Resolution: Karpov is the luckiest being ever. Karpov is a fraud

His career is a hoax.

1) In 1974, Karpov's opponent in candidates-semifinal was Boris Spassky who had been facing repressions for 2 years, since the time he lost to Bobby. + his second Geller switched to Karpov's side which meant everything related to Spassky's preperation was now known by Karpov. as a result, till the last game Spassky did not play an opening he had been playing. Karpov's semi-final opponent had been facing repression for 3 years, Karpov managed to defeat him. Spassky facing repression is documented in historical works, according to his interview given to "Finding Bobby Fischer: Chess interviews" he was heavily pressured, he was banned from travelling abroad for 9 months. He faced too many difficulties. Karpov was lucky that Spassky had been facing such repression., he was lucky that his opponent was a once great chess player who currently does not have any motivation due to the repression he has been experiencing. As far as my findings go, this is the first fluke of Karpov.

2) In 1974, Karpov's candidates final opponent was someone who had been being discriminated against, that was Viktor Korchnoi. Korchnoi retells the discrimination he faced in his book titled "Chess is my life." Here is a summary of the discriminations Korchnoi suffered before and during the match:

• The time of the games of the final match was decided by Karpov, the USSR sports committee ignored Korchnoi's protests and faked a document about Korchnoi's consent about the games being played at 5 p.m as Karpov wanted.
• On the eve of the match, one of leading Soviet chess magazines featured Karpov with the caption "I fear no one and against everyone I play for win." Korchnoi says the reason Karpov was favoured was because Karpov was purely ethnic russian, from working class and thus a representative of the symbol of communism, was born in the centre of Russia, was younger, newly member of Communist party and the chairman of the youth department of the party was his countryman and friend.
• federation did everything they could to put psychological pressure on Korchnoi that they managed to make Korchnoi suspect his second which was not a strong player either.
• Strong Soviet chess players refused to assist Korchnoi in his match against Karpov because it was too risky to side against Karpov.
• All-Union Chess federation gathered a team of powerful chess players to help Karpov. Petrosian, Averbakh, Tal and Botwinnik were the ones to advise Karpov.
• Korhcnoi recieved threatening letters and feared something bad may happen in the street.
• After the match was over Korchnoi shook hands with Karpov and then left the stage but the Soviet news report did not broadcast the part they shook hands, news just reported Korchnoi leaving the stage. Korchnoi comments it was done specifically to create an image of Korchnoi behaving badly.

All of these are taken from Korhcnoi's book he authored in 1977. Clearly, it was not a fair fight and Karpov barely defeated Korchnoi. As far as my findings go, this is the second fluke of Karpov.

3) After defeating the two heavily repressed opponents, Karpov was now a challenger but again luckily, this time his opponent's demands for fair match was denied and the champion refused to play that biased in favour of Karpov match and Karpov became a champion. Champions have been enjoying draw odds since even before and after FIDE started to regulate championship matches, this time,when it came to Karpov's opponent, this advantage of champions were to be erased. These all were done to make Karpov champion without any risk of Fischer defeating him.

4) After FIDE and Soviets made Karpov champion by forcing his opponents to either lose or resign, Karpov had to face his challenger in 1978. This time, it was even scarier:

• When Karpov was the challenger, "win by two GAMES" were deemed unfair but now when Karpov is the one being challenged, the challenger had to win by two MATCHES.
• Karpov's opponent's son and wife were being kept as a ransom.

His opponent nearly defeated Karpov with the score being 5-5 (first to win 6 would be the champion) but Karpov's opponent lost the last game. Who knows they threatened Karpov's opponent with killing his son in case Karpov loses championship after they saw that Karpov is on the eve of losing.

5) Karpov again was challenged by someone whose son and wife are still being kept as ransom by the government Karpov is citizen of. Karpov massacred his opponent.

