Fischer vs Karpov

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #61


    jesterville wrote:

    Sparsky and Dutch!?  (Bonus for one who knows the reference)

    Starsky and Hutch?


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #62


    Fischer would have won. 

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #63


    I honestly think that Karpov would win.

    There was also a Fischer-Kasparov game.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #64


    Are we talking about a boxing match?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #65


    I think Fischer was afraid to lose his title. Conspiracy and collusion among the Soviet players were likely to have taken place in the past. A number of prominent chess players mentioned this. Even Capablanca made a remark that Soviet players lost on purpose so that Botvinnik could rack up more points to come out on top. However, this did not stop Capa from participating in those tournaments. I think this is a display of confidence in one's skills and is a hallmark of a true champion. Fischer might have the skills, but he certainly didn't feel very confident about his own ability. He was afraid to lose his title and made all sort of excuses to cover it. Still, there is no doubt that Fischer was a genius. Had the Fischer vs Karpov match taken place and Fischer loses, I think people will still consider Fischer one of the great chess legends. It's unfortunate that the match never took place.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #66


    If he felt confident about himself, there was no reason for him to avoid the Karpov match. Why avoid the match if he thought he could easily own Karpov?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #67


    +1 honinbo

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #68


    In discussing who ducked whom, remember that Fischer actually started ducking the day after his triumph over Spassky - he never played again (until 20 years later).

    By 1975 Fischer had already quit chess for 3 years.

    I think if the hypothetical match was long enough, say whoever wins 10 games, Bobby would have won in a close come-from-behind victory, this giving him time to get back into form and take the measure of his opponent. But I think Karpov is right, he would have won in the return match by 1978. Karpov was still improving.

    Also, as far as the greatest ever, since Karpov and Kasparov were seperated in their careers by one game, it is sure splitting some thin hairs to say Kasparov was #1 and Fischer #2. There was not a whole lot of daylight between Kaspy and Karpov. I would put Fischer at #3, and eventually I am betting #4 behind Magnus, but we'll see.

    Karpov battling Fischer would have improved Karpov too, I think he would have held off Kasparov a little longer if he first had to climb the Fischer mountain.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #70


    Well I tried to look it up to find the exact total. The best I could get was a summation of the championship games, which was 21 -19 =104 in Kasparov's favor. So I stand corrected on the +1 figure, at least +2 in 144 champiosnship games.

    At any rate, they were extremely close, and I am suspicious of a judgement fitting anyone between them. That would be like saying that Fischer over 144 games would be -1 against Kasparov, yet +1 against Karpov. Possible but not very likely, IMO.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #72


    Figure into this that 5 of Kasparov's losses came when still pretty young and definitely out-experienced by Karpov, if we seek an accounting of their relative strength (as mature players) in their head-to-head record.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #73


    Interesting, considering how close the championship totals were. 

    Is there an explanation for the Kasparov dominance outside of the championship?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #75


    Also, Kasparov never was able to truly put Karpov away in their many matches, I think in the final match 1992(?) Kasparov, soilidly in his prime, retained the title by a 12-12 tie.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #76


    Reb wrote:
    goldendog wrote:

    Figure into this that 5 of Kasparov's losses came when still pretty young and definitely out-experienced by Karpov, if we seek an accounting of their relative strength (as mature players) in their head-to-head record.

    True, but how many of Kasparov's wins came after Karpov was declining and on his way down ?  Karpov was born in 1951 so he was probably on the way down in the mid to late 90s and Kasparov hit his peak rating in 99 I believe ?  

    Looking at megabase, Kasparov is +2 in that period, with just a few classical games played.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #77


    If Karpov had climbed the Fischer mountain, Kasparov might not have won the title. At least, Kasparov might need a few more years to prepare before he could snatch the title from Karpov. Karpov might have "inherited" something from Fischer (just as Kasparov learned from Karpov how to play more solid games). Imagine Karpov with a bit of Fischer's flair. That's intimidating for sure. 


    Fischer + Karpov = ?
  • 3 years ago · Quote · #78


    That's what happens when you stay out of the game at a high level for too long. The first to go is your confidence then everything seems to fall apart. I don't blame fisher for not playing karpov; at least in that way his invincibility stays. Imagine if he lost...

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #79


    I believe that Fischer made the decision to never defend his world title as soon as he won it in 1972 sadly. That belief is based on nothing more than a guess albeit it's a guess based on what happened after he won the title. It's almost as if, having won the title, Bobby could not countenance the risk of losing that title by playing again. Part of him wanted to play I'm sure. HOw could someone who invested that amount of time/effort not wish to play? The other part of Bobby prevailed whereby the fear of losing prevailed over the part that wanted to play. 

    My own view is that even by 1975 Fischer's reputation and ability would have still been good enough to see him retain his title if he played.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #80


    Peak vs Peak Dominance is the only way to compare champions - Fischer= GOAT

Back to Top

Post your reply: