Fischer vs Karpov

Karpov's rating never EVER exceeded Fischer's peak rating.  I shouldn't even have to explain this.

  Although it really is impossible to know I think Fischer would had won in a close match. The biggest thing i have against Fischer is the fact that Fischer did not defend his title. We have Spassky to thank that the Fischer vs. Spassky match took place. After Fischer did not show up for the second game and Spassky was instructed to claim the title and return to Russia Spassky had the courage to stay and provide the world with the most followed chess match of all time. Fischer may have been the best chess challenger to the world championship but he was the worst champion since he never defended it.

There was no Russia. There was the Soviet Union with 10,000 nukes aimed at us, and millions of people annexed into their empire. Fischer did not refuse to defend his title; he refused to give it away to a bunch of cheating scoundrels.

The Soviets had always told FIDE where the venue would be, what the rules would be, and what the prize would be -- and they intended the trend to continue. Saying that Fischer refused to defend his title is simplistic and jejune.

In fact, Karpov refused to challenge Fischer.

Why was Fischer stripped of his title then? Why did he choose exile?

Karpov never wanted to win the title by default and that's why he played like a man possessed for ten years after being crowned - he felt he had something to prove.

lol. "A bunch of cheating scoundrels" would be the kind of people who would try to impose conditions like "The title goes to the first player to win ten games, draws not counting, but our guy starts 1 - 0 up because reasons".

There may have been grounds to suppose that Soviet players chucked games to each other to manipulate tournaments (perhaps the US could and would have done so if they'd had a pool of equally good players) but they couldn't do that in a World Championship match and there was no justification for expecting Fischer to be given the terms above, and appealing to historical Cold War paranoia doesn't justify it either.

What exactly has the political situation to do with chess match rules?

Fact is that Fischer claimed an unfair advantage (the definition of fairness requires equal conditions in the first place). Granting him this advantage would have been a real desaster.

FIDE was the lapdog of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That's why Fischer was stripped of his title. Politics infests every aspect of our lives, from this message board hierarchy to business to religion to government to chess.

Why, by analogy, is it fair that the AFC and NFC champions get byes while they wait for their challengers to play and win an extra game? Does anyone begrudge this rule?

The Soviets had always made the rules, and they hadn't always been fair. Fischer wasn't gunning for Karpov; he was gunning for the Soviets. The USCF lacked the backbone to stand behind their own most precious gem.

The analogy there is that the world chess champion gets to sit on his duff while all his opponents have to make their way through zonals, interzonals and Candidates tournaments before getting their shot at the title. Fischer enjoyed that privilege just as much as the champions before him did - and you still want to say "Nuh-uh, not enough - got to spot him a one-game start or it's not f-a-i-i-i-i-irrr!".

Cripes, it's no wonder American casinos think they have to have two zeroes on the roulette wheel to make an honest living. No advantage is good enough for you guys because the other guys are a bunch of cheaterrrrs! 

Fischer wanted to revert back prior to FIDE where the World Champion held all the power in dictating match terms. This, after he had years earlier said that the World Champion had an unfair advantage under the current system.

FIDE gave into a lot of Fischers demands but they weren't going to give him a +1 gave advantage before the match even began.

If we fast forward to the first Kasparov and Karpov match when they tried Fischers proposed first to X number of wins we had a very long and quite honestly epic match with a possible Kasparov come back had the match been allowed to keep going. We can only speculate how such a match with Fischer and Karpov may have gone but I'd think it'd be one for the books.

AFC and NFC don't do this. They give byes to the teams that played the strongest regular season, which is known to everyone beforehand. So, no unequal conditions. Every team has the change to play a strong regular season and get a bye.

So far you failed to give rational reasoning and you also failed to give working analogies, which, by the way, wouldn't prove anything, because analogies never do that for obvious reasons.

Which, of course, leave me owing Candidate35 and Americans generally an apology, since it's obvious KantWasWrong's view is by no means universal.

As I made plain in the other thread, these are my views based on my dealings with the USCF Congress as a state officer delegate in the 1980s, and on our correspondence with Claudia Mokarow (Fischer's secretary). I have never claimed to represent anyone else's view -- particularly not "Americans generally."

Ok I didn't know that (haven't seen 'the other thread'); nevertheless, I'm still not convinced. Karpov dodged Fischer in '75 so Fischer went off in a huff that lasted... forever?

Sorry, but that makes zero sense.

 I guess Kant is not the only person who was wrong.

Kant was wrong because he said that existence is not a predicate.

@Ghostliner

The "other thread" is here;

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/my-brief-brush-almost-with-fisher

The way i heard it was that Fischer handed in a list of demands and all but 1 of them were met. I think in Fischer's mind he would remain the world champion until he was beat over the chess board. Since he would never allow himself to risk the title that would never happen.

The earlier pages of this thread are interesting, but some of the more recent comments are just wrong. 

For the record, Karpov's peak live rating was higher than Fischer's peak live rating (2790.9 vs 2789.7). The difference is meaningless. A match between these two, who at the time of their dominance were the best the world had seen, would have been spectacular.

Yes, Kasparov was marginally but clearly better than Karpov. Their matches were close, but when Kasparov needed to win or draw, he was able to find a way. Kasparov won the matches, 4 wins 0 losses and 1 draw. That's important to remember. 

Carlsen is marginally, but clearly better than Kasparov at his best. Kasparov's best rating was 2856 while Carlsen's best is 2889. Even those who argue there has been ratings inflation don't argue there has been more than 30 points inflation from 2000-2014. Carlsen has now won the World Championship and defended it. It's safe to say he's the best ever. 

Karpov never said he would lose to Fischer in 1975. He said that the odds would have been in Fischer's favor, but he liked his chances in the rematch.