His tournament victories were similarly hoax. Here is how:

• In a strong Linares 1983 tournament Boris Spassky finished ahead of Karpov, then the USSR government abolished paying him a stipend, excluded him from the Soviet team events. Why? It was clear, in case a Soviet player finishes ahead of Karpov they would need to pay for that. That is why Karpov had been winning tournaments ahead of his Soviet players. They had to throw the tournaments to Karpov.
• Another player who had the potential to surpass Karpov was prevented from joining tournaments: Viktor Korchnoi. He was the only non-Soviet at the time that had the potential to shake Karpov's hoax but the Soviet government was cautious enough: He simply was eliminated.
• Another western, Bobby Fischer, was long gone.

That is how Karpov won the tournaments. The Soviets that could dethrone him simply did not dare to oppose the government that was behind Karpov, one of them did and that one paid a heavy price for that. Another two players were not joining tournaments, so the Soviet players, who were dominating the chess world back then, was just making Karpov champion artificially.

• As for Linares 1994, Karpov was a chess player that was being artificially inflated for 25 years already, in such a period of time a luck is bound to happen. After all, given enough time, a monkey can write a Shakespearean poet.
• As for Moscow 1971, that was the year the Soviet players were evaluating newcomers. That is why a relatively unknown player like Vladimir Savon won the Soviet championship.

As for some of his wins in prestigious tournaments in 1980s, again the best players, especially Soviets and Garry Kasparov, of that time were absent and the other westerners were not a threat to Karpov. For example, Wijk An Zee 1988. In that tournament the following were absent: Artur Yusupov and Sokolow, who were part of the final of the candidates cycle, Timman, Speelman and Vaganian, who were also part of the candidates. Karpov won this tournament in which there was no threat.

Once democratisation of Soviet Union under Gorbachev started in 1984, rebellious Garry Kasparov appeared on the scene, Karpov stopped winning tournaments and only when likes of Kasparov, Sokolov etc were absent did Karpov won tournaments.

6) in 1984, Karpov faced new young and fresh opponent. Unluckily for Karpov, this time his opponent's son or wife was not being kept a ransom, probably they thought no need. Karpov was leading with 5-0. The match was going on for months, when Karpov was in risk of losing the match after the score became 5-3, FIDE immediately stepped and aborted the match citing players' health as a reason. They did not see a need to do it for 46 games  but when Karpov lost 2 games in a row, they suddenly aborted the match. FIDE again helped Karpov retain his title.

7) After saving Karpov from a possible legendary comeback, FIDE re-organised but Karpov's opponent was still facing discrimination. Here are the problems Kasparov had to suffer prior to their 1985 match (from Mark Weeks' collection):

• Karpov's opponent's second A.Adorjan was denied a visa to Soviet Union where the match would take palce. 
• Karpov's opponent complained about the arbiter of the previous match in which FIDE saved Karpov at the first second Karpov was in risk. Ignoring Karpov's opponent's complains and opposition about the arbiter (Gligoric, FIDE still chose the same arbiter for the match but unluckily (and may be for the first time ever) for Karpov, the arbiter refused to serve but FIDE still insisted on Gligoric to serve as arbiter in the match. FIDE was doing their best to support Karpov.
• A journalist from Yugoslavia who was an acquiantant of Karpov's opponent was arrested in soviet union during the match and was expelled from the country.
• Karpov was granted a rematch option in case he loses the title. It was a privilege that was abandoned when Karpov was the challenger but now it was being granted again since Karpov's title was under scrutiny.

It was clear that Soviet Union and FIDE were signalling Karpov's opponent through this actions. Unluckily for Karpov, this time FIDE and Soviet Union failed to secure a victory for Karpov. Still, they served Karpov and earned him an automatic rematch. How lucky Karpov was.

8) Karpov lost his title in spite of FIDE and Soviet Union weakened his opponent as much as they could, Karpov still lost. It is obvious Karpov lost his first ever championship match when he was playing someone whose son and wife were not being kept as ransom. FIDE still managed to ease Karpov's way giving him a direct candidates final match without playing any opposition among the candidates. FIDE forced their candidates winner to play Karpov. Karpov was being granted something by FIDE even when Karpov was the looser. Even in this match, Karpov had 3 teammates to help him whereas his opponent had only someone old, someone who was not great chess player even when he was young (Gennadi Kuzmin). This time Karpov managed to win and again was to face Kasparov.

