974
Mednis, Edmar - How Karpov Wins, 1975, 1994 Dover Publications24.68.50.33 (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Karpov Books

message: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=100515524.68.50.33 (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Karpov's Games

message: Fischer said time and time again that he was still world champion since he never lost a world title match. It is therefor laughable to say that Karpov was ever the undisputed world champion, sure he was undisputed FIDE champion but not the undisputed world champion. If anyone wants to discuss this matter then lets talk about it otherwise the undisputed tags will go down soon without further discussion.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion is that you not cause disruption here (or anywhere else on wikipedia, for that matter).  The article does a good job of explaining the circumstances of Karpov's claim to the World Championship title.  I'm not certain specifically what changes you would like to make to the article, but I suspect that the edits you seem to propose would be reverted by many other editors (WP:RS and WP:UNDUE).  Most of these other editors actually contribute to improving articles, something that is not apparent in your brief contribution history which seems to consist almost entirely of pot-stirring on Talk and Wikipedia space pages with almost no useful work on articles.  I also suspect that many editors don't want to talk with you as it seems to be an entirely unproductive use of the time and energy of people who are actually improving this encyclopedia.  Do not try to use this as implicit approval of your views.  Quale (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's you that's causing the disruption with a personal attack, I simply wanted to discuss this matter with other editors not engage in a food fight, if you don't have an opinion regarding this then I'll see if others do, if nobody does then there are no objections and article changes will be made.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "It's you that's causing the disruption with a personal attack, I simply wanted to discuss this matter with other editors not engage in a food fight" - Ha! Good one! As for the substance of your position, I would be most surprised if you could find a reliable source who regards Fischer as having a legitimate claim to be the world champion after 1975. Since he had refused to play in the 1975 world championship, FIDE had no reasonable choice but to forfeit him and declare Karpov, the challenger, world champion. Krakatoa (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quoting the OP "Fischer said time and time again that he was still world champion since he never lost a world title match. It is therefor laughable to say that Karpov was ever the undisputed world champion".  In a sense Fischer never lost a W.C. match, but he did in effect forfeit the 1975 match.  I don't know of any reliable source that does not consider Karpov the world champion starting in 1975.  If it was "disputed", it was only disputed by Fischer, and Fischer chose not to defend his title against Karpov.  Bubba73 (talk), 06:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

text: FIDE declared Karpov the world champion in 1975 (because Fischer would not defend the title) and that is the direct lineage of the world championship.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just for the record, Fischer resigned his FIDE title first (the only "World Chess Champion" title then in existence), in mid-1974, a resignation which was not accepted by FIDE President Euwe.  See, e.g., this Sports Illustrated article.  Only later did FIDE forfeit him.  --72.70.28.109 (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Priceless ... and this is all explained in which authoritative text on the subject? Brittle heaven (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an obvious conclusion that any reasonable person would come to simply from reading the wikipedia articles regarding these men.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL ... well maybe those with fertile imaginations, eh? Brittle heaven (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be easier to take Fischer's argument that he was still the World Championship seriously if he had continued playing after 1972. He could have refused to play for the World Championship, but still continued to play in tournaments. He could have even played crappy chess, but as long he was playing he could have still argued he was the champion. He never said he retired, but if it quacks it's a duck, and he did retire. When you retire you are no longer World Champion.BashBrannigan (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow - I know Fischer claimed that he was still World Champion, and that Karpov and Kasparov's match games were all pre-agreed, but I didn't realize that there was anyone else on Earth who actually believed that. Bobby would be proud of you, 194x. Krakatoa (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of undisputed tags 

message: Karpov was champion for ten years.  He was an unusually dominant tournament player for a champion.  Nonetheless, the statement that "only Emanuel Lasker and Garry Kasparov have ever enjoyed comparable long-term dominance" is ridiculous.  First of all, it is unsourced opinion.  Second, it is blatantly false.  Mikhail Botvinnik, for example, was clearly one of the top five players in the world from 1936 until 1963, a period of 27 years.  Certainly there is no need to elevate Karpov's dominance over Steinitz, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Smyslov or Fischer.
Moreover, calling Karpov a humanitarian when he was a devout Communist is more than a bit of a stretch.
Wikipedia should strive for fact, not the biased opinion of a fan.  This intro is an embarrassment
Fielding
````
: When it is talking about Karpov's long dominance, I think it means the number of years as world champion.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, what Bubba73 said plus I think the sentence is referring to dominance as consecutive years as champion.  Botvinnik's achievement was remarkable, but his reign was interrupted repeatedly as he never won a championship match as reigning champion.  (The tie with Bronstein allowed him to retain the title in 1950, but he lost every other match as champion and regained his title in the return matches.)  It may be that the claim could be made clearer, and it definitely needs to be sourced.  The IP added material had a kernel of truth but was unsourced, biased, and constituted undue weight.  It seems designed solely to smear Karpov, probably with the intent to elevate Fischer.  The World Chess Championship 1978 article needs considerable expansion and there is plenty of room there to detail the bizarre antics on both sides of that match.  The chess itself and the course of the match also made it one of the most dramatic in championship history as well.  There was no way to know then that it would be exceeded later by the K-K matches. Quale (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Steinitz was official world champion for only 8 years.  Of course, he was probably the strongest in the world before that.  Karpov was undisputed world champion for 10 years and then the FIDE world champion for six more years during the disputed era.  (and during that period everyone still considered Kasparov stronger than KArpov, IMO.)  Bubba73 (talk), 05:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Karpov's 10 consecutive years as world champion is an unusually long reign; in chess history, only Lasker and Kasparov had longer reigns. Note also that between 1935 and 1985 inclusive there were only three matches in which the reigning world champion won, and two were Karpov's: Petrosian-Spassky 1966, Karpov-Korchnoi 1978, and Karpov-Korchnoi 1981. (Botvinnik was world champion for 13 out of 15 years, but amazingly never won a one-on-one match as world champion; he drew Bronstein in '51, drew Smyslov in '54, lost to Smyslov in '57, as the challenger won the rematch in '58, lost to Tal in '60, as the challenger won the rematch in '61, and lost to Petrosian in '63.) While world champion, Karpov also had unusual success in tournaments; he was far more successful in that regard than, for example, Petrosian, Spassky, and of course Fischer (who never played in a tournament after becoming world champion). I don't have a source at hand, but I have heard that he won more tournaments than anyone in history (most of those while he was reigning world champion). Krakatoa (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for correcting me both on the year of Bronstein v. Botvinnik and also the first tied championship match with Smyslov which I had forgotten.  Of course I could have looked that up instead of trying to rely on memory if I were a little less lazy, since I hear that somewhere there's a free online encyclopedia with fair but improving coverage of chess topics.... Quale (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've been meaning to look for that encyclopedia thing myself. Krakatoa (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

text: "Steinitz is generally considered to have been World Champion for 28 years." Not true; this is a controversial matter. From the Wilhelm Steinitz article:There is a long-running debate among chess writers about whether Steinitz' reign as World Chess Champion began in 1866, when he beat Anderssen, or in 1886, when he beat Zukertort.[25][36] In April 1894 the British Chess Magazine described Steinitz as holding "the chess championship of the world for 28 years".[37] However there is no evidence that he claimed the title for himself in 1866, although in the 1880s he claimed to have been the champion since his win over Anderssen.[38] It has been suggested that Steinitz could not make such a claim while Paul Morphy was alive.[39] – Morphy had defeated Anderssen by a far wider margin, 8–3, in 1858, but retired from chess competition soon after he returned to the USA in 1859, and died in 1884. The 1886 Steinitz-Zukertort match was the first that was explicitly described as being for the World Championship Krakatoa (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

text: What odd statements.  First, the thing that gives wikipedia a bad name are edits like these.  If an experienced and knowledgable chess editor like Krakatoa disagrees with you, you ought to consider whether it's possible that you're wrong.  That's what I do when he and I differ.  Second, based on what we've seen here I don't doubt that you could argue whether water was wet, but that too is irrelevant.  I don't see anything that anyone wrote that said you can't compare Steinitz to Karpov.  Be our guest.  Karpov compares rather favorably.  Karpov's match record is at least as good as Steinitz's (probably Karpov is better) and his tournament record is incomparably better than that of Steinitz, as Steinitz didn't really impress in that format. Quale (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, I really believe Karpov's match record is better than Steinitz's.  Kortchnoi being old did not seem to work against him.  His chess was much stronger in the 1970s than it had been earlier in his career as he was one of the extremely rare players whose strength markedly increased after age 40.  Karpov's matches against Kasparov alone, who I would rate as the greatest chess player in history, support this.  Those matches were as close as any in championship history.  Unfortunately by the time Steinitz received an equivalent test of his strength against Lasker he was too old.  Steinitz greatly outclassed his contemporaries but he didn't have many true rivals in that era.  This isn't his fault and it is really unfair to discount Steinitz because he was so far ahead of those in his time, but competitive chess since the 1980s is much, much tougher than it was even in Fischer's time let alone in Steinitz's.  (Fischer of course was another admirer of Steinitz.)  Fischer would have had to significantly up his game to have been dominant in the era following him.  There's no particular reason to believe he couldn't have done that had he chosen to, but the time of a monstrous gap in skill and knowledge of the game between the best player and his closest rivals seems to be gone, probably forever.  Steinitz's rather poor showing in tournaments is a stark contrast to his immediate successors Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine, each of whom was outstanding in tournaments.  It is true that Steinitz's contributions to the understanding of chess strategy can't be overstated, and Lasker always acknowledged his debt to his predecessor.  There will never be a single player who changes the whole concept of how chess is played to the extent that Steinitz did, and he occupies a unique and honored place in the chess pantheon.  But judging on the overall body of competitive play, I think Karpov's work is superior.  P.S. Kasparov's recent books are great, but (in general, not on this specific issue) there are concerns about historical inaccuracies in them so they bear scrutiny, as does any source.  Also, as I'm sure you understand, it is particularly hard to take Kasparov as a neutral source on Karpov.  Karpov was involved in some unseemly activity in some of his matches, but so was Kortchnoi and this requires careful, sourced edits.  Better coverage at World Chess Championship 1978 would be a good start.  Quale (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

text: That sounds OK to me, and link to the section: Methods for comparing top chess players throughout history#World Champions by world title reigns.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: On reading this piece as it stood, it became obvious that there was some work to do-it was hard to imagine how this ever became a feature article in the first place. There's more to be done, but I trust things are headed in the right direction.
