Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

If Fischer would played Karpov for the World Champion, who would win?


  • 6 days ago · Quote · #1681

    Catrina-Volokitten

    come on! that's no attitude to have!

  • 6 days ago · Quote · #1682

    fabelhaft

    "And it is his until he is defeated or dies (like Alekhine). Karpov was merely the FIDE titlist"

    So Fischer was the World Champion until 2008? :-)

  • 6 days ago · Quote · #1683

    fabelhaft

    "He was undefeated champion until he died. Here's a picture from his 1992 title defense"

    Ah, you even said so in another post... Sancta simplicitas...

  • 6 days ago · Quote · #1684

    yureesystem

    Fischer had 179 demands needed to be meant and only one was declined. It show what powerful figure Fischer was. To demand and get his way is amazing especially when the Russians were trying to fight Fischer against every demand and fail. Fischer character is dynamic and colorful personality to a dull and lifeless personality Karpov, everyone wanted to see Fischer play and if he did play it would been a crush. Karpov did not have the stamina to keep up with Fischer in a long match and would of crack under pressure: this a fact, look at the matches against Korchnoi having the lead  Anatoly crack and give Korchnoi a chance to catch up and the same with Kasparov, Anatoly was leading by five wins and needed only one more win to win the match but fail. So greedypawneater, you are wrong like always! :)

  • 6 days ago · Quote · #1685

    Catrina-Volokitten

    can't you guys take a joke ?

  • 6 days ago · Quote · #1686

    fabelhaft

    If Spassky just had refused to play Fischer he would still be World Champion I suppose.

  • 6 days ago · Quote · #1687

    JamieDelarosa

    That's right.  Just as Lasker remained World Champion from the 1910 Schlecter match, until 1920.

  • 6 days ago · Quote · #1688

    fabelhaft

    "That's right. Just as Lasker remained World Champion from the 1910 Schlecter match, until 1920"

    If anyone else believed you could stay World Champion for fifty years from 1969 onwards by simply refusing to play there would be no reason to actually play the qualified challengers. Lasker defended the title for the fourth time in three years when he played the title match after the one against Schlechter. Then World War I intruded on chess matters, but anyway there is no comparison between then and now. When no qualification system existed the title holder could do more or less as he wanted. Today is isn't possible to come through the system and win the title to then refuse to follow the agreed rules of the same system one won the title in.

  • 5 days ago · Quote · #1689

    JamieDelarosa

    The title holder should be able to do as he wishes with his (or her) title.

    Ultimately, the mantle of world's best player is decided by the chess community.

    The FIDE is corrupt and has lost standing to devise a "system" or "rules."  Kasparov demonstrated that.

  • 5 days ago · Quote · #1690

    JamieDelarosa

    fabelhaft wrote:

    If Spassky just had refused to play Fischer he would still be World Champion I suppose.

    I credit Spassky with being a fair-minded rebel, instead of an apparatchik like his Soviet predecessors.  It showed the strength of his character.

    That is why Fischer made him a millionaire!

  • 5 days ago · Quote · #1691

    nimzobogo

    Fischer would win but Karpov would win the year after. 

  • 5 days ago · Quote · #1692

    SmyslovFan

    JamieDelarosa wrote:

    The title holder should be able to do as he wishes with his (or her) title.

    Ultimately, the mantle of world's best player is decided by the chess community.

    The FIDE is corrupt and has lost standing to devise a "system" or "rules."  Kasparov demonstrated that.

    Quite the opposite. Kasparov admitted his rift with FIDE was perhaps his biggest mistake. 

    FIDE continued. Kasparov's title is back in its auspices. And yes, FIDE is corrupt. But it owns the match-play title again.

  • 3 days ago · Quote · #1693

    JamieDelarosa

    fabelhaft wrote:

    "That's right. Just as Lasker remained World Champion from the 1910 Schlecter match, until 1920"

     

    If anyone else believed you could stay World Champion for fifty years from 1969 onwards by simply refusing to play there would be no reason to actually play the qualified challengers. Lasker defended the title for the fourth time in three years when he played the title match after the one against Schlechter. Then World War I intruded on chess matters, but anyway there is no comparison between then and now. When no qualification system existed the title holder could do more or less as he wanted. Today is isn't possible to come through the system and win the title to then refuse to follow the agreed rules of the same system one won the title in.

    You are correct - I forgot about another Janowski blowout in 1910.

    Lasker had a wartime, non-title match against Dr Tattasch.  So it was not impossible to defend his title, if he so desired.


Back to Top

Post your reply: