Fischer is dead. Karpov is not.
0 - 1.
If Fischer would played Karpov for the World Champion, who would win?
Sort:
JamieDelarosa wrote:
ontomorrow wrote:
patzermike wrote:
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.
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.
That correct , if Karpov could not easily beat Korchnoi having a three points advantage
, Anatoly had no chance with Fischer, Zero chance!!!
Zero chance! Maybe Korchnoi could have beaten Bobby too! Unless you have a really stupid idea that Bobby was a superhuman being.
yureesystem wrote:
JamieDelarosa wrote:
ontomorrow wrote:
patzermike wrote:
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.
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.
That correct , if Karpov could not easily beat Korchnoi having a three points advantage
, Anatoly had no chance with Fischer, Zero chance!!!
Yes, Spassky had Geller and lost. But that was because Spassky was too lazy to use him.
In one game, Spassky had Fischer right where he wanted him, in the middle of a Geller novelty. Spassky forgot the analysis! A few months later, Geller reached the same position against Timman and won easily using the novelty he had prepared for Spassky.
Karpov would never have thrown away such a glorious opportunity.
That is something that most people forget: Spassky played well below his best in 1972, and was privately heavily criticized *before* the match for his casual approach to training.
patzermike wrote:
Zero chance! Maybe Korchnoi could have beaten Bobby too! Unless you have a really stupid idea that Bobby was a superhuman being.
How many games of Karpov did you play over and I bet you played very few games or none at all. I base my opinion on the games of Fischer and Karpov I played over. Fischer in 1972 was unbeatable, even three years later Bobby could a still beat Karpov. Remember FIDE approve the first to win ten games, this alone give Fischer the advantage. Before you put you worthless two cent in do some reseach, you really don't know what you are talking about. Fischer and Kasparov dynamic style are difficult to play against; this what happen in Capablanca against Alekhine match in 1927.
SmyslovFan wrote:
Yes, Spassky had Geller and lost. But that was because Spassky was too lazy to use him.
In one game, Spassky had Fischer right where he wanted him, in the middle of a Geller novelty. Spassky forgot the analysis! A few months later, Geller reached the same position against Timman and won easily using the novelty he had prepared for Spassky.
Karpov would never have thrown away such a glorious opportunity.
That is something that most people forget: Spassky played well below his best in 1972, and was privately heavily criticized *before* the match for his casual approach to training.
Sheer speculation. Humans are fallible.
Here is a link to an interview with Karpov concerning the preparations by Spassky for the 1972 match:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/karpov-interview-on-fischer
yureesystem wrote:
I like both players and learned a lot from Fischer and Karpov but if a match took place in 1975, I believe Fischer would win. Fischer with his aggressive and dynamic style would been too much for Karpov. Karpov was leading in 1974 Candidates Match against Korchnoi but choke and Korchnoi was able to win and even the score and Karpov won the last game. The final score was Karpov 12.5 and Korchnoi 11.5. Too close and if Karpov had a difficult time with Korchnoi, can you imagine Fischer who is even more aggressive.
The only reason that Karpov lost those games is that he was slightly sick. However, we do need a fair matchup against Karpov and Fischer, not Karpov and Korchnoi. Here, I think it would be a close battle. The Karpov at that point played strong chess, and was capable of easily beating Spassky and other greats. In chess capabilities, I think they were equal. But I think Fischer's maniacal will to win would win the match for him, if only by one point.
SmyslovFan wrote:
Yes, Spassky had Geller and lost. But that was because Spassky was too lazy to use him.
In one game, Spassky had Fischer right where he wanted him, in the middle of a Geller novelty. Spassky forgot the analysis! A few months later, Geller reached the same position against Timman and won easily using the novelty he had prepared for Spassky.
Karpov would never have thrown away such a glorious opportunity.
That is something that most people forget: Spassky played well below his best in 1972, and was privately heavily criticized *before* the match for his casual approach to training.
I don't think that that was laziness. That was simply forgetfulness.
I have three books on the Korchnoi vs Karpov matches.
Karpov-Korchnoi 1974 by William Hartston and Raymond Keene
The World Chess Championship 1978: Karpov vs. Korchnoi by Bent Larsen and Michael Stean
The World Chess Championship: Korchnoi vs. Karpov (The Inside Story) by Raymond Keene
The 1974 match was the Candidates final. Karpov won 12.5-11.5 in a set 24 game match. Karpov won games 2, 6, and 17. Korchnoi won games 19 and 21.
Hartston and Keene write,
"Korchnoi's ability to narrow the gap in the closing phases raises two intriguing questions: how woud the match have progresses had Korchnoi resolutely played the French Defense throughout, and would the outcome had been different of the original schedule had specified 30 games instead of 24? Karpov's shaky form after game 18 suggests that his physical preparation was adequate only for a shorter contest."
Jamie, you provide an excellent link. It shows the reason for my "sheer speculation". In 1974, Spassky trained much harder and still was beaten in convincing fashion by Karpov.
One thing that even Karpov's detractors usually accept is that Karpov was extremely hard working and paid close attention to details.
I have no clue whether Fischer would have won in 1975. That's the great tragedy for chess fans, that we were deprived of one of the greatest matches of all time.
I think Fischer would have been the favorite to win if they had played in 75. But those who blithely opine that he would have easily trounced Karpov seem silly to me.
too much speculation here...
lets add a bit more then...
who do you think have won..
Carlsen vs Fischer
Anand vs Fischer
Kasparov vs Fischer
Kramnik vs Fischer
Caruana vs Fischer
Nakamura vs Fischer...
all are idiotic questions yes. but lets speculate.
S-h-i-v-a-m wrote:
too much speculation here...
lets add a bit more then...
who do you think have won..
Carlsen vs Fischer
Anand vs Fischer
Kasparov vs Fischer
Kramnik vs Fischer
Caruana vs Fischer
Nakamura vs Fischer...
all are idiotic questions yes. but lets speculate.
If you compare each player at their peak, in my opinion, Fischer vs Kasparov would be more or less even. I don't think Carlsen has peaked yet, so I can't answer that. The others would be in favor of Fischer.
Tal vs Fischer
SilentKnighte5 wrote:
Tal vs Fischer
Tal had 16-year old Bobby Fischer's number in 1959, when Tal won four out of four. After that, Tal never beat Fischer again.
Since the discussion is just going around in circles and the same argument including Korchnoi keeps being repeated I could just as well repeat part of my post on the first page of this thread...
Karpov's narrow wins against Korchnoi are often mentioned as a reason that he would have lost against Fischer, but Fischer didn't have a plus score against Korchnoi himself. One could just as well say that Karpov's scoring better against Spassky than Fischer did means that he would have beaten Fischer. Such comparisons are difficult to make though, Kasparov had 15-0 against Shirov, who won the Candidates match against Kramnik convincingly. Still Kasparov lost to Kramnik.
fabelhaft wrote:
Since the discussion is just going around in circles and the same argument including Korchnoi keeps being repeated I could just as well repeat part of my post on the first page of this thread...
Karpov's narrow wins against Korchnoi are often mentioned as a reason that he would have lost against Fischer, but Fischer didn't have a plus score against Korchnoi himself. One could just as well say that Karpov's scoring better against Spassky than Fischer did means that he would have beaten Fischer. Such comparisons are difficult to make though, Kasparov had 15-0 against Shirov, who won the Candidates match against Kramnik convincingly. Still Kasparov lost to Kramnik.
The point of citing the Karpov matches againt Korchnoi was, in part, to show that Karpov's stamina waned in the later stages. This was true against Kasparov as well.
Fischer believed that a world class master must be physically fit to compete in a lengthly match.
Where did Fischer say that?
Here2study wrote:
Karpov would have had Geller as a second, and gained an advantage potentially with some opening novelties, known to give Fischer problems.
Wrong! Spassky had Geller and still lose the title, Fischer was an awesome player and his work ethic and diligence was better than Karpov and Spassky.