Forums

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

tygxc

#19
"without compromising even one of his demands"
This is the core of Fischer: no compromise neither on the chess board, nor aside of it.

Fischer was famous for playing on in theoretically drawn positions and even winning them e.g. against Geller in the Palma de Mallorca interzonal 1970.

He flew to the Lugano 1968 Olympiad to play board 1 of the USA, but he disliked the pieces, the chairs, the tables, the lighting. Organisers refused to meet his demands and Fischer flew home, renouncing his fee.
At the Sousse Interzonal 1967 he withdrew while leading because of some dispute.
Because of some dispute he refused to play the US Championship which counted as the zonal tournament and he only could play the Palma de Mallorca interzonal 1970 because Pal Benkö gave up his spot.

CheesePrix2314
Ruhubelent wrote:

In the past, I have written satirical 'treatise' countering Fischerphobs' conspiracies about Fischer being scared of Karpov. "Who would win Fischer or Karpov" is one of the most discussed topics on chess forums but I argue it is not even disputable: Karpov would have won in 1975.

I am not gonna evaluate based on what-ifs. I argue based on what were, not what c/would have been.

To do so, I look at Fischer's situation back in 1975 and prior to the aborted match. We can say the following from what is known about Bobby:

  • It is well known that Fischer resigned his title in June of 1974. 
  • As early as June 1973, American grandmasters and chess enthusiasts who were close to Fischer were already stating that Fischer was no longer following chess tournaments anymore.
  • After gaining the championship and till 1975, it is known that Fischer was travelling extensively and reading history books.
  • The match was planned to be played on the summer of 1975 and Fischer's deadline to respond to FIDE was the 3rd of April, 1975 to which Fischer did not respond to.

Now, what can be concluded from above? Considering Fischer declared his resignation in June 1974, he probably was not preparing for the match against Karpov. Considering he was travelling and reading history books since his match with Spassky, he probably was never prepared after the 72 match.

If FIDE somehow managed to persuade Fischer to play Karpov in 1975, Fischer would have entered the match without preparation and about 3 years of lack of practice. If Fischer consented to play match on the April of 1975, he would have 2 to 3 months to prepare against Karpov while Karpov was very active and well prepared with a chorus of experts on any field of chess.

The proponents of Fischer might say Karpov would have collapsed in a long match (supposing FIDE would have persuaded Fischer by granting him Cramer rules) whereas Fischer would endure but that is not a supportable assertion: We may support the Karpov part by pointing out his performance against Korchnoi - but that is baseless. We do not know if Karpov collapsed physically during that match. And we may not support the part about Fischer. We do not know if Fischer could endure a long match. After 11 games against Spassky, Fischer's game's quality decreased. One might say Fischer deliberately played passively to not risk his lead. Even if we agree with that, there is no basis to support the idea that Fischer would endure. We just do not know if Fischer could endure it, Fischer was not tested in that part. His prior matches in 71 run were sets of 6 matches, that is the longest he was tested. A decade earlier he played 11 games against Reshevsky. We just do not know if Fischer would endure - he just was not tested. Nor do we know if Karpov would collapse. The idea of Karpov collapsing in a long match might have come from his 1984 match against Karpov in which he bottled 5-0 win but his first loss came after 31 games + he was still fighting even after 40 games + according to what are written about the match, he ran out of chess preparation ideas, not his physical stamina.

Considering all of these, no matter how good Fischer had been in 71-72, he was unprepared after that. Karpov would definitely win.

 

Note: This post is not about "what if peak Fischer faced peak Karpov?" or "What if Fischer did not quit after 72, was active till 72 and faced Karpov?" or "What if Fischer did not resign in 74 but prepared to defend his title?" etc. It is about what actually were, not what might have been. The only hypothetical scenario here is Fischer acknowledging his participation on the 3rd of April, 1975 and faced Karpov.

How is a prediction undisputable? Sorry?

Ruhubelent
tygxc ýazany:

#15
"his long time assistant Geller switched to Karpov"
That is not accurate. Long time assistants of Spassky were Bondarevsky & Krogius. The Soviet Chess Federation ordered Geller to help Spassky against Fischer in 1972 because Geller was a strong theoretician and had a good score against Fischer. Geller prepared Spassky against the King's Indian and the Grünfeld, but Fischer wisely stayed away from those. Geller made Spassky play the Sicilian as black and prepared against Fischer's beloved 4 Bc4: game 4. Geller also made Spassky play the open Sicilian 3 d4 as white instead of his beloved closed sicilian 2 Nc3 and prepared against Fischer's favorite Poisoned Pawn Variation 7...Qb6 games 7 & 11.  Geller even prepared Spassky in the Queen's Gambit Declined in the unlikely case Fischer would open 1 d4 instead of his usual 1 e4, and told him the move 14...Qb7!, but Spassky forgot in game 6.

After Spassky had failed to hold the World Championship title against Fischer, it is only logical that the Soviet Chess Federation put their hopes on their rising star Karpov to gain the title and thus ordered Geller to help Karpov.

Yes, it actually is not accurate to label him as "long time assistant" but the two worked together even back in 1968 (for a short time though).

All in all, the one who knew Spassky's inner chess world defected to Karpov and as a result Spassky was completely exposed, was still outplaying Karpov though.

I believe if Geller had not switched Spassky would have triumphed in that candidates, would not have lost motivation and would have regained his old form. Even Fischer would have played in 1975

Ruhubelent
CheesePrix2314 ýazany:
Ruhubelent wrote:

In the past, I have written satirical 'treatise' countering Fischerphobs' conspiracies about Fischer being scared of Karpov. "Who would win Fischer or Karpov" is one of the most discussed topics on chess forums but I argue it is not even disputable: Karpov would have won in 1975.

I am not gonna evaluate based on what-ifs. I argue based on what were, not what c/would have been.

To do so, I look at Fischer's situation back in 1975 and prior to the aborted match. We can say the following from what is known about Bobby:

  • It is well known that Fischer resigned his title in June of 1974. 
  • As early as June 1973, American grandmasters and chess enthusiasts who were close to Fischer were already stating that Fischer was no longer following chess tournaments anymore.
  • After gaining the championship and till 1975, it is known that Fischer was travelling extensively and reading history books.
  • The match was planned to be played on the summer of 1975 and Fischer's deadline to respond to FIDE was the 3rd of April, 1975 to which Fischer did not respond to.

Now, what can be concluded from above? Considering Fischer declared his resignation in June 1974, he probably was not preparing for the match against Karpov. Considering he was travelling and reading history books since his match with Spassky, he probably was never prepared after the 72 match.

If FIDE somehow managed to persuade Fischer to play Karpov in 1975, Fischer would have entered the match without preparation and about 3 years of lack of practice. If Fischer consented to play match on the April of 1975, he would have 2 to 3 months to prepare against Karpov while Karpov was very active and well prepared with a chorus of experts on any field of chess.

The proponents of Fischer might say Karpov would have collapsed in a long match (supposing FIDE would have persuaded Fischer by granting him Cramer rules) whereas Fischer would endure but that is not a supportable assertion: We may support the Karpov part by pointing out his performance against Korchnoi - but that is baseless. We do not know if Karpov collapsed physically during that match. And we may not support the part about Fischer. We do not know if Fischer could endure a long match. After 11 games against Spassky, Fischer's game's quality decreased. One might say Fischer deliberately played passively to not risk his lead. Even if we agree with that, there is no basis to support the idea that Fischer would endure. We just do not know if Fischer could endure it, Fischer was not tested in that part. His prior matches in 71 run were sets of 6 matches, that is the longest he was tested. A decade earlier he played 11 games against Reshevsky. We just do not know if Fischer would endure - he just was not tested. Nor do we know if Karpov would collapse. The idea of Karpov collapsing in a long match might have come from his 1984 match against Karpov in which he bottled 5-0 win but his first loss came after 31 games + he was still fighting even after 40 games + according to what are written about the match, he ran out of chess preparation ideas, not his physical stamina.

Considering all of these, no matter how good Fischer had been in 71-72, he was unprepared after that. Karpov would definitely win.

 

Note: This post is not about "what if peak Fischer faced peak Karpov?" or "What if Fischer did not quit after 72, was active till 72 and faced Karpov?" or "What if Fischer did not resign in 74 but prepared to defend his title?" etc. It is about what actually were, not what might have been. The only hypothetical scenario here is Fischer acknowledging his participation on the 3rd of April, 1975 and faced Karpov.

How is a prediction undisputable? Sorry?

See David Hume's problem of induction for example. With hard-skepticism, You can even dispute the sun will rise tomorrow but hard-skepticism is not we do here.  Rational mind would not dispute the certianty of the next dawn, nor Karpov's win in 1975

mpaetz

     Karpov couldn't have possibly beaten Fischer in 1975 because Bobby had no intention of playing that match, or any other chess games. He had won the world championship and could revel in his self-satisfaction and everyone calling him the greatest--perhaps the best ever. Fischer's goals in chess were fulfilled and playing again might add a little luster to his name (if he won) or tarnish his reputation and self-satisfaction should he barely scrape through, maybe even by a tie. And he would never want to risk everything (in his mind) by losing.

