If Fischer would played Karpov for the World Champion, who would win? - Chess Forums - Page 56

DaMaGor

Aug 16, 2014

0

#1101

trotters64 wrote:

hijodeluna wrote:

mnhsr wrote:

Motive, folks: Fischer made that many contingencies because deep down in his own heart he feared the loss of his title (to Karpov or whomever it had been). He held true to his belief until it was stripped from him, thereby allowing him to still assert he'd never been beaten. Cagey or cowardly, the choice is yours.

Exactly,

Fischer wanted everything to work out to make it extremely difficult or impossible to have his title taken away with match results.

You never Magnus wanting such conditions as Fischer wanted. Magnus' attitued is "Bring whoever you want to play me, and I will demolish him/her".

No other champ has asked for such unreasonable conditions.

Apart from a 2671 played called Saric..Magnus couldn't demolish him last week ...he couldn't even manage a draw ; in fact it was Magnus who was the one being destroyed !

Surely a man's allowed a mere 2799 tournament performance once in a while.

OxonChess

Aug 17, 2014

0

#1102

9-9 under Fisher's proposal means that the challenger does not win the title . While a rematch system means the challenger gets to be WC with all the extra that brings even if only for a year like Tal and Smyslov.

Still I can see 9-9 might be less likely than 12-12 in a 24 game match so in a twisted way that is fairer, but unlimited matches had no need for a special rule for a draw unlike a match of limited length. Experience with unlimited matches in 1978 and 84 showed they caused a few logistic difficulties though and were not popular with organisers.

wiscmike wrote:

Charles Kalme was the author of the article back in the 70's. He had his PHD in Mathematics, ALL FACTS. he proved Mathematically that Fischer's demands were fairer than the match he played against Spassky.

trotters64

Aug 17, 2014

0

#1103

DaMaGor wrote:

trotters64 wrote:

hijodeluna wrote:

mnhsr wrote:

Motive, folks: Fischer made that many contingencies because deep down in his own heart he feared the loss of his title (to Karpov or whomever it had been). He held true to his belief until it was stripped from him, thereby allowing him to still assert he'd never been beaten. Cagey or cowardly, the choice is yours.

Exactly,

Fischer wanted everything to work out to make it extremely difficult or impossible to have his title taken away with match results.

You never Magnus wanting such conditions as Fischer wanted. Magnus' attitued is "Bring whoever you want to play me, and I will demolish him/her".

No other champ has asked for such unreasonable conditions.

Apart from a 2671 played called Saric..Magnus couldn't demolish him last week ...he couldn't even manage a draw ; in fact it was Magnus who was the one being destroyed !

Surely a man's allowed a mere 2799 tournament performance once in a while.

2799 will probably not be enough to beat Vishy Anand so Magnus had better start taking the game more seriously or he will be a short lived world champion.

DaMaGor

Aug 17, 2014

0

#1104

With current ratings, a 6-6 result against Anand would by definition be 2785. 6.5-5.5 would be 2814, and no result between these is possible. So if Carlsen doesn't do worse than 2799, he will win the match, and a 2785 performance would still be enough if he won the rapid tiebreaks. (Do they have those this time?)

You look for every reason to justify your belief that Carlsen is no good, harping endlessly about every one of his losses and dismissing every one of his wins, but as long as he doesn't follow up his worst performance in years with an even worse one, he'll retain the world championship. That's the level he's at.

OxonChess

Aug 17, 2014

0

#1105

It does show that a Carlsen loss is quite possible though that his latest performance would only just scrape him through. This set me thinking what was the biggest ever upset in a WC match, and would it have. Been more surprising at the time than if Karpov had beaten Fischer in the hypothetical 75 match.

The 2 matches that spring to mind are Alekhinevs Capa Euwe and Kramnik Kasparov the last one not being a total shock as Kramnik always did particularly well against Kasparov but the one sidedness of the 2000 match was.

trotters64

Aug 17, 2014

0

#1106

DaMaGor wrote:

With current ratings, a 6-6 result against Anand would by definition be 2785. 6.5-5.5 would be 2814, and no result between these is possible. So if Carlsen doesn't do worse than 2799, he will win the match, and a 2785 performance would still be enough if he won the rapid tiebreaks. (Do they have those this time?)

You look for every reason to justify your belief that Carlsen is no good, harping endlessly about every one of his losses and dismissing every one of his wins, but as long as he doesn't follow up his worst performance in years with an even worse one, he'll retain the world championship. That's the level he's at.

