Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

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

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #1761


    The world champion would win ofcourse...... That's why he's the world champion ....

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #1762


    Again, it is difficult to say what would happen be it 1975 or 1978 or beyond. Both players were super strong. Also, one has to remember that if a match did take place it would have to take place only and only after all of Fischer's conditions were met.

    I believe these conditions were fair. A long match is something that Fischer had always been asking for - even before his match against Spassky. Also, the challenger needed to win by the score of at least 10-8 to show that he is indeed better than the reigning champ. Also, when the draws are discounted, both players should keep playing for a win, and not a draw. Spectators hate draws. So, Fischer's conditions were reasonable. Too bad they weren't met. I can certainly understand why Fischer said "to hell with it" and quit. Again, this is not the first time he walked out of a match. Happened before; it just shows that a true fighter like Fischer stuck to his guns - no matter size of the prize. This is one of the reasons he is widely respected around the World - even in the former USSR. There's also a Bobby Fischer group here on Chess.com. No other individual has as many fans (although Kasparov is a close second). By the way, compare it with Karpov fans - the group (which I am also a part of) has less than 10% members of the Fischer or Kasparov group. So, if you're a fan of Karpov, please join Karpov fans group. :)

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #1763


    Something that was just posted this year was that if FIDE ratings were released then as they are now Fischer would have had a 2820 rating after the Larsen match.  Karpov never approached that mark.  And the three year lay-off might have affected most players, but Fischer did that several times in his career and came back stronger each time--he always worked on his game.  Look at the first two games in the '92 match with Spassky--they were outstanding, and that was after twenty years.  And in '75, Karpov was not yet his mature self, while Fischer would have been in his prime years.  I'm not saying that Karpov had no chance, but even he said he had about a 40% chance of winning.  And about the clause that says the challenger had to win by 10-8, that also held true for the champion--in order to win the match, Fischer had to win by 10-8.  Given Karpov's history of fading at the end of matches, I don't give him much of a chance in 1975--78 is another story, though.

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #1764


    "if FIDE ratings were released then as they are now Fischer would have had a 2820 rating after the Larsen match"

    I doubt that, he can't have lost 35 Elo simply by beating Petrosian 6.5-2.5, which is the only event between the Larsen match and Spassky, before which he had 2785. He should rather have gained a point or two in the Petrosian match.

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #1765


    Don't be so obsessed about ratings too much. Ratings are indicators of past performance, not future one. Fischer's rating was higher, but not by much. Karpov had a good rating too. It is difficult to say who would come on the top. We can say because of such and such, Fischer/Karpov would be on the top, etc. That's a pointless discussion based solely on guesses and not much more. One thing we know for sure is that it's a shame that the match didn't take place as it would have been one of the greatest matches ever. I wouldn't fault Fischer or Karpov either. If I were to blame somebody, I'd blame bureauracy, not the players. Bureaucracy continued to pose problems to other players in the future as well. Perhaps it was better when the matches were arranged by the players directly, when there was no bureaucracy to dictate the terms.

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #1766


    I like that it was never done.  gives chess nuts something to talk about on the internet for 100, or maybe 1000 years.

    pretty impressed with how well karpov did against korchnoi.  Fisher was erratic, BRILLIANT, but not doing well pychologically.

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #1767


    Curiouscat999 wrote:

    It's going more like the american show, "The Deadliest Warrior" in which the americans never lose, just like they think they are always right and winning here anyway. Psychologically speaking, I find so many similarities in the working of the american mind and the mujahiddeen and other fanatics of the middle east.

    Fun theory!  though I prefer, as an american, not to be judged by the very ridiculous kinds of behavior they often show in TV shows and movies.

    I won't argue that most people think that their own opinion is right.  but I don't think thats an American thing.

    If I'm misreading what you mean- why don't you elaborate on what Does seem to be the similarity between us and muslim fanatics...   Quest for power?  Arrogance?  intolerance of other peoples belief??

    as you might understand- the idea that we share a common outlook with islamic terrorists would be insulting to many americans.

