Fischer vs Karpov

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!

all we need now is a sponsor.

And some black magic.

ofc Fisher 

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.

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. 

you're such a drama queen!

"Karpov wasn't ready to beat Fischer in '75 in my opinion. He would have learned so much from that match however, just like Kasparov did against Karpov. Old thread resurrected by the way!"

Well he sure was ready to demolish Spassky in 1974 wasnt he?

Was Alekhine ready for Capa in 1927? No way....but the mach told a different story one nobody expected.

Elo is a fairly accurate predictor when both players are active.

Fischer's Elo rating was somewhat soft because it was three years old and relied on match play stats rather than tournaments.

Yes, Fischer's match record was incredible, but Elo ratings based on matches can be unreliable because of the way match strategy and psychology operate. 

A healthy, focused Fischer could've easily wiped the floor with Karpov, Kasparov, and whoever else the Russians could engineer. People act like Spassky was chopped liver or something. Spassky is one of the finest chess players to have ever played the game and seemed immortal for a time in the late 60s/early 70s. He was a contender well into the 80s.

Fischer was already starting to slip, yet he crushed a prime Spassky. Spassky was at his very best, and an ill Fischer just absolutely wiped the floor with him.

The problem with Fischer was that he'd been away from chess for a while, and according to most, was suffering from mental illness. That's literally the only reason why this is even a question. Had Fischer been "healthy", his potential for chess greatness far exceeds anything we've ever seen. But as it was, he may have struggled in the mid to late 70s. It would've been a tall order to knock off Karpov.

I don't think Fischer's potential was ever truly reached and I think that's a shame.

It was a pitty that Fischer didn t dare to play against Karpov for some reason. Lack of confidente? Because I am sure it would gave the chess world many nice and interesting games. It would have been a thouch figth. 

Yes, Fischer would've been hard pressed to beat Karpov in '75. That's not to say that he couldn't do it - but it would've been awfully hard. A prime Karpov was very, very strong.

But I'm also of the opinion that had Fischer stayed active in chess, and been healthy, he would've remained World Champion for an indefinite amount of time. I don't think we've seen that kind of raw talent since Morphy.

I feel like Fischer would have won the first match in 1975, and Karpov would have won in 1978 by a wide margin. We'd have an entirely different history of the game.. if only. As good as Karpov was, and he was truly great, Fischer was an unknown quantity to him in 1975. I don't think he would have lost badly, it may have even been 12-12 with Fischer retaining the title by default, but it's my gut feeling that Fischer would have managed to retain the title and Karpov would have came back to dismantle him three years later. And after that experience for Karpov, Kasparov would have been that much better as well as Karpov would have been that much harder to dethrone. Maybe just wishful thinking, who knows.

@FlohrAttack, that's a reasonable alternative history. Karpov himself gave himself about a 45% chance in 1975. He surmised that even though Fischer would have been favorite, he couldn't risk losing. 

In later years, Karpov worked hard to get a match against Fischer, but Fischer just wasn't interested.

I believe Fischer didnt return to chess because he was sick of dealing with FIDE and he had achieved all his goals in chess . 

Btw, every Fischer fan should watch Karpov's videos where he analyses Fischer's games.

It turns out that Karpov was also a huge fan of Fischer's chess, and he was deeply familiar with Fischer's strengths and weaknesses.

Fischer was a nutjob. All his life was based on becoming WC. Once he became WC his life lost all sense in life. And then lovely uncle Sam ruined it even more with his bureaucratic load of crap and persecution of Fischer.

I think all of the greats studied those who came before them . Kasparov also studied Fischers games and even adopted many of Fischer's openings . Are the videos you mention on this site ? 

I watched them on that antiquated system known as DVD, and checked them out from something called a "library". 

I'm sure they're all available on YouTube by now.