Fischer vs Karpov

In 1975, Anatoly Karpov was in line to play Bobby Fischer in the 1975 World Chess Championship. For some reason Fischer refused to play and in conclusion he lost the title. Who do you think would win. Would Fischer keep his title, or would Karpov defeat Fischer?

I think Karpov was at least as good or better

Neither Fischer nor Sovjet wanted that match to happen in 75, Karpov wasn't ready yet, odds are that even if Fischer gave in eventually, Sovjet would have find a way to postpone it.

If that match had taken place in 1975 I believe RJF would have lost. Reason being he'd been completely inactive and Karpov had been very active and at the top of his game (which was only getting better at that point). 

The reality is fischer would have been very unprepared in 1975.  If he'd been in training for the match I'm guessing he would have won. 

I haven't seen any reasonable source that he didn't train untill 75, he might not have been active in tournaments, but it wouldn't have been the first time Fischer took a break from tournaments only to return even stronger.

It wouldn't have been the first time a world champion defended the crown after being inactive for 3 years either, Botvinnik vs Bronstein for example.

Though, Bronstein came very close to winning (12-12 score), Botvinnik retained the title on the draw. Still, I would support Fischer - he had taken long breaks from competitive play before, only to come back stronger, like Tricklev said. I believe he had the patience and skill to crack the tough nut that is/was Karpov.

Fischer was the nut that had to be cracked. Older and very experienced, and a thoroughgoing genius of the game, and recognized as such several decades later.

Karpov was the young, less experienced player.

Karpov had his psychological weaknesses as well. He folded a few games v. Korchnoi, so let's not pretend that Fischer would be cracking up and Karpov would be an unassailable Rock of Gibraltar.

I'm a big Fischer fan but I remember the Karpov years very well. He was great too, and sometimes these discussions spotlight not the real characteristics of these players but the need for some to diminish one player or the other.

I once read he took approximately ~2 years off and did nothing but study endgames for 8 hours a day during that period. Which is funny, because many forget how good Fischer was at the endgame.

Silman lists him as one of the five best of all time, alongside such luminaries as Capablanca and Smyslov. The "Fischer Endgame" of a Rook and Bishop against Rook and Knight with pawns was named for his instructive victories over Mark Taimanov, I believe.

I moreso intended that phrase to indicate that Karpov was a very strong player at the time who would have "cracked" at some point in the match. Fischer was a superlative player who proved his balance in his match with Spaasky, and I partially agree with the ex-World Champion. I believe that Fischer would have won their 1975 World Championship Match. I also think that the third match would have been in question, though I am a little biased in Fischer's favour. Playing Karpov would have been a rough wake-up call the first time around, and would certainly push his already legendary work ethic into overdrive.

Or I could be spouting absolute drivel!

 Fischer played according to his certain weird rules for Chess Matches. Fischer wanted to play Karpov 10 games and have no draws.

The FIDE said No. So Fischer didnot play.

I agree that the Soviet champions were granted more favorable terms in the past. Having said that, I totally disagree with the concept of having a champion retain his title in the event of a tie. There is no other competition I know of that provides for such a result; there is always some type of tiebreaking mechanism that determines the winner. A defending champ allowed to keep his title in a tied match is granting him privileges based on a previous performance and is irrelevant to the current match. This is neither logical nor fair.

Furthermore, I oppose the use of a blitz and/or blindfold tiebreaker for a standard match, since these are different venues requiring somewhat different skills. IMO, a tiebreaker should always be an extention of the same venue.

You're wrong about this.  In a  boxing match, in case of a tie in the scoring, the champion retains his/her title.  This is true for martial arts in general.  And, I think boxing is very apt in terms of the nature of the competition, although one tends to be more physical and the other tends to bem more mental.