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

Even today, after a few years of studying Karpov's game for the first time, I more and more feel that Karpov's playing style was close to perfection-INVINCIBILITY. He may not have been able to defeat Kasparov, but that Karpov,that young Karpov, of that time and that age, would definitely have defeated the "legendary" Bobby Fischer. And, Fischer was far from the greatest.He, in my opinion, was called greatest, just because he was an American. Being an American, it seems, automatically guarantees you the right to greatness, or as if they are special compared to others. And Karpov is right. Fischer, typically an American, like his kind, wanted to destroy all the possibilities of losing the war before fighting it. Such souls are stranger to the Russian Spirit, The Indomitable Russian Spirit. Karpov,for me, is the Greatest, my Chess Ideal. If I want to become like someone, it is the Invincible Karpov.

I agree with Yureesystem over a number of comments. Karpov's style is very close to Capablanca. Also, people don't seem to read chess literature? Fischer's true story is revealed in Fischer vs Russians. This Russian version of events takes away a lot of awe and steam out of the "Greatest player of all time",Fischer. Also, in My Great Predecessors, Kasparov gives an instance in 1974, when during the Spassky match, Karpov was expected to lose to Spassky. The whole chess community thought so, that it may come back to Fischer vs Spassky again. Only one man, Mikhail Botvinnik said that " Just inexplicably, he will beat Spassky also", and the results speak for themselves. According to Kasparov, Karpov had grown on the Opening Revolution created by Fischer himself, and he also tries to describe Fischer's mental condition comparing it to " A vicious circle", a kind of a trap where Fischer became more and more fearful of Karpov's growing menace. You can read all this in the second part of the book. Karpov was doing the unexpected. Karpov himself also said that " This is not my cycle" in 1974, when asked about his chances against Fischer. But then, as first timers, don't we all have doubts? Instead of these kind of debates, it has to be seen that Karpov, relatively inexperienced, was continuously doing the unexpected, and that forced Fischer to take notice, particularly when a 48 kg Karpov won a gruelling Match against Korchnoi. This was again unexpected. Seeing all this, Fischer opted for a safe way out, trying to fix the result of the Match even before it took place, targeting Karpov's weaknesses. And when it didn't turn his way, he got sour.

Apart from that, around same time, if you would have read Fischer's views about the game itself, then he said in an interview that he believed the game had "reached its limits", but in reality, it was he who had reached his limits, as the future showed, and maybe, maybe that quest of what next if chess came to an end, got exhausted, compelled him to ponder, to find the Fischer Random Chess that we see today. Fischer was, in the end, neither the last, nor the greatest champion who lived.He could have been great among greats, had he accepted the Karpov challenge, and defeated him, but he decided to take the easy, comfortable American way in the end and keep the issue open for debate to the future generations by declining the challenge. It would have been different for Karpov also. Had he lost, Fischer would have been accepted as the greatest ever, and had he won, Karpov would have been a different champion, full of confidence, for he had cleared the test that Destiny had set for him. But sadly, the American, Fischer did not seem to think that way, trying to harm his opponent as much as possible without firing a single shot, for he was clearly not capable. So long to the "great" Fischer, and I am sure one day we will see so long to the country, the "great" America, which produces such champions.

As been said a couple of posts before. Things would have been different had Spassky played in true form n 1972. Very much the true Spassky that poduced great games in "Spassky 300 games"book.

Curious~just because he was from the US didn't automatically assure him of anything, much less being called the "Greatest". During that time USSR still dominated the Chess scene, being able to produce World-class players like Star Wars the Clone Wars. In fact, there were other countries during that time that

Could actually outpoint the US in International matches (Hungary being one). Your arguments have soo many inaccuracies it borders on delusion/misconception/discrimination. If you'd some of the previous posts about how unfair FIDE was, the influence of the Soviets had, over the Tyrannical United States of America (heh)....dunno. I hope you can see the point I'm trying ta make.

I think there are inaccuracies on your part, dear najdorf.You dont seem to have read the other side, the Russian side, the aftermath of 1972, the opening Revolution, Fischer totally leaving the chess scene at a time whe h should have done exactly the opposite,when it really started getting hot.

i think fischer would have won

because he was more experienced

karpov had a limited repertoire too

I don't see anything in your long diatribes that was not already covered in the past 68 pages.  It's a form of conceit to think you're going to definitively end this debate after the circular arguing has gone on this long...you're just another tally in the Karpov camp of an argument that will never, and can never, be resolved.

Same goes for you also,Mate.when we point one finger at others, the rest four point at us. Whatever you have spoken, same applies to you also. Intact, the more you comment, the more I come to realise that your knowledge is shallow, and, just like any other commoner who thinks he is way smarter than the rest of the world, you also appear to be the same. And, by the way, in the past 68 pages also, most of the time, typical to their nature, Americans and the so called Fisher camp has been presenting its argument just like you.So I also, just like you, come to a conclusion that it is vain to argue with your lot. Just remember, the brave, the talented, the meritious, those searching greatness, don't run away from battlefield. They fight till the very end. But maybe in American culture, those who run away from the battlefield are considered brave. Fisher, just like his country, is a coward and nothing else who bit the very hand that fed him-The Soviet School Of Chess, who couldn't even show respect to the Great Russian ideas whose product he was. And, that is true about Americans in general, praising their own tail like donkey, no matter what. So sensibility lies in you and your "camp" keeping quiet.

And so much about my long " diatribes"', I will try to explain what I mean in 1 simple sentence. As said by Aristotle, " We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence is not an act but a habit." Excellence doesn't lie in running away from battlefield, but in facing him boldly, which Karpov has done repeatedly. But I don't expect an American to understand this.

Quoting for posterity.

"I'm rubber and you're glue"?  Really?

Thanks for revealing your rabid anti-American bias, so your opinions can be safely disregarded by those of us that are rational.

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"...

Kasparov, wait, no karpov

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

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