Laskersnephew
The louder he screams “Indisputable!” The louder we laugh. He reminds me so much of Vizzini in “The Princess Bride”
CheesePrix2314
Ruhubelent wrote:
CheesePrix2314 ýazany:
Ruhubelent wrote:

In the past, I have written satirical 'treatise' countering Fischerphobs' conspiracies about Fischer being scared of Karpov. "Who would win Fischer or Karpov" is one of the most discussed topics on chess forums but I argue it is not even disputable: Karpov would have won in 1975.

I am not gonna evaluate based on what-ifs. I argue based on what were, not what c/would have been.

To do so, I look at Fischer's situation back in 1975 and prior to the aborted match. We can say the following from what is known about Bobby:

  • It is well known that Fischer resigned his title in June of 1974. 
  • As early as June 1973, American grandmasters and chess enthusiasts who were close to Fischer were already stating that Fischer was no longer following chess tournaments anymore.
  • After gaining the championship and till 1975, it is known that Fischer was travelling extensively and reading history books.
  • The match was planned to be played on the summer of 1975 and Fischer's deadline to respond to FIDE was the 3rd of April, 1975 to which Fischer did not respond to.

Now, what can be concluded from above? Considering Fischer declared his resignation in June 1974, he probably was not preparing for the match against Karpov. Considering he was travelling and reading history books since his match with Spassky, he probably was never prepared after the 72 match.

If FIDE somehow managed to persuade Fischer to play Karpov in 1975, Fischer would have entered the match without preparation and about 3 years of lack of practice. If Fischer consented to play match on the April of 1975, he would have 2 to 3 months to prepare against Karpov while Karpov was very active and well prepared with a chorus of experts on any field of chess.

The proponents of Fischer might say Karpov would have collapsed in a long match (supposing FIDE would have persuaded Fischer by granting him Cramer rules) whereas Fischer would endure but that is not a supportable assertion: We may support the Karpov part by pointing out his performance against Korchnoi - but that is baseless. We do not know if Karpov collapsed physically during that match. And we may not support the part about Fischer. We do not know if Fischer could endure a long match. After 11 games against Spassky, Fischer's game's quality decreased. One might say Fischer deliberately played passively to not risk his lead. Even if we agree with that, there is no basis to support the idea that Fischer would endure. We just do not know if Fischer could endure it, Fischer was not tested in that part. His prior matches in 71 run were sets of 6 matches, that is the longest he was tested. A decade earlier he played 11 games against Reshevsky. We just do not know if Fischer would endure - he just was not tested. Nor do we know if Karpov would collapse. The idea of Karpov collapsing in a long match might have come from his 1984 match against Karpov in which he bottled 5-0 win but his first loss came after 31 games + he was still fighting even after 40 games + according to what are written about the match, he ran out of chess preparation ideas, not his physical stamina.

Considering all of these, no matter how good Fischer had been in 71-72, he was unprepared after that. Karpov would definitely win.

 

Note: This post is not about "what if peak Fischer faced peak Karpov?" or "What if Fischer did not quit after 72, was active till 72 and faced Karpov?" or "What if Fischer did not resign in 74 but prepared to defend his title?" etc. It is about what actually were, not what might have been. The only hypothetical scenario here is Fischer acknowledging his participation on the 3rd of April, 1975 and faced Karpov.

How is a prediction undisputable? Sorry?

See David Hume's problem of induction for example. With hard-skepticism, You can even dispute the sun will rise tomorrow but hard-skepticism is not we do here.  Rational mind would not dispute the certianty of the next dawn, nor Karpov's win in 1975

"Magnus Carlsen would win against any 500-rated player." Is this sentence disputable? Yes, since it's a prediction. If a scenario, "A", never happened, and will not happen, then one's confidence rate of the scenario "A" happening cannot be 100%.

tygxc

#23
"I believe if Geller had not switched Spassky would have triumphed in that candidates"
I doubt it. Spassky was a natural player. I believe Spassky largely lost to Fischer because Geller force fed Spassky with opening theoretical preparation contrary to his nature. On the other hand Fischer crushed the egos of Spassky, Petrosian, Taimanov, and Larsen and they needed years to recover mentally. Spassky was not yet over it when he played Karpov. Spassky was also deprived of his privileges after losing the title.