Fischer vs Karpov

  • #201

    My impression is that every time Fischer demanded some rule change from FIDE, they immediately obliged him. When he demanded that the Candidates tournament should be changed for matches, FIDE quickly did as he wished (after which Fischer refused to play the next cycle anyway), when Fischer demanded that draws shorter than 30 moves should be forbidden in the Olympiad, FIDE quickly did as he wished (and Fischer refused to follow the rule he himself had demanded, claiming that it didn't apply to him), when Fischer demanded that the title match should be changed to first to ten wins FIDE accepted that too, in spite of it being a huge change that could lead to extremely long matches. Also before the Spassky match could be played and during it Fischer made various demands and got what he wanted. In the end the only thing he didn't get was the two-wins-cushion he demanded against Karpov. But he was close to get also that, it was only a question of two votes going in the opposite direction that would have given him that too.

  • #202

    Based on highest ratings on the database chessgames.com, Fischer would be win on Karpov, his rating is higher than Karpov.

  • #203

    Fischer was a one man slaughterhouse.

  • #204

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

    I don't know but they would have been very interesting games.

  • #205

    "Based on highest ratings on the database chessgames.com, Fischer would be win on Karpov, his rating is higher than Karpov"

    Yes, one player having five Elo higher peak rating at chessgames.com is a sure sign he would have won :-)

  • #206

    Karpov's highest live rating was 2790.9 while Fischer's highest live rating was 2789.7. Karpov's highest was in 1994 while Fischer's  was in 1972.

    Statistically, that's about the same. Karpov was the best player in the world from about 1978-1984. After that, Kasparov eclipsed him. I do think that even if Fischer had been active Karpov would still have been world champion from 1978 to 1984. The 1975 match would have been fantastically unpredictable!

  • #207

    Bob destroyed all of karpov's teachers!!! He laid the ground work for the Soviets to under estimate him in a title defense. Every world champion since then uses Bobby Fischer's games in study. He was too far ahead of the curve... Perhaps in a rematch Karpov would have beaten him but this would have been due to age. Now let's imagine Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov abd Serriwan all in their prime with no engines to train them no politics... Playing for 5 million dollars. Now that would be a awesome tournamnet!!!Please be relevant, helpful & nice!

  • #208

    all we need now is a sponsor.

  • #209

    And some black magic.

  • #210

    ofc Fisher 

  • #211

    I was with you until you mentioned Seirawan in the same sentence as Fischer, Karpov, and Kasparov.

  • #212

    All world championship matches traditionally give the champion draw odds which means that the challenger has to prove that he is not just equal, but better, than the reigning title holder. So in the case of a drawn match, the world champion title stays with the champion. This was what happened in the 2004 match between Kramnik and Leko. In recent years, the draw odds element has been removed and drawn matches have been settled by a variety of tiebreakers including blitz games (which in my opinion is ridiculous). That being said, Fischer's demand that the challenger must win a match by two points was simply keeping in the spirit of draw odds. FIDE was being unreasonably harsh simply because they disliked how powerful Fischer had become and they resented that he was making things fair instead of bowing down to the alleged superiority of the Soviets who continue to control the politics of the world chess organization governing body. The Soviets gladly refused to negotiate with Fischer if it meant that their poster boy Karpov would win the title for free, by default.

  • #213
    stuzzicadenti wrote:

    Fischer's demand that the challenger must win a match by two points was simply keeping in the spirit of draw odds. FIDE was being unreasonably harsh simply because they disliked how powerful Fischer had become and they resented that he was making things fair instead of bowing down to the alleged superiority of the Soviets who continue to control the politics of the world chess organization governing body. The Soviets gladly refused to negotiate with Fischer if it meant that their poster boy Karpov would win the title for free, by default.

    Fischer was making things fair, right :-) "The Soviets gladly refused to negotiate"? Negotiate what? Fischer didn't negotiate anything, and the Soviets accepted that Fischer got all his demands, as in the Spassky match. It was only one thing he didn't get in the end, and the Soviets obviously didn't vote for Karpov having to win with a margin of two games. The scary thing is how close it was that Fischer got what he demanded also there. But even on this last point Fischer refused to negotiate.

  • #214

    There's a world of difference between one and two points. It's fair to expect the winner of the match to win the title.

    Fischer's rule, if implemented would have meant that Fischer would retain the title even if he were beaten in the match as long as he wasn't beaten too badly. That was ridiculous, and he knew it. 

    Nowadays, the incumbent doesn't even get draw odds. 

  • #215

    you're such a drama queen!

  • #216

    Draw odds should be reinstated simply on the grounds that we select a challenger by conducting a candidates tournament. The winner of a candidates tournament is much more likely to win a world chess championship match than a challenger that had to go through a match cycle. The luxury of an incumbent champion to analyze x number of matches of the up coming challenger greatly increases his chances to win. This is the reasoning and logic behind elimination of draw odds.

    So here is your history of it all:

    Botvinnik drew a match against Bronstein (supposedly Bronstein was coerced to lose)

    Bronstein qualified by winning a playoff after tying for 1st place in a candidates tournament.

    Now Smyslov loses - candidates tournament

    Smyslov wins - candidates tournament

    Smyslov loses a rematch

    Tal wins - candidates tournament

    Tal loses a rematch

    Petrosian wins - candidates tournament

    Spassky loses to Petrosian after qualifying in a series of matches.

    Spassky qualifies, again in a series of matches, but then wins.

    Fischer qualifies by a series of matches and wins.

    Karpov qualifies and doesn't get to play.

    Korchnoi qualifies by a series of matches and then loses.

    Kasparov qualifies by a series of matches and the match is terminated, but he probably should have lost.

    Then Short and Anand both qualify in a series of matches and both lose to Kasparov.

    Kramnik didn't have to qualify.

    Leko wins what was essentially a candidates tournament and ties a match by losing the last game.

    Everything before and after isn't fit in the comparison between candidates tournaments vs series of matches. However, it is relevent to note that Carlsen and Anand were the only challengers to qualify (aside from Karjakin) by a candidates tournament since Petrosian.

    The current cycle needs to be refined, but not thrown in the trash.

    I think having a candidates tournamet to determine candidates for a series of match, and seeding the incumbent champion into the series of matches, would be best.

    For example take the top 14 rated players in the world, excluding the world chess champion, have a double round robin and then take the top half, which would be 7 players, then add the world champ into the mix for three rounds of elimination matches. The final match should be 16 or 18 games, though.

Top
or Join

Online Now