9) Ok, fast forward to 1990 championship. Knowing Karpov was not able to play in long matches, FIDE this time set Karpov to play mini-matches in Candidates so that Karpov will not lose him temp in long matches. FIDE was still in support of Karpov. 

10) After suffering a long bad luck due to Kasparov, Karpov's fate finally brought him flukes he had been enjoying prior to Kasparov. In 1993, Karpov lost his candidates semi-final match to Nigel Short and Nigel Short had to challenge Kasparov. This time, Karpov's luck again worked and like back in 1975, the ones who are ahead of Karpov left FIDE and Karpov again became champion. The ones who were far better than Karpov was again out of FIDE and Karpov was again a champion without facing someone he could not defeat.

11) After becoming champion once again due to the far better ones leaving, Karpov was again challenged in 1996. Again, his challenger had to face some problems: His challenger was a former Soviet Union champion who immigrated to the USA, now FIDE was forcing him to play in Russia where Karpov is highly admired by communists for his communistic loyalty while his opponent was considered a traitor. Karpov emerged victorious. Moreover, Karpov's rival asked there should be no adjournments: all games had to be decided on the day it started, without any break, suspension or adjournment. Karpov opposed the idea. Guess what happened at the end? FIDE just dictated there are adjournments and gave ultimatum to the opponent: If you do not play under these conditions Karpov will win by default and you will not recieve any money, your prize will go to charity. Like against Korchnoi in 1974, like against Kasparov in 184, what Karpov wanted was granted by FIDE, ignoring the opponent.

It is understandable why Kamsky opposed the adjournments: the computers were already as good as the world champions, in the year 1994 for example the original world champion Garry Kasparov was eliminated by a computer in a rapid tournament. Why FIDE still allowed adjournments? Because Karpov wanted it. Karpov was an established wealthy chess player and politician, he had access to the best supercomputers of the time + even in his youth Karpov was known to be exhausted, tired in matches, now he was 45 years old and adjournments were a must for him. FIDE just granted him what he wanted.

12) This time Karpov was being challenged by Wishwanatan Anand. This time as well his opponent had to face problems: His opponent had only 3 days to rest after a long 100 player knockout tournament. Karpov was having a rest for a long time and fresh while his opponent was tired of 100 player knockout tournament. Still, the match was a tie but being overtired showed its fruits and Karpov won the tie breaks.

After this two decades of a career where he was heavily supported and contributed by both FIDE and the state, Karpov finally had to show his skills in a 100 player tournament and this time Karpov was not being granted any privileges, seeing FIDE and the state is not behind him Karpov did not dare to play and resigned his title fearing he will be beaten in a fair fight.

CONCLUSION: As seen from the beginning, it was impossible to have a fair fight with Karpov and no one had that fair fight. Karpov's opponents were always under pressure, always faced discrimination and problems, were always threatened and ostracised and Karpov became champion twice without facing any champion let alone defeating them. Considering all of these, one can never deny that Karpov was not only the luckiest chess player, was not only the luckiest human but he was the luckiest being ever to exist. No one was made champion without playing any champion let alone defeating and no one had challengers who were under discrimination, pressure and a threat. No one can deny Karpov is the luckiest being ever.

p.s: Ok, ok, this is a parody. I have written this post to counter Fischerphobes who come up with too many fantasies to degrade Fischer by saying he feared Karpov.

well, interesting post lol

You almost had me. Good thing I read every post before commenting.

well, some of that stuff is technically true lol

 how did you discover it? One night I was just free and wrote it

Actually all of them true + there are even more.

* Spassky's second Geller switched to Karpov in 1974. Guess what would that mean? Karpov now knew all opening repertoire and preperation of Spassky.

* Karpov was given draw odds + rematch

* Anand had to face Karpov right after a long journey without a rest, which itself came after a long tournament.

* Karpov's main opponent in the first 6 years of his championship, Korchnoi, could not join any high level tournament. Karpov won so many tournaments. Guess how it could go in case Korchnoi attended them? He was boycotted by the Soviets and as a result organisers simply did not invite him.

The whole thread is a bunch of conspiratory nonsense.

