AlexandraThessa wrote:
Suprised to see people still arguing over this. We came to a conclusion long ago that Fischer was no match for the great Karpov.
Pfffft
If Fischer would played Karpov for the World Champion, who would win?
Sort:
petrosianpupil wrote:
Even Jamie can get the occasional thing right. Karpov was lucky to be top dog when a golden era of chess Giants were in decline. He needed support of the cheating Russian chess machine. Even then he could barely beat a past it Korchnoi. Karpov was a a very good world champion but lived in Fischers shadow.
Totally correct! Karpov with all the help barely beat old Korchnoi and took him a long time to reach his peak rating of 2780. Karpov best accomplishment were his winning 160 tournaments. Karpov winning five games and just needed to win one more game against Kasparov to win match, could not do this and allow Garry to win three games, Anatoly does not have the stamina or the will power to presevere against tough opposition.
petrosianpupil wrote:
Karpovs record against Kasparov was fantastic. A lot due to his style and also due to Kasparov being young.
Kasparov was half a class better than Karpov IMO and a far greater world champion. Unlike Fischer or Alekhine he didn't avoid a fight.
Karpov LOST ALL FOUR 24-game matches to Kasparov.How is that a fantastic record?I challenge you to name another Champion who lost four matches without winning even one.Sorry but that is a DISASTER,not a fantastic record.
electric_limes wrote:
petrosianpupil wrote:
Karpovs record against Kasparov was fantastic. A lot due to his style and also due to Kasparov being young.
Kasparov was half a class better than Karpov IMO and a far greater world champion. Unlike Fischer or Alekhine he didn't avoid a fight.
Karpov LOST ALL FOUR 24-game matches to Kasparov.How is that a fantastic record?I challenge you to name another Champion who lost four matches without winning even one.Sorry but that is a DISASTER,not a fantastic record.
It is no disaster to score 12-12 against Kasparov in a title match in 1987, and neither is it a disaster to lead 25-23 after 48 games in 1984. The other matches were of course huge disasters, I mean scores like 11.5-12.5 against Kasparov can only be reached by quite a weak player :-)
fabelhaft wrote:
electric_limes wrote:
petrosianpupil wrote:
Karpovs record against Kasparov was fantastic. A lot due to his style and also due to Kasparov being young.
Kasparov was half a class better than Karpov IMO and a far greater world champion. Unlike Fischer or Alekhine he didn't avoid a fight.
Karpov LOST ALL FOUR 24-game matches to Kasparov.How is that a fantastic record?I challenge you to name another Champion who lost four matches without winning even one.Sorry but that is a DISASTER,not a fantastic record.
It is no disaster to score 12-12 against Kasparov in a title match in 1987, and neither is it a disaster to lead 25-23 after 48 games in 1984. The other matches were of course huge disasters, I mean scores like 11.5-12.5 against Kasparov can only be reached by quite a weak player :-)
The fact remains that Karpov had one opportunity to retain his title and three opportunities to dethrone Kasparov but he lost all four matches(close matches,but still lost.)Therefore I consider a 0-4 match score closer to a disaster than to "a fantastic score".If you can come up with another World champion who lost four matches and yet had a "fantastic score" I will immediately acknowledge being wrong.Till then,Karpov was simply ANNIHILATED by Kasparov,sorry Karpov fans.
petrosianpupil wrote:
If I played Kasparov and lost 99-1 it would be my greatest achievement. Dont look at results, look at opponents. Kasparov was an amazing world champion. Other world champs took easy matches, picked their regular clients. Lasker ran scared of Capa for years, Alekhine did the same. Botvinnik manipulated his way to being world champ for years when his record against Smyslov was hardly awe inspiring. Karpov dominated chess when old ill men were still clinging on. Kasparov dominated when Anand, Kramnik, Ivanchuk Topalov etc etc were at their peak. Nearly having a level score against Kasparov is Karpov's greatest achievement.
Sorry but I tend to look at a 4-0 match result as total annihilation.And just for the record,Lasker never ran scared of Capa.In fact,even after his loss to the Great Cuban,in every single tournament that these two Giants met,Lasker finished ahead of his young opponent.Impressive,don't you think?
