In a recent one-hour interview on the Echo of Moscow radio station the 12th World Chess Champion Anatoly Karpov talked about how Magnus Carlsen compares to Bobby Fischer and himself. Although he feels Carlsen is yet to reach the same level he notes that the young Norwegian is a better leader of the chess world than Vladimir Kramik or Viswanathan Anand before him. Karpov also talks about the way Elo ratings have been used to determine qualification, which he describes as a “crime against chess”.

Karpov was talking to the radio station’s co-founder and first editor-in-chief Sergey Korzun, who at one point in the interview asks about Carlsen. Anatoly notes they've played each other many times, though he doesn't mention that he fell victim to the 13-year-old future World Champion:



Korzun asks whether Carlsen can be considered a phenomenon like Fischer:

Anatoly Karpov: I think both Fischer and I were stronger, but Magnus is still developing and he really knows what he’s doing. His opening repertoire could be more varied and he could also work more, but nevertheless, he has a wonderful memory and his own take on the opening and other issues. What impresses me about Carlsen is his understanding of the role and significance of the World Champion – the title of World Champion. Anand, for instance, was egotistic and I could probably say the same about Kramnik. They worked on preparing for tournaments, earning money and, naturally, they tried to retain the title, but they never really fulfilled the role of leader of the chess world. I think chess lost a lot because of that, and the popularity of chess fell. Magnus, though, really senses that he’s not only World Champion but also the leader of the whole chess movement, and therefore I’m hopeful about what he does and not only his play in World Championship matches. Incidentally, the next match with Anand is about to start. Amazingly Anand is going to challenge again.



Sergey Korzun: Why is that amazing?



Somehow after the heavy defeat Anand suffered at the hands of Carlsen I thought he wouldn’t be able to gather himself, simply because his play was ignominious, inept – he lost two [sic] games and the rest were draws. He couldn’t even win a game. Moreover, he lost some basic positions. I’d never seen him like that before and, I think, it’s obvious he developed a Carlsen complex. You can see, however, that he prepared seriously and, no doubt taking advantage of the fruits of his preparation for the World Championship match, he again managed to overcome all his rivals in the qualification cycle and, on the 7th November , a Carlsen-Anand World Championship match will begin in Sochi.

Does Carlsen’s record rating mean something? You said that Fischer and you probably played stronger than Carlsen does now in your best periods.

Well, ratings are a very debatable indicator. Chess ratings were invented by Arpad Elo, an American professor.

Who they’re named after.

Yes, he was of Hungarian origin, I think, but lived in the US. When I was World Champion I had quite a long discussion with him about the problem of ratings and the idea of using them. He told me then that he’d never thought or wished – and in fact it was something he was categorically opposed to – his rating would become not relative but in many cases absolute. Even a difference of 5 points can mean you make it into an Interzonal or Candidates Tournament while someone else misses out. He said his rating was a very rough estimate of the balance of power, but couldn’t distinguish by 2-3 points, or 5 or even 10 who’s stronger than someone else.

And what the World Chess Federation (FIDE) went and did with it is, I think, simply a crime against chess, and a continuing crime. Ratings are now rising – I haven’t looked into the mathematical formulae for why it’s happening, but it seems to me there’s an issue – since Fischer had 2760 at his peak, and I got to 2730 or 2735, but when I was rated 2720 Korchnoi was second and he was 2670, so there was a 50-point gap. That indicates something, of course, as it does that Fischer, when he reached that peak, was dozens of points – even close to a hundred – above his rivals. That’s significant. But as for ratings having an absolute significance… well, now they’ve got to 2800. In my day I became World Champion when the best chess players had ratings at about 2600, 2700. After Fischer I was the first to reach 2700, but at that time 2650 was a great rating, while now 2650 – perhaps even… no, maybe you still make it into the Top 100 with 2650.

Rating inflation has taken place?

Inflation is obvious, yes.