Still, he won a record number of tournaments and on rating lists he and Kasparov were far ahead of everyone else.

You might say he was also lucky in all his tournaments, so his rating was incorrect...

But that can't be the case because in over 100 match games with Kasparov the score was barely 51% in Kasparov's favor. In other words Karpov was only slightly weaker than Kasparov and so his rating and tournament victories make sense.

Of course it is also true that players like Korchnoi were treated very badly. 

Read the final sentence of the op

I agree that Karpov is as good as any chess player if not better. The thread is a parody, I wanted to write it to mirror absurdities of Fischerphobs. For me personally, after Spassy Karpov is the player whose games I enjoy the most

I don't think anyone considers the FIDE "World Champion" during the split to be legitimate.  There is no question that none of those "winners" would have even been able to contend for the real championship, held by Kasparov and Kramnik over that span of time.  Only Anand would eventually get there, and he wasn't there yet in 2000.

Also, the "help" Karpov got from the Soviets pales in comparison to that which Botvinnik received.  If Alekhine hadn't died (and it's not certain that his death was natural), the Soviets never get to stack the deck, and Botvinnik probably never becomes world champion in the first place.

I would say that like Botvinnik, Karpov didn't earn it, as he didn't beat the reigning world champion in a match, but at least Karpov had to earn the right to challenge for it, which Botvinnik never did.  Karpov's title defenses against Korchnoi (who was treated badly) were nonetheless legitimate, and the strength of his play was at least at the standard of most World Champions.

Folks might defend Botvinnik by saying he protested every time instructions were floated for other players to lose matches, but we all know that the Soviet Union, particularly in the Stalinist era, only had to insinuate to get most folks to buckle.  Paul Keres losing four games in a row to the same opponent?  Botvinnik had to know, he just pretended not to.

The fact that Anand, even in his mid-to-late 20s, could shine only after Karpov and Kasparov left chess can give you an idea how spectacular Karpov and Kasparov were.

Karpov has never beaten a reigning world champion but Karpov did everything he could to persuade Fischer to play. After Karpov was declared champion, it was Karpov who initiated the idea of a private match between Fischer and him. Karpov even declared he will resign in case he loses to Fischer in their private match.

The content, even though everything written there is true, was not serious. Even without the support he enjoyed Karpov was still a high quality player. At the age of 20 Karpov won the very strong tournament, Alekhine memorial. Till he is 22 he won another two strong tournaments like Madrid 1973.

I really enjoy Karpov's games. Karpov is as good as any chess player, including Fischer and Kasparov

I, the author, agree  The post is a parody [attempt]. Not serious

Botvinnik was scheduled to play a match with alekhine, and he dominated the world championship tournament.

Botvinnik being able to challenge Alekhine was itself a government make-up (or fake-up).

Botvinnik missed UsSR chapmionship 1937. Then, like Karpov in 1987, he was given a direct title shot against the champion Levenfish (Karpov had it against candidates winner). The match ended in a draw.

Then, in 1938 Paul Keres won the tournament whose winner would be granted a title match against Alekhine.

Botvinnik challenged Alekhine through Soviet government. If the government did not support him there was only way for Botvinnik to play  Alekhine: Alekhine cherry-picking him, thinking he is weak but Botvinnik was too good to be cherry picked by Alekhine which means he simply could not play Alekhine

I think Fischer would have defeated him spectacularly but not outright like white-washing. Karpov would manage to draw some games, would even win some but Fischer would win by a lot. 

how did discover this topic today? I wrote it 2 years ago and suddenly today it is discovered. All the commentstill now  were done in the last twenty four hours

Luckily I got bored early on and skipped to the end.  Aren't there enough lies in the world yet?  FFS, look at our country, 55 thousand Americans are dead because we have a lawless, lying despot at the helm.  I value truth,  But you do have an imagination, and we are very lucky to have chess to keep us from getting depressed while in quarantine, so we should be grateful for that.

gotta love that people use the fact that karpov play very well against karparov as a way to measure how good he was, when we cant even compare kasparov to other older players at their best lmao. this bias is tough, ngl