Hushpuckena (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed template now. If there is still peacock or POV issue please feel free to add them back but explain the bit here on the talk so they can be resolved. SunCreator (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Revisions 

message: Asteriod 90414 Karpov is named for Karpov.  I couldn't find a good place to put it in the article right now, but it would be nice to get it in somewhere.  I wonder what other chess players have had asteroids named for them? Quale (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asteroid [[90414 Karpov]] 

message: I don't know if Karpov's article would be the right place to talk about it but I have found no mention of the complex politics that occured during the recent elections for the FIDE presidant. If there is an article about it could anyone please show me where it is. The Gaon (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidacy for FIDE 

message: Karpov can't be a soviet grandmaster if the soviet union does not exist. The Gaon (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet 

message: Does anyone think that Karpov's Immortal (played at Linares 1994) should be added to the notable games section.The Gaon (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! This was long overdue; though there are many fine Karpov games, this surely rates as one of his best. Hushpuckena (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karpov v Topalov 

message: The photograph used in this article is horrible. Is no preferable photograph in the public domain? Toccata quarta (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are the few available on Commons.  I don't think the one used is horrible, but maybe the first one is a little better.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that one is used later in the article.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I just read this entry for the first time in a few years, and it has gotten much worse.  All references to Karpov's negative behavior in the Kortchnoi and Kasparov matches has been deleted.  All references to Karpov's role in the Soviet Union's Commmunist Party have been deleted.  These issues are well documented and not open to honest debate.  Karpov was a great chess player, has taken on some positive causes in the last ten years, and even visited Kasparov when he was imprisoned, but he is not a humanitarian.  This article is half fact, and half propaganda.````  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fielding99 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Not an accurate or balanced portrait

message: I did some minor cleanup of the cite book template parameters. Template:Cite book/doc#Authors says not to Wikilink author names, but to use the "author-link" parameter instead. Moreover, since the books listed were authored by Karpov himself, I'm not sure if it's necessary to keep listing him as the author and wikilinking to himself. Therefore, I suggest using the "author-mask" parameter for all references to Karpov and removing the "author-link" parameters. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using "cite book" 

message: The first four items of the "Further reading" section do not use templates. That's no big deal, really since all of the parameters for  can be added manually. The order of parameters of the first 4 books was, however, different from entries nos. 5-9, so I just rearranged to wording for the sake of consistency per WP:CITESTYLE so that they basically look the same as the templated entries. If there's a consensus to switch them over to "cite book" templates per WP:CITEVAR, then all that needs to be done is add the templates.
In addition, I did some minor cleanup such as adding a wikilink for Dover Publications since this appears to be the same "Dover" referred to in the entry for Fine's The World's Great Chess Games, adding an ISBN-13 for Hurst's book as well as  fixing the capitalization and adding a "publishing company" for Winter's book.
Finally, not sure if Karpov's book Anatoly Karpov's Best Games should be in this section. It seems more appropriate for the "Books" section. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: WP:ORDER recommends that "Works or Publications"  should come before "References". Since its safe to assume that "Books" equals "Works or Publications" , I think it should swap places with "References" in the article. Personally, I think "References" should come at the very end just before any footers, but that's just my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: I dont know if it is worthy to add here or not but here is his top5 in no particular order: Capablanca (his teacher), Tal, Fischer, Kasparov and himself. http://www.chessintranslation.com/2010/03/karpov-on-the-pozner-show/ --Sir artur (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  His top5 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anatoly Karpov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100305224226/http://www.chessvibes.com:80/reports/karpov-candidate-for-fide-president/ to http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/karpov-candidate-for-fide-president/#more-22636
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060629052152/http://www.karpov.on.ru:80/ to http://www.karpov.on.ru/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anatoly Karpov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110218055011/http://www.watch-clone.com/articles/c4.html to http://www.watch-clone.com/articles/c4.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.karpov.on.ru/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Karpov played five matches against Kasparov for the title from 1984 to 1990 without ever defeating him in a match, later becoming FIDE World Champion once again after Kasparov broke away from FIDE in 1993."  This is confusing and does not appear accurate. Karpov beat Kasparov for the first 5 games of the Wold Campion match in 84 (5 vs 3 before it was stopped); then the next year Kasparov won the title with 13 vs 11 for Karpov.76.14.117.19 (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing, misleading wording