If Garry didn't exist, how do you think this would've effected Karpov's career and how he's perceived? Would he possibly be considered the greatest player ever?

He was getting towards the end of his prime by the time he lost his crown to Garry in 1985. He was already 34. Without Kasparov he might have held onto the title for some years longer and he certainly would have won many more tournaments in his career. I'm not sure how much it would affect his status, I doubt many people would list him as an all time greatest contender still though.

Karpov went though much of his prime without having to be concerned about Kasparov and it doesn't seem to me as though he was ever as dominant Fischer, Lasker and Capablanca were (and probably a few others).

I don't know much of anything that would actually help answer this, but here's part of an OP from a thread that didn't go far not too long ago:

I can't see how Karpov was peaking at 43 when he lost his Candidates Match to Short at that age and then Short went on to get destroyed by Kasparov. I'd buy that he was at his peak as late as 40 years old but still that's only 5 years after he lost his title which he had held for 10 years. So I think he would have had an extra 3 -5 years as WC, 7 at the very most. I guess my point was I don't see this making enough of a difference.

I'm not that knowledgeable about this either, I could easily be wrong with my opinions.

Well, Karpov did beat out all others to rematch for the World Title in every match of the 80's after he lost, as well as 1990.

Could we assume that Karpov would have held the World Title until the early 90's and then lost it to Nigel Short (who defeated him in a candidates match in 1993) for a short period before perhaps regaining it when he had his peak rating performances in 1994? I don't know who exactly outmatched him after that, but he did defeat Anand, who a short time later challenged Kasparov for the World Title.

Also, since Karpov retained his World Title with a "massacre" in 1978, and conceivably was the best player other than Kasparov in the World for the next 15 years, could that put him in a GOAT discussion? Especially without Kasparov's reign to compare it to?

There are countless seemingly illogical triangles in chess, at all levels, where:

A crushes B
B crushes C
C crushes A

For instance:

A = Kasparov
B = Shirov
C = Kramnik

In any case I think this thread would be much more interesting in reverse. How dominant would Kasparov have been without Karpov? Karpov, in a way, created what would become Kasparov.

Another interesting one is how dominant would Karpov been had he been able to play Fischer and won? I think a lot of Karpov's motivation came from the fact that he was seen by some as a not entirely legitimate world champion since he won the crown by default against the person many at the time considered the best player of all time. If he had managed to play and defeat Fischer I wonder if he would have had the same sort of drive.

i agree with DIR, karpov probably would of been better if he would of been able to play fisher, u can only get better alone whie imo kasparov got that good because of karpov pushing in the back ( or more like puhsing him on the side.....cause the record on matches is only +1 for kasparov over 100 games..)

I don't think you can go off on game record alone. It is like comparing Federer vs. Nadal rivalry on total points won.

The ability to close the match is of paramount importance in all sports (chess, tennis and poker included).

Not sure if i am right but the macth in 1987 finish as a tie and kasparov won the match in 1990 by 1 win more because karpov needed to win with black for not being a tie again .... So he took a risk and kasparov just win a brillant game tho .

Seems pretty equal to me aalegend , total game or not.

Fischer in his prime would have been too strong for Karpov. I remember the epic Karpov v Korchnoi match and I think Karpov was a bit lucky to shade that. I am not knocking Karpov but Fischer was great and Korchnoi was very talented as well.

Some harsh comments about Karpov here!

IMO he was way better than Fischer by 1974 but most of that could be down to Fischer's inactivity. Chess was moving on and he wasn't. Fischer in his prime could be another matter but I'm not sure how easily Karpov would be psyched out like some of Bobby's opponents.

As a tournament player he was domninant until Kasparov came along and but for a slip in a won position would have closed out the infamous first match. Altough Short beat him in 93 I'm not sure he could have over 24 games. Short was a top player who was enjoying his peak years but I still rate him behind Adams who would have been a stronger contender.

IMO at the time he was untouchable in tournaments until Kasparov came along so I guess the arguement would be he could have continued at that level for a while.

Obviously yes. Had Kasparov not come along, it's almost certain that Karpov would have held the title until at least the early 1990s), since he dusted every potential challenger out there on his way to all the KK matches. You could make a very very good case that he's the second best player ever.

I don't think Kasparov, gun to head, would even say he was vastly superior to Karpov - I remember one quote where even in their most contentious periods, they would sometimes postmortem. Kasparov was asked about it and said something like "Yeah we aren't friends. But who else in the world can I discuss these games with?".

I suspect Karpov would have won the French Open a lot more.