Petrosianpupil, are you sure that Anand, Kramnik and Topalov was at their peak back in Kasparovtime? They have added a lot of experience and learning since then, and are playing fantastic in these days. Maybe they havnt reached their top yet?
fabelhaft wrote:
...It is no disaster to score 12-12 against Kasparov in a title match in 1987, and neither is it a disaster to lead 25-23 after 48 games in 1984. The other matches were of course huge disasters, I mean scores like 11.5-12.5 against Kasparov can only be reached by quite a weak player :-)
I'm pretty sure that Karpov considered his losses to be disastrous. Kasparov's closest rival was Karpov. Karpov was one of the greatest players of all time. Yes, there was relatively few strong players from 1975-1984, but Karpov was clearly the best active player during that decade. Any player who dominates the chess scene for a decade deserves to be considered one of the all time greatest players.
Kasparov was slightly, but clearly better than Karpov. In the games that mattered the most at the end of matches, Kasparov won. Kasparov was better than Karpov.
By the way, in the long 1984-1985 match, Karpov had several games that he could have won, one of which was so obvious that anyone rated ~1800 could have found the win. Karpov was just too tired. Kasparov's play also suffered badly during that marathon.
The match needed to be stopped. It should have been stopped when it was forced to be moved away from its original venue. Campomanes botched it and made both players look bad. Kasparov was right to be furious about the way in which the match was stopped, but he had agreed that it needed to be stopped.
petrosianpupil wrote:
Lasker was a great player. Capa challenged him in 1911 and they didn't play until 1921. Lasker even resigned the title to him to avoid playing him and only did so in the end because of a stack load of money. Lasker understood Capa was a better player. Capa's chess from 1914 was a new level like Rubinstein he was planning endgames from the start, but with creates precision and confidence. Lasker was great at spotting weakness in opponents and Capa terrified him. As he said himself after a fantastic career that stretched over so many greats, he only knew one chess genius and that was Capa. He signed a contract with Rubinstein when it was clear that Capa was the best and Rubinsteins mental health was causing him problems, to avoid Capa. Lasker was great, but a coward like Alekhine.
In my opinion,calling Lasker and Alekhine (and possibly Fischer too?) cowards betrays a very superficial understanding of both chess history and of the players themselves.
Tired yet? :)
I'm not going to say who would have won in 1975, I've no idea. But I'd agree that had such a match taken place, just that one, history would have been far different that we know it. Win or lose, Karpov would have become a much stronger player. Win or lose, people's perceptions of Fischer would be much different. The Soviet Chess machine could have been publically redeemed with a Karpov win or humiliated by Fischer once again. That match could have crystalized Fischer's career, he could have literally won the match, held a press conference that he's the best and bored of chess, that he'd beaten the Russians at their game twice and retired from chess and no one would have questioned him. Or Karpov could have won, possibly sending Fischer in a frenzy, elevating his game even further to get his title back. Or maybe he would have just walked away from the game. whatever happened, I think everyone would have agreed it would have been better for Chess had that match taken place. Who would have won isn't the question, why the match didn't happen is the big question we'll never know the answer to and that is what has caused such debate and speculation on the chess world, why such a match was never played, and we don't have the answer to what many feel is such an important one. For chess history, as well as two titans of chess.
FISCHER HANDS DOWN WORLD CHESS CHAMPION ALL THE WAY INTO THE 1990'S KARPOV NEVER BEEN WORLD CHESS CHAMPION
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
livat01 wrote:
Fischer had a really hard time getting to the board. But once there, he was brilliant. His chess was calm and objective, a stark contrast to the rest of his life.
Yes. In 1972, he barely (with a whisper) got to the board against Spassky. After that, he never could. Except in 1992
So, 'the rest of his life demons', finally took possession of his chess talent too. And the contrast to the rest of his life was gone. Like a black hole.
The first two games Fischer had a two points deficits and on third game he destroy Spassky. Fischer had doubts before playing Spassky but once on the board all his competitive spirit comes out of him ready to do battle and the will to win; Fischer is unique in that back in a corner he fight with all his might,and he is unbeatable. In third game Fischer destroy Spassky's spirit and afterward Spassky never was the same in the match, this will happen to Karpov. I like to add out of 179 demands of Fischer only one did not go through, Karpov and Soviets did not contribute to not even one demand; that show what a powerful personlity and persona Fischer was, Karpov was a weak individual and only a yes man, and Anatoly obey to everything being told to.