    I take a different tact on it.  we DO share common failing with dictators and terrorists;  we're human - and so are you...  no need to consider common human failings a product of our culture, country or ethnicity.

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #1768


    thegreat_patzer wrote:

    I like that it was never done.  gives chess nuts something to talk about on the internet for 100, or maybe 1000 years.

    pretty impressed with how well karpov did against korchnoi.  Fisher was erratic, BRILLIANT, but not doing well pychologically.


    Don't forget: people still talk about Paul Morphy. Perhaps it's not the fact that these geniuses were American though; most likely the fact that, for some reason, they quit the game at the height of their powers. People speculate how far up they could have gone had they kept playing; or how far down they could have fallen...

    But, I say, let's not worry about that and respect the great players. And not judge them and their choices in life.

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #1769


    Well, I personally admit that fischer was great, and again agree with Yureesystem for hitting right  on the point, and also with a few others here, but the way so many, even proper professionals, not to mention american fanatics, the way they put up such arguments, and forward fischer's case and supremacy over Karpov, I believe of all the sites, only americans, many in number, can behave this way, hence I compared them to Islamic fanatics.

    Also, so much space used over elo numbers to forward their arguments, but not one person here has spoken that KARPOV HAD A GIFT, A VERY DEEP AND THOROUGH PSYCHOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING OF HIS OPPONENTS, HE COULD ACTUALLY GET INSIDE HIS OPPONENTS' MINDS AND REALLY DISTURB THEM, THEIR THOUGHTS AND THEIR LOGIC PATTERNS AND IDEAS, I don't think anybody differs over this issue, no one can, it's Karpov's X-Factor.

    Boris Spassky, after facing repeated failures against Karpov, clearly admitted to him,"I simply don't understand you, your play, how you think.".Could the great fischer have forced such an admission out of Spassky. Infact, Spassky made him cry once. And 72 was a complete failure of the Soviets, Spassky even entertained himself with a copy of Playboy and billiards, the real scene behind the scenes.

    Also, this character fischer, was so reactionary, and so abusive towards the Soviets that he even went to the extent of saying that had the Russians not colluded, he would have been a world champion at the age of 16!!! Isn't this megalomania, schizophrenia so much observable in the american elites, politicians and policy makers, that only they are supreme, everyone else is crap? And it took fischer 13 more years after that day, his sweet 16, to become a champion.

    Apart from that, the "youngest GM title", Paul Keres, a gentleman, was one of the first to comment and remark that the GM title was awarded a bit too soon for this young american boy. And let's see what was going on the other side. Fischer, before his title, remarked that all the masters he would defeat, and he did, but against 6 GMs( if I remember correctly, it's a long time), he said he would not lose,and didn't, but did not defeat anyone either. This premature awarding of the title raised his confidence, insolence, audacity, so high that he started behaving schizophrenic right since then.

    He even called Russians "pigs", that too in Moscow, unheard of behaviour,as a very young man. I believe only an american or a completely rascal englishman is capable of such an abuse, to go to someone else's country and demonstrate the barbaric cultural baggage of the west.

    On the whole, such a character was just a moment's spark, mentally unstable, schizophrenic,incapable of sustaining the momentum, of remaining undisputed, and there are people here who give shallow arguments that his 3 conditions were justified! If that was so, why did the negotiations break against him?They should study the whole episode properly, fischer clearly ran away to avoid shame, even FIDE had to relent in that east versus west confrontation, you can verify yourself.

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #1770


    Russians were ganging up against him, KGB even maintained files on him, Iceland was not only Fischer-Spassky but also KGB-CIA. He may even have been right in saying that the Soviets(read KGB) deliberately tried to disturb him during tournaments, absolutely correct. But on the whole he was a very loose man, definitely doesn't deserve to be called greatest of greats.

    92 matches against Spassky were way below the standard of the day, you can see these claims being supported by so much mathematical material by many magazines and analyses by strong players, a flash of brilliancy once in a few games,fine performance but didn't deserve so many millions. Both Karpov and Kasparov immediately commented after the matches that time.

    Fischer appeared more opponent specific rather than an artist, all the way. Just like an exam topper who knows how to top an exam, but incapable of creativity.

