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

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Here we go again...

Bobby, of course.

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.

Bobby

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.

Impractical wrote:

Bobby, of course.

Yes.0

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. It's still unfair, but not as bad as if it were a best of 24 match. If the players were equal, the defending champion would win ~59% of the time. But in a match of 24 games, Fischer's demand for the challenger to win by two games would have been given the champion much greater odds. 

http://en.chessbase.com/post/are-the-che-world-champions-just-lucky-part-3-211013

http://en.chessbase.com/post/are-the-che-world-champions-just-lucky-050913

If Fischer's conditions were accepted, we would have had a fantastic match!

Fischer - Karpov '75 would have been the match of the Century!

Fischer deteriorated due to his mental health problems .his performance vs Spassky in 92 was worse at age 49 than many other players were able to achieve at that age.

@ SpiritoftheVictory { 173}: 

 Nicely stated! I enjoy reading your opinions, very fair to both players.

AlexandraThessa wrote: Karpov would destroy Fischer quite easily.

AK: My main one was Semyon Furman. He had been my trainer since 1969. Efim Geller, who helped me with my match against Korchnoi. I needed specialists in the openings. So at that time I was with Efim Geller, and later I invited Balashov who had been my friend for many years, and especially because he got his diploma at the Sports Institute on Fischer’s games. He was the Fischer specialist in the team. I also had a fitness team as part of my preparation.

Semyon Furman had been Karpov's trainer since 1969, when he was 18.

You don't know this but Fischer and Karpov is one my favorite players; Fischer soundness is more attractive than the risky Tal, some of his sacrifices were unsound and he depended on his opponent inability not to find the best moves. Fischer could play like Tal, in one his game against Tal, Fischer sacrifice his queen and wins in a long endgame. What I appreciate of Karpov was his soundness of played, very much like Capablanca, no risky sacrifices, no premature attacks; Karpov's plan were solid and base on a theme, he decisions was to play according to the position, I personally like this very much. Both players have this clarity in their played. The Soviets choose Karpov, because Anatoly played like Fischer and had the best chance to beat Fischer. We really don't know who would of won, I personally think Fischer had the slight advantage because of experiences and also was more physical fit and can with stand the pressure better than Karpov; maybe it could of been Karpov winning because of will power. Alexandra try to be objective. I love the games of Fischer Karpov and Capablanca, maybe it is because their games were the way chess should be played, base on sound plans and the demands of the position, not like hope chess I sacrifice a piece unsoundly hoping my opponent doesn't defended well, I call that one trick pony, players always attacking the king because they don't have skills and understanding in a position and they don't make a proper plan on the demands of the position.

LOLz  Even Karpov did not think that was true!

I don't think Fischer was afraid of Karpov or anybody else for that matter. And, it was not the first time him to withdraw from a match if his conditions were not 100% met. He was just that sorta fella. :)

Interesting to note that upon winning the title, Fischer had offers to star in commercials. Those alone would have landed him millions of dollars. He refused them all. In many ways, Fischer was truly a unique kind of person; he was like a kid that never grew up. He always spoke his mind; always stated what he believed was the truth.