Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

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


  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #1341

    btickler

    Curiouscat999 wrote:

    Ha ha ha, you are the only rational and others irrational,you are the only beautiful, intelligent, strong , virtuous etc. race on the earth. Others don't exist at all,right? Those who speak against your shallowness, or disagree with you are irrational, rabid, right? Ha ha ha....You should join CNN, BBC and other propaganda mediums, the "Business" that you have created. You will succeeded there like anything. Americans will simply love you.Who knows, you may even end up becoming a comic superhero....ha ha ha

    You're really making a strong argument for being the rational one...maybe sprinkle in a few more of the "ha ha ha"...

  • 7 days ago · Quote · #1342

    mauve_penguin

    Kasparov, wait, no karpov

  • 7 days ago · Quote · #1343

    Ciarli

    for sure would win Kasparov Ivanovic Draga; but is a so boring machine of chess and so less human in his perfection of the game

  • 7 days ago · Quote · #1344

    HaveAnotherGame

    If I have to comment on their styles, it would seem there is one thing we can all say about Karpov. Karpov with his indivdual playing style seemed to have enough force to beat Kasparov. Karpov was almost playing like Petrosian but with a little more agression apparently. This caused most of his oponents including Kasparov, to blunder. That is why Karpov in a couple of the matches they played each other, he would take an early lead. But ultimately, in terms of against Kasparov, Karpov's main weakness was his own style. After Kasparov picked up on the fact that Karpov was using a Boa-Constrictor style, this is what Kasparov used. Now, it was Karpov playing agressively and mistakenly at that. If only he could have adjusted his style in the matches, he just might have been you know what. This says something in particular about how useful this style  was and is. It would seem Fischer, yet another agressive player, would have trouble against this type of style. One can only wonder, would the young Karpov have been able to do it? It is hard to say. I believe Karpov's style is enough to go against Fischer. But one of the more interesting factors is the fact that Fischer would have likely changed his style like Kasparov because he was evidently a great match player. Karpov throughout all this time, never adjusted his style. Again, if only this wonderful player could have played more than one different style.

    About Fischer and his Title Run: I do not really understand how this statement comes about: Taimanov was a weak GM, Larsen was Sick, Petrosian was old, and Spassky was out of it in the 72 Match.

    Just for clarity sake, if we look at a couple of factor's, none of the above seems to mean that much.

    Taimanov in 1970 was 2590-2600. Fischer, I believe at this exact time was 2760. Fischer is between a 160-170 points ahead of him. I don't believe that would make him weak because, Fischer was ahead of Spassky by 125 points. But yet, Spassky not only had drawing, but also winning chances. Taimanov, apparently in one of his games, had a won game. But, he couldn't get past Fischer's defensive technique (Check Chessgames Fischer-Taimanov 1971 Match in Vancouver to double check). This kind of sounds like Petrosian a little. Against Bent Larsen: I strongly believe that even a sick, in his peak, Bent Larsen would have winning chances against Fischer. It seems inevitable. For Fischer to win 6-0 due to the weather or illness seems unlikely. Anyway, in this case, it would seem Bent Larsen is the only exception for losing to Fischer. Petrosian: Many say he was too old to win against Fischer. If that is the case, why was he a candidate for the world title in 1971, 1974, 1977, 1980? In 1971, he was just 43. Honestly some players can just last that long. Fischer himself said, you start phasing out in your 40s and 50s. That doesn't mean all players drop dead with their career at 40 to 50, or at least for some. If you have the stamina, you can do it. As for Spassky, besides Tal, he was yet another great attacker who gave Fischer a difficult time. It would seem that Spassky was too confident from the words of his second Karpov. If this is the case, I think Spassky didn't really prepare for the match as much as he could have. You almost can't blame him. If you were one of the only few who had a plus record against Fischer, and he had never even beaten you, it seems likely you might also get lazy. I think above anything, that was his biggest mistake. If he had applied more in studying and preparing, he could have played chess the way he always played. Besides that, it is clear he was a terrific player looking at his run from 65-73.

  • 7 days ago · Quote · #1345

    trotters64

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 7 days ago · Quote · #1346

    clunney

    HaveAnotherGame wrote:

    If I have to comment on their styles, it would seem there is one thing we can all say about Karpov. Karpov with his indivdual playing style seemed to have enough force to beat Kasparov. Karpov was almost playing like Petrosian but with a little more agression apparently. This caused most of his oponents including Kasparov, to blunder. That is why Karpov in a couple of the matches they played each other, he would take an early lead. But ultimately, in terms of against Kasparov, Karpov's main weakness was his own style. After Kasparov picked up on the fact that Karpov was using a Boa-Constrictor style, this is what Kasparov used. Now, it was Karpov playing agressively and mistakenly at that. If only he could have adjusted his style in the matches, he just might have been you know what. This says something in particular about how useful this style  was and is. It would seem Fischer, yet another agressive player, would have trouble against this type of style. One can only wonder, would the young Karpov have been able to do it? It is hard to say. I believe Karpov's style is enough to go against Fischer. But one of the more interesting factors is the fact that Fischer would have likely changed his style like Kasparov because he was evidently a great match player. Karpov throughout all this time, never adjusted his style. Again, if only this wonderful player could have played more than one different style.

    About Fischer and his Title Run: I do not really understand how this statement comes about: Taimanov was a weak GM, Larsen was Sick, Petrosian was old, and Spassky was out of it in the 72 Match.

    Just for clarity sake, if we look at a couple of factor's, none of the above seems to mean that much.

    Taimanov in 1970 was 2590-2600. Fischer, I believe at this exact time was 2760. Fischer is between a 160-170 points ahead of him. I don't believe that would make him weak because, Fischer was ahead of Spassky by 125 points. But yet, Spassky not only had drawing, but also winning chances. Taimanov, apparently in one of his games, had a won game. But, he couldn't get past Fischer's defensive technique (Check Chessgames Fischer-Taimanov 1971 Match in Vancouver to double check). This kind of sounds like Petrosian a little. Against Bent Larsen: I strongly believe that even a sick, in his peak, Bent Larsen would have winning chances against Fischer. It seems inevitable. For Fischer to win 6-0 due to the weather or illness seems unlikely. Anyway, in this case, it would seem Bent Larsen is the only exception for losing to Fischer. Petrosian: Many say he was too old to win against Fischer. If that is the case, why was he a candidate for the world title in 1971, 1974, 1977, 1980? In 1971, he was just 43. Honestly some players can just last that long. Fischer himself said, you start phasing out in your 40s and 50s. That doesn't mean all players drop dead with their career at 40 to 50, or at least for some. If you have the stamina, you can do it. As for Spassky, besides Tal, he was yet another great attacker who gave Fischer a difficult time. It would seem that Spassky was too confident from the words of his second Karpov. If this is the case, I think Spassky didn't really prepare for the match as much as he could have. You almost can't blame him. If you were one of the only few who had a plus record against Fischer, and he had never even beaten you, it seems likely you might also get lazy. I think above anything, that was his biggest mistake. If he had applied more in studying and preparing, he could have played chess the way he always played. Besides that, it is clear he was a terrific player looking at his run from 65-73.

    Taimanov was weak? O_O  He'd still crush you and any of us effortlessly at 88.

  • 7 days ago · Quote · #1347

    HaveAnotherGame

    clunney wrote:

    Taimanov was weak? O_O  He'd still crush you and any of us effortlessly at 88.

    I never said he was weak. I was referring to what others said about the oponents fischer faced in his title run.

  • 13 hours ago · Quote · #1348

    mauve_penguin

    untracking, too much text!

  • 13 hours ago · Quote · #1349

    MeAgainstWorld

    If Fischer was in his "normal" top state of mind, would have won, but closely. 

  • 13 hours ago · Quote · #1350

    MeAgainstWorld

    HaveAnotherGame kirjoitti:

    About Fischer and his Title Run: I do not really understand how this statement comes about: Taimanov was a weak GM, Larsen was Sick, Petrosian was old, and Spassky was out of it in the 72 Match.

    How it happened, that just Fischer emerged with such luck!

  • 12 hours ago · Quote · #1352

    ParadoxOfNone

    Karpov would, Fischer is dead...

  • 12 hours ago · Quote · #1353

    rowsweep

    if fischer wasn't scared

    then why did he not play

  • 12 hours ago · Quote · #1355

    rowsweep

    lots of people don't like fide

    what did fide do?  did he act mean to people?

    who names their kid FIDE anyway

    that is like a like a dog's name FIDO

  • 12 hours ago · Quote · #1356

    ParadoxOfNone

    I personally think he didn't cared enough anymore to bother. He had nothing left to prove. He toppled the indomitable Soviet chess juggernaut by himself, amid collusion. He had far more to lose than gain. All of the pressure to prove he was the greatest was on his shoulders and Karpov might have well been his kryptonite but, it would have been interesting to say the least.

    I think comparing Fischer and Karpov to Petrosian and Spassky might give us the best clue we could hope for but, styles make fights. Who knows... ?


Back to Top

Post your reply: