Who is better carlsen and kasparov

Then from Kasparov remained world champion against every contender until he finally found himself deposed by Vladimir Kramnik. Kasparov lost two games as black, the only two losses of the match and that was enough to see him dethroned.

His peak ELO rating was which is the second highest rating in history. Kasparov retired in and was still considered to be the best player in the world, even though he was no longer world champion, by everyone in the game. He grabbed his Grandmaster laurels at the tender age of He broke the ELO rating level of at just 18!

He slipped into the world number one position at the age of In short, he got to all these milestones faster than Kasparov did. His peak ELO rating is the rating that he holds today of And winning 15 in a row is really dominating for the competition that he has at the time. Kasparov of course won more than just the 15 in a row, it is just that such is the one highlighted the most during that time. Carlsen has won 26 super tournaments in the course of 8 years but never did so 15 in a row.

He is way more active than Gary Kasparov and has accomplished around the same winning rate despite the loss in statistics. And in terms of competition, Magnus plays around major super tournaments where every participant is a potential contender plus. Kasparov has more world championship titles a total of six in his entire career over 15 years of being world champion. Carlsen is catching up with a total of 4 after becoming world champion for only seven years.

We are not sure if Magnus would still keep the title for years to come and overtake Garry, or the other way around. And Kasparov has maintained this status after battling a total of six world championship titles which is better than Magnus currently. Personally on the way things are heading, I say Carlsen would be better if he even just tied with Kasparov due to his other achievements. But again, we are not sure if Magnus could retain the title since after all, Kasparov himself loses his own title unexpectedly.

He was the reigning best player heading toward the s only to suddenly lose against Vladimir Kramnik in their world championship match. Kasparov reached in over 10 years which is a superhuman achievement that none in his generation have reached during his time. Carlsen rises from top to top 10 at such a meteoric rate that surpasses the speed of even Kasparov himself.

The gap demonstrates clearly the difference between Kasparov to the rest of his peers rating-wise. However, I do believe that this is even more of a reason why the Carlsen is so amazing because the competition is higher. Yes Magnus has more competition, but he also has more resources to properly deal with the opponents computers, modern knowledge, etc. I think he would dominate all the same. Kasparov played against opponents who are barely , so a loss would have landed him some blows.

However, this just means that Carlsen is not fighting against weaker opponents who are not leagues below him. It means that more or less the results should be more equal, which is not since he dominates. The game has just become more and more saturated at the top as time goes by, and for Carlsen to excel is incredible.

Although he reached his peak rating at around the year , it is still a way different environment from computer-driven games now. Magnus has better achievements than Kasparov in their respective age, being one of the youngest grandmasters at 13 years old, tying Kasparov at age 22 when they become world champion but reached his peak rating just one year after.

Magnus Carlsen was four years younger than Kasparov when he got his grandmaster title 13 years old. Kasparov is already around 17 when he completed his grandmaster norms and becomes fully-fledged, much later than Magnus.

This seeks to see how much improvement both players have made from the start of their career heading into professional games. Both Carlsen and Kasparov became world champion at age 22, roughly at the same time. This means that even when Carlsen reached the grandmaster title first he took a little longer to get the title compared to Kasparov. However I will note that Carlsen has become at least top 10 for a very long time before even getting the title, he is fast, just not in getting the title.

Kasparov outshined his competitors for over 15 years displaying unmatched longevity, something Carlsen has yet to show. Though Carlsen has become more dominant in his era where no one could even come close Kasparov has Karpov as a rival. But Kasparov didn't need good looks, charisma is something he surely isn't lacking in, as one has read about him and come to the conclusion about his strong character and body language. Even Kasparov made mistakes, as has Carlsen. Had Kasparov played like Karpov, we wouldn't discuss the possibility of Carlsen being even greater than the great K.

That's also the case in chess. During the Soviet era of dominance, we had way more interesting personalities. We had Alekhine, the attacker who played young and elegant chess.

Botvinnik with his logical contributions. Smyslov, who played smart chess. Bronstein, who was a very likeable man and great player. Tal, the master of initiative and scorching play. Spassky, the charismatic World Champion.

Korchnoi, the relentless all-arounder. Overly conservative Petrosian. The greatest positional player, Karpov and his smothering chess. And Kasparov. I already described him and maybe I headed the wrong route here, but my point still stands.

The personality of classical chess is long gone, we are only left with positional chess games. I don't even get so happy thinking about the vast amount of chess prodigies. No personality means no fun. The greatest player of the greatest chess era is Kasparov, everything else is just senseless logic and noise. Kasparov is the better man. You cannot compare Carlsen to Kasparov. By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.

Google Search. Post Your Opinion. Create New Poll. Sign In Sign Up. Add a New Topic. Is Magnus Carlsen a much better player chess than Garry Kasparov? Asked by: archwarrior. If you gave them the resources Magnus has had for his entire chess career and given it to Kasparov and Fischer to use for their entire chess career and then paired them off each other The first bold sentence is the reason why this forum was made.

The 2nd bold sentence indicates that you probably voted for Carlsen. Very well said. The resources like computer analysis and teams supporting players have made it a very different game from the organic and natural chess world of Fischer and Kasparov. I am actually a bit sad about the change, as memorizing engine lines and relying on a team of grandmasters are both far removed from the beautiful idea of the game.

I never voted for Carlsen, im not partaking in your forums question. I'm giving you facts. It's like asking if Paul Morphy would ever beat Magnus, the question answers itself. If you didn't vote, then I'll erase your vote anyway. My question was asked to make a debate kind of thing and to recieve people's opinions. If you want to ruin the whole thing, please go to another forum. Forums Chess Players. Aug 7, 1. Title says it all.