Kasparov: Fischer’s 1972 rating 'much more significant' than Carlsen’s current rating

In a telephone interview Garry Kasparov expressed the opinion that Bobby Fischer’s 1972 rating was 'much more significant' than Carlsen’s current rating. The 13th World Champion said this yesterday to Viktoria Korpan for Estonian newspaper Postimees.
Kasparov, who turns 49 today, is going to appear with the Estonian President at the Pärnu Finance Conference on April 19th. They will talk about "the role of innovation in the modern world".
On this occasion, Postimees spoke with Kasparov yesterday and published a lengthy interview about Russian politics, Chess in Schools and his new book. The following part was probably of most interest to chess fans. Asked 'who stands out among the young chess players', Kasparov answered:
The most talented is Carlsen, who is of course a star of the first order. In contrast to the situation in athletics, chess records depend on “inflation”. When I was climbing to the top you’d count one or two people with a 2700 rating and that was that, while now it’s at least 45 people.
In fact, due to the increase in those playing chess the base of the pyramid has grown, and that adds points at every level. Fischer’s rating was 2785 in 1972, but that’s of course much more significant than Carlsen’s higher rating now. It can be compared to my 2851 in 1999. The evolutionary factor is having an impact, so despite the mathematical basis of ratings I nevertheless wouldn’t attribute such historical importance to them.
When Fischer was climbing to the top he’d score +6, I’d score +6-7, while Carlsen scores +3-4. That's simply enough, as the pyramid really has grown, and today’s super-tournaments are now rated above 2750. The only tournament with a similar rating was in 1996. At the tournament in Las Palmas, which featured myself, Karpov, Kramnik, Anand, Ivanchuk and Topalov, the top six were all playing. That tournament was unique, although by current standards the ratings of the top players weren’t the highest. So you have to take that into account if you want to carry out a historical analysis.
Translation by Colin McGourty
Latest articles
-
11 min 20 sec ago
-
1 day 1 hour ago
-
1 day 15 hours ago
-
1 day 16 hours ago
-
2 days 18 hours ago
-
3 days 14 hours ago
-
3 days 17 hours ago
-
4 days 13 hours ago
-
5 days 16 hours ago
-
5 days 16 hours ago
-
6 days 3 hours ago
-
6 days 14 hours ago
-
6 days 19 hours ago
-
1 week 1 hour ago
-
1 week 15 hours ago
-
1 week 22 hours ago
-
1 week 1 day ago
-
1 week 1 day ago
-
1 week 1 day ago
-
1 week 2 days ago










Comments
Kostas
1 year 1 month ago
Permalink
The only sensible question that could raise constructive conversation is: Which player in chess history had (at his best - let's say 2year -period) the biggest strength difference with his close rivals?
Alfonso
1 year 1 month ago
Permalink
Philidor, Greco, Polerio?
With less players than today, it is easier to have bigger strength differences...
In "modern" times I would highlight Lasker (1896-1900), Botvinnik (1946-1948), Fischer (1971-72) and the duo Karpov-Kasparov (1988-1989), aprox.
1-pac
1 year 1 month ago
Permalink
Happy Birthday Garry!
Thank you for all the great moments.
(and if you've been thinking about coming back to chess, what about doing it big: play Anand. A friendly match. It doesn't have to be for the points, nor the crown, or the fame: but for chess. To celebrate chess. And I don't think he will turn down such an opportunity to play with you once again... One of the greatest players of all time playing another great... priceless)
patyolat
1 year 1 month ago
Permalink
Kasparov at his best. He badmouths Carlsen just like Pele badmouths Messi. When you watch football from 40 years ago, it is like watching third league today. There wasn't that much money in football than, they trained three times a week, it wasn't that hard for a not too talented, but extremely hardworking player to stand out. As Nakamura, the only top ten player who wasn't afraid to give his opinion about Kasparov, said:
"Mainly it’s the opening preparation he did with his team over the past 20-25 years of his chess career."
"I mean you look at middlegames or endgames and I’m quite convinced there are other players who are better than he was, but he was able to get advantages out of the openings so that was his main strength."
Anonymous
10 months 1 week ago
Permalink
Didn't Naka recently say he was not familiar with a position from the Naj Sicilian that GK played as black against Karpov. (game 24, 1985, Moscow WC) ..even I as a lowly Expert know the position and the game Naka was referring to ....So he's either lying or he's .....lying, as no GM would not know such an important from that variation of the Naj Sicilian...Either way for Naka to represent himself as knowing something about the profundity of GK's play in absurd.
jorjos
1 year 1 week ago
Permalink
In my view the best player in history is Fischer,
then Kasparov, Morphy and Capablanca.
Fischer would score +10
Kasparov +8
newshutz
10 months 1 week ago
Permalink
I took a 35 year break in tournament chess, and my rating jumped 500 points in the first year of my return.
Some of that was due to rating inflation in the interim. I hope some of it was due to more maturity in study habits :)
serg
8 months 4 weeks ago
Permalink
In my opinion, Fischer would get a +8, +9
Kasparov +6, +7
Carlsen +3, +4
serg
8 months 4 weeks ago
Permalink
In my opinion, Fischer would get a +8, +9
Kasparov +6, +7
Carlsen +3, +4
serg
8 months 4 weeks ago
Permalink
naka may say what he wants.
Kasparov is a genius.
Fischer is a (super)genius.
Naka is rubbish.
You only need to analise the games and results.
Pages
Your comment
By posting a comment you are agreeing to abide our Terms & Conditions