It is not even disputable: Karpov would DEFINITELY WIN in 1975

#99
The gain in strength by Fischer from 1970 to 1972 comes from activity: from playing.
The decline in strength by Fischer from 1972 to 1992 comes mainly from inactivity: from not playing and to a lesser extent from ageing.
The chessmetrics site shows this clearly in the graph
http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=199510SSSSS3S038178000000111000000000000010100

Chessmetrics is an improvement over elo.
Jeff Sonas has a BSc in mathematics and computer science, you do not even grasp high school mathematics.

I seem to know enough to have bested you repeatedly ...

Before I retired, I managed a 55 person software development team with backgrounds equal to and far exceeding Mr. Sonas.  Some of them had an attitude just like yours, and it never served them well.  You know your math, but you completely lack the sense to know when you are misapplying it.  I and many other posters have toppled a number of your premises based on such misapplications previously.  You're like the poster boy for GIGO.

Chessmetrics is garbage.  Be sure to let everyone know when it replaces elo ratings.

#102
Managing 55 smart people does not make you smart.
Winning, losing, or drawing are relevant in chess.
In a discussion only the truth prevails.
All your insulting 'bested', 'attitude', 'lack the sense', 'misapplying', 'toppled', 'misapplications', 'GIGO', 'garbage' just mask your lack of understanding.
You are more smug than smart.
I guess you managed your 55 smart people by bullying them.

Your curves about age related decline of cognitive functions have nothing to do with chess.
Real curves of decline of chess ability are available from... chessmetrics.
http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=199510SSSSS3S062745000000111000000000000010100 

elo was invented as a simplified estimation suitable for manual calculation from tables. Chessmetrics uses more accurate, but more complex estimation formulas.
Also this site does not use elo, but the improved Glicko.
Chessmetrics processes game one by one instead of elo in a batch of 6 months with the simplifying assumption that ratings stay constant for 6 months.

The truth has already prevailed.  You just don't recognize it for what it is.  You lost your 10^20 solving chess debacle, you annoyed John Tromp until he wouldn't listen to you anymore (you did this by misapplying math, I will also point out), and you've lost this round as well.

As for smugness, you're projecting.  I do not become "smug" on threads unless/until a poster starts spouting their nonsense as if it were proven facts.  *You* used the phrase "elo ratings" in all your comparisons.  I didn't mention that chess.com uses Glicko RD because then you would just pivot to some other silly assertion whose refutation you would not accept .  It's generally a waste of time to interact with you past the point of showing your errors to others, because you have never shown a capability for learning anything other than through your own flawed machinations, leaping from lilypad to lilypad of bad assumptions.  Have fun learning the world with this self-imposed limitation.  

It doesn't take a lick of math knowledge to understand why claiming chessmetrics is a superior rating system is garbage.  Chessmatrics is a half-a$$ed attempt to generate buzz (and ergo potentially make money) by comparing ratings across time that cannot be accurately compared anyway.  A rating system that chess players will accept, on the other hand, can not and will never be allowed to change anyone's rating without any events or data points that directly call for it to happen.  When you figure out how you alienated Mr. Tromp someday, you might also figure this out.

#104
You mistake slinging insults for discussion.
Insults and ridiclule are no arguments, it is lack of argument.

The actual discussion about Karpov vs, Fischer was/is already over, this is what's left because you felt you had to wedge chessmetrics into the conversation, and did so by trying to refute a factual and correct statement with a bunch of gobbledegook that still doesn't hold up.  The statement remains as undeniably true as when it was first posted.  

This is what the discussions must have been like when Plato and Aristotle dined with Socrates.

"It is not even disputable: Karpov would DEFINITELY WIN in 1975" is a false statement: it has been disputed so it is disputable
"Karpov would DEFINITELY WIN in 1975" is a prediction about the past, as such it can neither been proved nor disproved.
Chessmetrics is an improvement over the 50 year old elo: more accurate formulas and processed game by game instead of 6 month batch.
Chessmetrics rates Fischer at 2800 and Karpov at 2799 for July 1974.
With these facts and figures the expected outcome would be 9-9 with many draws and Fischer retaining hit title.

The topic's premise being wrong has nothing to do with your premise also being wrong.

Nobody would dine with Socrates, because, you know...hemlock.

     All this arguing over the accuracy of rating systems is a waste of space. The problem is that chessplayers are humans. They do not always perform at the level that "science" predicts that they will. All players in all games have streaks when they are at the top of their game and other times when everything seems to go wrong.

     And whatever system is used for these predictions is flawed because they measure each players success (and failure) against the whole mass of other rated players, while the event in question would consist of only two players. Some participants in all contest simply do better (or worse) vs some other individuals than statistical systems predict. I remember that Dick Bertell, a poor-to-average hitting catcher for the Chicago Cubs in the 1960s, had tremendous success against Sandy Koufax, the best pitcher in baseball. Any rating system you might devise comparing their rates of success/failure vs the rest of baseball would have predicted Koufax would dominate Bertell, yet the opposite actually happened. Even if you just took a player's past results vs another individual as a measure, you would still not get a foolproof result--Spassky should have beaten Fischer.

     Of course, this whole topic is moot as Fischer never had any intention of risking the loss of his title and image as "the greatest".

That speculation could only be made following his championship.  Prior to which he had said publicly he wanted to play more frequent title matches.

The rating systems subtopic is not a waste of space, it just never should have been brought up here.  When Karpov's official rating was affirmed and the misleading statement refuted, that should have been the end of it.  The topic as a whole is more of a waste .

     Rueben Fine, world-class player, psychologist, and someone who knew Fischer for years, predicted before his match vs Spassky that if Bobby won he would never play again as he couldn't stand the blow to his self-image should he lose, or even squeak through with a narrow win.

That's all fine and well (heh)...but it still doesn't answer the question of whether Karpov would have won in '75 if Fischer had played.  He didn't really want to play the WC either and tried to get out of it several different ways, but he dominated anyway. 

Speculation is relatively pointless now, but if one were to speculate, then I would go with the top GMs, including Karpov himself, who have said that Fischer would probably have won in '75.

     Yes, there are very many impossible events about which we can speculate: could Capablanca have beaten Karpov in 1978? Could Enrico Caruso have had a sensational series of performances in San Francisco in April 1906? Could Italy won the world cup for a third straight time in 1940? We are fooling ourselves if we believe that there are solid "scientific" or logical grounds for determining what would have been the result of fantasy events that couldn't have occurred in the real world. No one's opinion on any of this is worth more than flipping a coin or consulting the Magic 8-ball.