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

Smylov wrote:

Karpov also played in more tournaments than any previous world champion. 

Karpov never shied away from a chess challenge. 

To claim that Karpov was a coward is to ignore reality completely.    

I never said Karpov was a coward.Let look at Fischer winning the world championship, it was very painful every Soviet grandmaster teaming against him in the all tournament, gaining a won endgame against Botvinnik and Geller finding the saving move, not Botvinnik. In the match against Spassky, Spassky had Geller and the best players to help retain the crown. Fischer was playing against the whole Soviet system and when Bobby had finally won the world champion title he deserve a rest. Karpov winning the title by default, Analoty did not have the same difficult road to the world championship like Fischer, so had a lot energy to win all those tournament, plus had to prove he was worthy of the title. Kasparov mention of Karpov not taking the neccesary risk in their first match to win it outright, but Anatoly played it safe hoping to win it without risk. Among the elite grandmasters you cannot play this way, you have to take risks to win, this why Kasparov was so successful in his tournaments and matches, he knew how to take the neccesary risk to win. I would add Karpov was second best in 1975 and he dominte his peers, and he was excellent tournament player because of his superior positional and endgame skills.

@Smyslov, I am great admire of Karpov, I study his games and contributed my gaining expert level becasuse of Karpov, Fischer, Alekhine and Capablanca. Because of Karpov I learn a lot of his positional ideas,and his opposite color bishops endgames are worth studies. Karpov winning the third match against Korchnoi using the Queen's gambit declined, convince me that QGD was worth adopting in my repertoire.

Fischer would lose the first two games as his standard tactic to give himself a challenge. Then Fischer would win the next three games. Then Fischer would vanish without trace. As the rumours of a cult - either voluntary or by kidnap, swamped the chess twit - o - verse, Karpov would claim the crown and read a Kremlin approved statement about Fischer "being too frightened of his own invincibility". 

Then Karpov would hire 10 cyborg, AI chess assistants with a combined ELO of 4000 to make up for Karpov's own lack of talent. 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Spassky was better than Karpov, Karpov would have no chance. If the FiDE met Fischer's demands.

wlapre wrote:

Spassky was better than Karpov, Karpov would have no chance. If the FiDE met Fischer's demands.

_____________

Karpov defeated Spassky pretty convincingly in the '74 Candidates. Hard to argue that Spassky was well past his prime at that point. He was playing better at that time than in 1972.

So many daft opinions in this thread.

SmyslovFan makes a lot of sense - the weaker players here players should think about what he's saying.

Fischer. Case closed.

Geller had a positive score balance versus Fischer. So if Fischer > Karpov, then also Geller > Karpov?

Questions like who is best or who would win, don't make sense when you are reffering to top leagues.

Fischer refused to play Karpov, I believe he was scared to lose. 

I think Fischer, correctly knew that he was likely to defeat Karpov if they played. But likely is very different than certain. The fact is that even a small chance of losing probably terrified Fischer. He quite simply had no life apart from chess. If Bobby couldn't be the best in the world his reason for existing would be gone. He would have been existentially destroyed. If there be an afterlife I hope his troubled soul is at peace and he is having fun playing blitz with Capablanca.

cliffb90 wrote:

Fischer refused to play Karpov, I believe he was scared to lose. 

I relate it to Karpov Vs Kasparov. New vs old. It seems in chess, new wins more than old, simply because new theroy and new games. FIscher was world number 1. THE topic of chess study for Karpov. Karpov had only been a GM for 5 years before this match, therfore he hadnt been a topic for Bobby to study for long (Not that Fischer studied after 1972). I think Karpov had prepped ideas which would have lead to Fischers defeat. 

Hard to say what Karpov's chances would have been in 75. It would, I think, have been a hard fight. I would judge Fischer to be the favorite. But people who think he would have easily trounced Karpov seen silly to me.

I think Fischer would have started as a slight favourite in 75, but assuming he'd have won, would have been the underdog in the next title match.

Fischer MIGHT have beat Karpov in two title matches, but three would be a tall order. Karpov was a comparable talent and would have overtaken Fischer.

ontomorrow wrote:

I think Fischer would have started as a slight favourite in 75, but assuming he'd have won, would have been the underdog in the next title match.

Sure, anything might have happened, but I think the most likely outcomes given the relative ages are that in 1975 a 32 year old Fischer retains his WC against the newcomer, but that in 1978 the 35 year old Fischer, his abilites and energy on the wane slightly, finds a well-honed, supported Karpov a little too hard to grind down.

The Chess Fans... then we wouldn't have to keep hearing this question. Both players are GM's, Champions and all time greats. Give it a rest wouldja please.

BOBBY FISHER,THE BEST ALL TIMES

I vote for Capa. But certainly Bobby was a genius too.

dommaryamill wrote:

BOBBY FISHER,THE BEST ALL TIMES

However, in 1978, 47-year old Viktor Korchnoi "ground down" Karpov in the Philippines, even under the considerable duress of having his wife and son held hostage in the Soviet Union.

I think your speculation here is unfounded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPlXC3M8hbg