Fischer vs Karpov

Real easy who wins and why? (if they had played of course)

of course ur choice of year

karpov ainec

fisher is overrated

karpov would have won...Fischer was smart enough to see that, so he created his usual bs not to play...karpov was very solid and good at all phases of the royal game he would have not made those then small inaccuracies that is considered now basically blunders....

Karpov wins because Fischer doesn´t show up.

1957. Fischer was already US Champion. Karpov was six years old.

I'm personally torn on this topic. Fischer is an idol to me. I want to believe he would have won the 75' championship, but i think his mind had started to slip by then. As much as I DON'T want to say it I'm going to say Karpov would have won. I think the Russians were ready for what ever BS Fischer was going to try to bring to the table.

Fischer's mind had started to slip long before 1975. He won matches against Taimanov, Larsen, Petrosian and Spassky while (metaphorically) wearing his underpant on his head... why couldn't he have beaten Karpov, too?

I really think that Bobby did a huge disservice to chess, by refusing to play the competition. Chess History would have been different if he had actually faced Karpov, and later on Kasparov as well. Although I am a Fischer fan, he lost some major respect from me for his negative/selfish actions.

Concerning the question specifically-

I read the book "Bobby Fischer against The World", and it alludes to the position that Sparsky had many opportunites to walk away from the match and retain his crown...but yet he did not. The position here suggests that Sparsky was just too accomodating to Fischer, and actually went against The Russian Heads who had ordered him back to Moscow. I think Fischer's history here would have backfired on him with any Match with Karpov. I don't believe they would have put-up with all the crap that took place in Iceland. I actually don't believe he would have ever played Karpov...even if all his terms were met. 

His name is Spassky . 

Thanks for the correction NM Reb...I actually went checking it on, and was about to correct.

No problem, I thought it was just a mistype until you did it twice . 

I bet Fischer would win his first title defense against Karpov. In the rematch, my money is on Karpov.

Thanks for sharing that picture with us NM Reb. You must be very proud to have met GM Spassky. Please share with us the storey of this encounter...and what was your conversation like? This one you should have up on your wall for all to see.

I think the argument goes that Karpov was quite a lot more dangerous opponent. He convincingly beat Spassky in candidates. Spassky is undoubtlessly one of the most brilliant players of all time but apparently he was lazy to prepare especially in his later years whereas Fischer of course worked tirelessly. Karpov was much more professional. I'm not going to speculate who would have won but almost certainly Karpov would have been much harder opponent than any of the above.

It's a shame that this match never took place. Fischer's withdraw allowed Karpov to pretty easily dominate chess world until Kasparov came along. It's quite possible that had Karpov faced tougher competition during some of his best years he would have reached even higher level.

It is a shame that Karpov had to inherit the WCC title in such a disgraceful fashion. Karpov was a chess genius, standing head and shoulders over his contemporaries, and fully deserved his shot at the title.

Fischer's abdication not only stained Fischer himself, and Karpovs crown, but all of chess as well.

"...It's a shame that this match never took place. Fischer's withdraw allowed Karpov to pretty easily dominate chess world until Kasparov came along. It's quite possible that had Karpov faced tougher competition during some of his best years he would have reached even higher level."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting position "Shakaali", as I have read, Karpov very well knew how  tainted his crown was...and set out to prove himself to everyone by destroying all at Tournaments for a number of years. It is also a fact that even though Kasparov has "stolen" most of the chess press, surely because of his charismatic persona...that only 1/2 point I believe separates the two in games played...there could be a very strong position that Karpov needs to be more mentioned in the "best ever conversation".

I  have noticed that some of the same people who argue that Kasparov is greater than Fischer due to higher best rating also argue that Karpov would have beaten Fischer and was better than Fischer . This is very odd given that Karpov's best rating was less than Fischer's best rating . I wish they would make up their minds about how much ratings really matter to them , at least try and be consistent with their " reasoning " .  Some now believe Carlsen greater than Kasparov based on ratings alone , which is ridiculous imo. 

By his own admission Karpov said he would have lost the first match to Fischer and won a return match.