Can you remember a series of key moves from any Karpov game in which he strangled his opponent to death?  I can't.  If given a choice, who would you rather play like - Botvinik or Tal?  You might choose Botvinik but most people would choose Tal.  I know I would.

It's all about risk.  Sacrificing material is inherently risky, playing super solid positional chess designed to squeeze the life out of your opponent doesn't involve much risk.  Even if it's every bit as effective (i.e. it wins the game) it's no where near as memorable as the Tal-like speculative sacrifice.  It's the ultimate form of chess for many players -- it's what they strive to accomplish in their own games.

p.s. the 5th game is actually more squeeze than knockout.

Why is this bias towards attacking chess? why is there no brilliancy for positional squeezing of your opponent? Making your opponent squirm under immense chessical torture should account for something! No wonder Botvinnik, Karpov, Petrosian, Korchnoi etc. are considered less inspiring than Tal, Kasparov, Keres and Fischer.

Very interesting - thanks for sharing !

wow, really enjoyed them! the fact that in all those games he played with black (except in one) is pretty amazing. I hope you're going to post more of his games soon!

Good games. Thanks for the posting. It's important to remember that ratings are a measure of consistency and not ability. A player may play far above or below his/her rating in a particular game. There was a series of articles entitled "How to beat a master" that illustrated this point.