You say that I believe that Carlsen is no good ..if you were to trawl through every single post that I have posted on chess.com nowhere will you find a post stating that Magnus Carlsen is no good...nowhere. It would be ridiculous to make such a claim as he is clearly a very good player ; best of all time ..no way , best of the current crop of supergm's perhaps so yes but his performance when taking the world title was not that great ..I mean can anybody think of a single game where Magnus blew us all away with his brilliance...no! he won because Vishy was having a very ordinary run of form..I expect Vishy to perform much better this time and if the score at the end is 7-5 in Vishy's favour what rating level will Magnus have played at ?.

fabelhaft

Aug 17, 2014

0

#1107

trotters64 wrote:

best of the current crop of supergm's perhaps so yes but his performance when taking the world title was not that great ..I mean can anybody think of a single game where Magnus blew us all away with his brilliance...no!

The question is what counts as great, he scored the highest percentage in a title match in more than 100 years, in his first title match, after a nervous start, and after being closer to another win in the last game (when a draw was enough to finish the match) than a worse result.

When Carlsen first reached the top ten he was overrated, then he only did well against weak opponents, then he was just a tournament player, then he was no Candidates winner, then he was no World Championship winner, then he was no World Championship winner with a big margin, then he didn't win by blowing anyone away with his brilliance, then he only did well against top players, then he was having bad results as World Champion (second place once).

Winning the World Championship isn't connected to blowing people away with brilliance. It wasn't necessarily much more of that in Anand vs Gelfand either. For brilliant wins one could rather look at for example his game against Wojtaszek in the Olympiad or some of the numerous wins over the last four years, during which his clearly worst performance is 2799, which is impressive enough in itself.

After winning the title Carlsen has played Zurich, Gashimov Memorial, Norway Chess, World rapid championship, World blitz championship, Festival da Uva, Norwegian league, and some less serious events. No other World Champion was so active in so few months after winning the title, and Carlsen won every single one of these events, apart from one, where he finished second.

Adding to this list of events, Carlsen was also the first reigning World Champion in 18 years to participate in an Olympiad. Neither Kramnik nor Anand ever played in it the more than dozen years they held the title. So there's not much to complain about over all.

trotters64

Aug 17, 2014

0

#1108

fabelhaft wrote:

trotters64 wrote:

best of the current crop of supergm's perhaps so yes but his performance when taking the world title was not that great ..I mean can anybody think of a single game where Magnus blew us all away with his brilliance...no!

The question is what counts as great, he scored the highest percentage in a title match in more than 100 years, in his first title match, after a nervous start, and after being closer to another win in the last game (when a draw was enough to finish the match) than a worse result.

When Carlsen first reached the top ten he was overrated, then he only did well against weak opponents, then he was just a tournament player, then he was no Candidates winner, then he was no World Championship winner, then he was no World Championship winner with a big margin, then he didn't win by blowing anyone away with his brilliance, then he only did well against top players, then he was having bad results as World Champion (second place once).

Winning the World Championship isn't connected to blowing people away with brilliance. It wasn't necessarily much more of that in Anand vs Gelfand either. For brilliant wins one could rather look at for example his game against Wojtaszek in the Olympiad or some of the numerous wins over the last four years, during which his clearly worst performance is 2799, which is impressive enough in itself.

After winning the title Carlsen has played Zurich, Gashimov Memorial, Norway Chess, World rapid championship, World blitz championship, Festival da Uva, Norwegian league, and some less serious events. No other World Champion was so active in so few months after winning the title, and Carlsen won every single one of these events, apart from one, where he finished second.

Adding to this list of events, Carlsen was also the first reigning World Champion in 18 years to participate in an Olympiad. Neither Kramnik nor Anand ever played in it the more than dozen years they held the title. So there's not much to complain about over all.

It seems that when Magnus is under the most pressure he has a tendency to under perform . Magnus is probably under most pressure when he plays in Norway and is it a coincidence that Magnus could not win the Norway chess event and he performed 80 pts below his rating at the recent Olympiad held in Tromso , Norway.

Magnus is vulnerable when under pressure and if Vishy can prepare well and play well the pressure of being defending champion might affect Magnus's game.

trotters64

Aug 17, 2014

0

#1109

hijodeluna wrote:

Bias against someone will show in your speach or in your writing.

Stick to facts - Carlsen has an overwhelming score vs Anand, total career games, classical time control.

The last times Carlsen has played Anand, outside of the title match, Carlsen rolled Anand over AND won any tournament Carlsen and Anand have BOTH participated in.