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #1771


    Here we go again...

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #1773


    It is sad to see so many people denounce Robert J. Fischer - one of the greatest minds of chess. Karpov himself, and a lot of Soviets, spoke very highly of Fischer. Fischer was, indeed, an extraordinary chess player. His behavior was indeed arrogant, sometimes unacceptably so; however, he was mostly a stable person. He was, of course troubled by insecurities and was, at times, full of hatred. But who wouldn't be had they walked in his shoes? Don't be so quick to judge Fischer unless you can really put yourself in his shoes... Fischer had done a great deal of good for chess and chess players. He elevated the status of the game and brought money - millions of dollars into the game. In many ways, Fischer was a one-of-a-kind individual. It is no coincidence that he is admired by so many people.

    Now, his conditions for his match against Karpov were reasonable. Unlimited match would produce a fighting chess and it is indeed up to the challenger to prove that he is superior to the champion. Of course, an unlimited match would produce a lot of headache for the organizers since they want stability but Fischer was looking at the chess side of the issue only and it was either "my way or the highway" for him. His conditions were not met, he did not play. Sad for chess fans but you gotta respect the man, a free man, for his decision and choices. He had principles, and stuck by them. How many people do that? It's a rare quality. I can certainly understand Karpov's position too since he was not really a free man and a lot of things were decided in Moscow, in Kremlin, for him. He had little say on how things were going to be.

    Interestingly, Karpov, upon becoming a champion by default, and gaining some more freedom of action, tried to set up a match with Fischer. They met in 1976 in Japan and agreed to have a match. However, the same day Korchnoi defected in the Netherlands and things went downhill from there - especially for Karpov as he was even accused of trying to sell his crown to Fischer. Another meeting took place in 1977 in Spain but this time there was some disagreement on the name of the match. Here, some blame lays on Fischer and gives substance to those who say he wanted to avoid a match. The bottom line is that there's so much that happened behind the scenes that we certainly cannot state things with absolute certainty. So let us not do that and let us not judge the players and their decisions. There simply is a lot to the whole thing that meets the eye.

    Some last thoughts on the outcome of the possible match of Fischer - Karpov '75. As I stated before, both players were super strong and neither of them were invincible. To say who would win is not to be objective and express favoritism. My conclusion is that the outcome is indeterminable since, as with the organization of the match, playing the match would contain many variables that cannot be objectively assessed. Even the games of the players, their quality, cannot be a good indicator to predict how they would fare against each other. Statistics and ratings are an even worse way to go about it. So, I say one final time, let us agree that it would have been a fantastic match and let us put the subject to rest.

    Fischer is dead now, so let's leave him to rest in peace. Karpov became 64 years old this year (a jubilee year for a chess player) and is doing well. Let us wish him many more years of life, prosperity, and happiness and end on that.

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #1774



  • 6 days ago · Quote · #1775


    Most people who comment on this have very little understanding of chess or they may simply be parroting opinions of GMs usually. Regarding this topic, I heard IMs say that they are too week to objectively judge Fischer's or Karpov's true strength. And even those who do, mainly speculate. Spassky, for instance, said that he thought that Fischer would win in '75 but Karpov would come back and win in '78. Kasparov said that Karpov would have good chances. Karpov himself said that he evaluated his chances of winning in '75 around 45% while Fischer's around 55%. But then again, this is pure speculation. The truth is that we don't know, and we will never know.

  • 6 days ago · Quote · #1776


    Impractical wrote:

    Bobby, of course.


  • 14 hours ago · Quote · #1777


    A statistician crunched the numbers. If FIDE had accepted all of Fischer's demands, the average match length would have been more than 50 games, but it's entirely possible the match would have gone on for more than 100 games! Remember, Karpov-Kasparov was halted after 48 games with the score at 5-3.

    Given the huge number of games necessary to determine a winner, it turns out that a two game cushion for the champion isn't such a huge obstacle to overcome. But in a match of 24 games, Fischer's demand for the challenger to win by two games would have been completely unfair to the challenger. 



Back to Top

Post your reply: