But likewise, one on one Kasparov is never going to get a shot off against Jordan. He’d be lucky to manage to dribble the ball three times.
You’re right, he wouldn’t be able to dribble at all against Jordan. But in a standard game of “make it take it”, he could get the ball from Jordan and throw up a prayer. He could also practice his 3 point shooting and get to where he could make a decent amount (15% maybe). I think those 15%'s would add up faster than Jordan could ever learn to play chess at Kasparov’s level.
Yeah, if we’re talking one-on-one after as much training as needed then I think Kasparov has a much better shot. Jordan will basically never learn the skills to compete at Chess at that level but some physical training, basketball training, and insane luck could get Kasparov a win eventually. The big question is whether Kasparov can get quick enough to make Jordan play off him just a little bit so he can jack up enough 3s to win.
Otherwise the only answer is a battle of aging, in which case I still think Kasparov has the edge. They will both be broken-down old men eventually but it’s likely Kasparov’s brain will remain in shape longer than Jordan’s legs. And two old men jacking up prayers is certainly something Kasparov could win eventually.
I think people miscomprehend the gulf between someone like Kasparov and other (non-GM) chess players. This is a player who played simultaneous games against young GMs (German one time, Israeli another) and did not lose a game…and these were grandmasters who had planned for the big game against him. There’s simply no chance of this happening without significant illness being involved.
Would you make the same evaluation if we were talking about present day Karpov?
OP is stipulating 1 on 1 for basketball. No Make it, Take it. Kasparov difficulties would be on defense. There are HOF caliber guards that couldn’t stop Jordan. Couple this with glee’s posts of Kasparov dominance and we have a draw.
I didn’t think it through when I posted the OP but I like Roland Orzabal idea of reverting back to their respective primes. I realize I picked Jordan because of the nature of chess is such that one bad move can mean a loss. But could Jordan ever reach the level to force Kasparov into a mistake?
I agree that it’s a draw, practically speaking, but on a computer simulation level I think it’s significant advantage Kasparov for no reason other than the fact that chance has a role in a basketball game. Even a slight influence of randomness tilts the scales heavily in favor of Kasparov, since chess is basically brain directly against brain. He’ll capture that piece a billion times out of a billion in any “live game” scenario.
I disagree that Kasparov’s most serious problems would come on defense in the other situation, though. Jordan’s jumpers and layups could roll out some percentage of the time; he won’t dunk every single possession unless he’s playing for his literal life or something. But Jordan could with limited effort prevent a single one of Kasparov’s shots from having a greater than, say, a one in a thousand chance of going in. You don’t really realize what six-six and much quicker than you means until it’s in your grill.
There is no amount of training that could make that happen, just like there’s no amount of training that could make Jordan a Kasparov-level chess master. I am not sure exactly how tall Kasparov is, but I see one online estimate that he’s 5’10." That’s about average anyway, so it’ll do as an estimate. So Jordan is eight inches taller, with long arms and phenomenal leaping ability. He could play off Kasparov and still block his shot with ease. The idea that Kasparov could get lucky and nail seven threes in a row over Michael Jordan is every bit as absurd as the idea that Jordan could become a Kasparov-level chess master. Yes, chess is primarily mental and basketball is more physical, but at these kinds of levels, you either have that transcendent talent or you don’t. You can maximize your talent, but if you don’t have it, you’re not going to compete with these guys.
Even an ideally-conditioned Kasparov would be unable to keep Jordan away from the rim. Like you said, the differences in size and strength and speed are enormous. That means that even if Jordan didn’t want to blow past him, he could still back him down with ease and get close to the hoop that way. In either eventuality, he’s going to get off makeable shots and he’ll get the rebound over Kasparov almost every time, which means even more makeable shots.
I mean, Michael Jordan is better than Garry Kasparov at basketball, yes. He would beat the shit out of him on offense as well as defense. But you’re using words like “makeable” and “almost every time,” which is my point. A makeable shot is a shot you miss sometimes; a rebound you get almost every time is one you don’t get sometimes. So some percentage of the time - a higher percentage of the time than he’d make the one in a thousand sprinting-backwards-running-hook he’d need to take against a fully engaged Jordan – Kasparov would be successful on defense.
I appreciate your use of statistics 
(there’s been too many unsupported claims about chess.)
And certainly Kasparov will drop to 2650 eventually. But Jordan will never get near him on rating.
Take GM Korchnoi, who played Karpov in a World Championship match.
Korchnoi 2000 - 2012
Korchnoi was 2650 (aged 68) and is now 2560 (aged 80.)
Sure, Karpov lost a piece in 12 moves in this game.
One such blunder in around 3,500 tournament games.
But he only resigned because his opponent was a Grandmaster (Christiansen.)
If he was playing a weak player he’d play on … and not lose.
Kasparov gave a two pawn handicap to Terence Chapman in a 4 game match. Chapman hadn’t played for a while (though he had intensive training with Grandmasters for the event), but he was probably around 2100 ELO (his current rating is 2260.)
Kasparov won the match!
Firstly this small % has to include a win - not just a handful of draws.
Secondly, from your link:
“So this tells me that when you have a rating advantage of 700, 800, or even 900 points, you are typically scoring up there in the 98% to 100% level, despite the fact that you are only expected to score 92% according to the Elo formula being used.”
It’s clear to me that Jordan will never get within 1000 points of Kasparov.
You certainly need the chess ‘talents’ (memory, concentration, pattern recognition, patience, enjoyment of abstract thought) to reach the distinguished ranks of 2050.
This is a strong club player (county player here in the UK.)
If someone hasn’t shown these qualities by getting interested in chess by age 50, it’s reasonable to assume their talents lie elsewhere.
Ah, OK. I think I get it now. If you’re saying that Kasparov would be successful on defense because Jordan would miss a small percentage of shots and Kasparov would be able to get the rebound a small percentage of those times, then I agree with you.
Maybe. But, consider that there are apparently 1300+ grandmasters whereas there are only 310 people in the basketball HOF, fewer if you only consider players. I don’t think there are that many more people playing chess competitively than there are basketball.
Computers routinely beat the best players in the world. To me, such an event indicates that its a winning at least one game can be just a matter of massive data mining and number crunching. If you can analyze a player’s tendencies, and remember the best counter moves, I would think you could eventually get lucky enough to pounce on a mistake. I get that there are a significant number of permutations involved here, but I ultimately think that would be an easier mountain to climb for Jordan than it would be for Kasparov as chess seems to be more reducible.
Along those lines, it seems as if the ratings of current players is higher than they were in the past. Some have theorized that is largely due to the use of computers. Assuming that is true, computers certainly give Jordan some technological leverage that Kasparov would not have in basketball.
As I said in my original post, I presume the draw number would be high, but I don’t know how high. More on point, I don’t think 2% is small, given the context. Nars Glinley postulate that Kasparov might be able to hit 15% of his shots; if that were so, and Kasparov had to hit a mere 3 shots in a row to win, he would have less than .4% chance of winning.
When I said 2%, I was referring to Elo’s original formula.
And if that is the case, we are probably in the realm of calculating the chance of Kasparov falling asleep at the board.
I guess we never got around to deciding how many points we’re talking about if they play one-on-one, but typically a game is played to 11 points or 21 points, and shots are worth one point or two - meaning a field goal is worth a point and a three-pointer is worth two. This means you need to make at least 6 shots to win a game (to 11) or 11 (to 21). You can’t make that many shots by luck.
Why not? I mean, sure the chances are extremely small. But smaller than Kasparov having an aneurism at the chess table?
Maybe a math guru can run this for me - let’s assume that Kasparov has a 10% make chance and Jordan has a 10% miss chance. At one point a bucket what are the odds Kasparov gets to 11 first? What if he only shoots two-pointers (and thus needs to make 6 before Jordan makes 11)?
[Anecdotal story time] I went to high school with the late great Wayman Tisdale. For you youngsters, he was a 3 time All-American (he went pro before his senior year in college). IIRC, he was the first true freshman to make All-American and almost certainly would have been the only 4 time All-American if he had stayed in college. He was the second player chosen in the 1985 draft, behind Patrick Ewing.
He was a year behind me in high school. When I was a senior, it was obvious to everyone that he was going to be a superstar. Since he was a junior, he was only 2 years away from being a college All-American. He completely dominated any high school competition. I knew that he was going to be famous. Everyone knew it.
One day, I saw him in the gym and challenged him to a little one on one precisely because I knew that one day I’d want to be able to say that I had played Wayman Tisdale in one one one. He, being the great guy that he was, obliged me. We were just messing around but I can tell you that even though he was about 9 inches taller than me, he didn’t block all of my shots. He did some. He wasn’t trying his hardest but then neither was I. If we both had, I still would have gotten some shots off. I would have made a few. If we had played everyday for the next several years, I genuinely believe that I might have gotten lucky enough to beat him once.
I also played chess in high school. I was a good high school player. Our team won the state championship. I was fourth board but I was still on the team. At my absolute best, Kasparov could beat me every day for the rest of my life even if he spotted me a piece every game.
[/AST]
Again, the OP doesn’t seem to have gotten into this kind of absurd depth, but I think we are meant to consider the two men competing to some kind of conclusive outcome. Talking about what happens if they have a stroke or drop dead or their legs fall off just avoids the question.
To me, this lends added weight to the supposition that you really don’t know a lot about chess. Computers don’t win at chess by “analy{zing} a player’s tendencies, and remember{ing} the best counter moves”, and you don’t beat a grandmaster by pouncing on one mistake unless you are a GM yourself and have the necessary skill and technique to turn a theoretical advantage into an actual win.
Chess seems reducible? The number of possible chess positions is many orders of magnitude too large to write down even if each position could be written on one atom and you had the whole Universe to write them on. At the moment, the nearest we get to “reducible” is that when there are only six men left on the board, the position can be exhaustively analyzed. Adding the 7th unit is the killer. Chess begins with 32 men on the board… good luck reaching a reducible position that isn’t hopelessly lost, against Kasparov!