If you were not convinced yet ( rather stupidly ) AFTER Carslen beat Anand, that Carlsen is much superior and in NO WAY getting weaker, Carlsen then goes on and becomes the World blitz champion AFTER winning his classical world chess championship, oh, and WINS the highest rated tournament of ALL TIMES, yes, EVER, in all the history of tournament chess to date.

But somehow the Carlsen haters think beyond such facts and achievements, like those achievements and facts matter as little as Kasparov's facts and achievements when demonstrating he is the greatest ever, not Fischer.

Maybe the Carlsen haters have a crystal ball and they see something in Carlsen we, the ones who see the facts, don't see.

I don't hate Carlsen , neither do I love him like a fanboy as too many chess fans seem to .What I say is that it would be very unwise to complacently underestimate Vishy Anand as Vishy is quite capable of competing very well when in good form .

Vishy showed us what he can do when he won the candidates much more convincingly than Magnus did last year and also more recently when beating up on Magnus in the rapid world chess championship.

mnhsr

Aug 17, 2014

0

#1110

Very bottom line is that Carlsen would not have won the Fischer-Karpov match, but wow, he's so great, he would have been close.

blueemu

Aug 17, 2014

0

#1111

mnhsr wrote:

Very bottom line is that Carlsen would not have won the Fischer-Karpov match, but wow, he's so great, he would have been close.

Morphy wouldn't have won the Alekhine - Capablanca match either. He wasn't playing in it. Also, he was dead.

mnhsr

Aug 17, 2014

0

#1112

Morphy is alive as Elvis, I keep them both under lock and key; right King?

Kadub

Aug 17, 2014

0

#1113

http://www.chess.com/tournament/fischer-random-madness2

varelse1

Aug 17, 2014

0

#1114

mnhsr wrote:

Morphy is alive as Elvis, I keep them both under lock and key; right King?

.

Well,of course. They're both the same person!

Didn't you know?

DiogenesDue

Aug 17, 2014

0

#1115

Morphy.

First letter backwards by one = Lorphy

Swap vowels O for E = Lerphy

Drop extraneous Y = Lerph

H forwards by one = Lerpi

R forward by one = Lespi

Swap S and P = Lepsi

Swap S and I = Lepis

P becomes V = Levis

Swap L and E...

Elvis. Conclusive proof by any conspiracy theorist's standards.

varelse1

Aug 17, 2014

0

#1116

Plus, only a Legend of Rock would be so disinterested as to play a chess game during an Opera performance.

Coincidence?????

varelse1

Aug 17, 2014

0

#1117

Carlsen, on his worst day, is still better than Anand, on his best day.

DaMaGor

Aug 17, 2014

0

#1118

hijodeluna wrote:

Carlsen showed everyone what he can do when he is in good form or in just solid, nothing great form, when he won the match vs Anand much more convingly than Anand has ever done vs any other challenger. No one has beat Anand so bad except Kasparov, who beat Anand by a Monster 6-0 margin. Carlsen won by 4-0. Then again, Carlsen beat Anand in every encounter they have had AFTER the title match in classical time control.

Blitz is a bad quality level of chess due to the immense difference in time per move, so your example of Anand beating Carlsen in a blitz game is nothing great, but you seem to forget the fact, that even when Carlsen lost to Anand in that tournament, who won the world blitz championship when Anand and Carlsen competed in it ? Yes, Carlsen did. So, again, Carlsen, everytime Anand and Carlsen compete in the same event, Carlsen wins or performs better. Then again, he is the NUMBER ONE player in the world for a very good reason - he is better than the rest.

Are you just making up numbers here? If you're only counting wins, Carlsen beat Anand 3-0 with 7 draws and Kasparov beat Anand 4-1 with 13 draws. Now if the Kasparov-Shirov match had ever happened, you might have seen 6-0 or worse. (According to Wikipedia, Kasparov was +15 =14 against Shirov in their 29 games -- not one loss.)

trotters64

Aug 17, 2014

0

#1119

varelse1 wrote:

Carlsen, on his worst day, is still better than Anand, on his best day.

This statement of yours' is easily disproved...last week Carlsen lost to Saric a 2671 player while earlier this year Anand beat Aronian in the candidates ; Aronian at the time was 2830 ... case closed.

mnhsr

Aug 17, 2014

0

#1120

buncha lapdog hero-worshipping butmunching flunkies; stay on point: Karpov or Fischer, 1975? My vote: Karpov by a point. Fischer hadn't played a game in three years. Remember Neil Young's "Rust Never Sleeps."

http://youtu.be/QeH8s_RAuTI