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

that would be very great if you can find the interview. If that is from Dmirtija Bjelica approach it with doubt, in 1976 Bjelica was fined by local Yugoslavian court (Croatian court) for creating fake stories about Bobby Fischer. Not saying he completely was a fraud, he really held interviews with players, he was a prolific and well-known chess journalist. He has so many footages from 70s 60s.

its from someone in spassky's team, and its from 1990s iirc.

https://www.chess.com/blog/Spektrowski/spassky---fischer-the-match-diary-by-nikolai-krogius-part-3

this is just one of the 3 parts or so.

I invite all of you to look at my new thread: Dis-covering Bobby Fischer: his life in 1970s  https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/dis-covering-bobby-fischer-bobby-fischers-life-in-1970s-after-the-championship-match?page=1#last_comment

Karpov is one of the all time greatest players, and he would have had a fair chance against a Fischer out of form, he represented a new way of playing chess. As already said alone his accomplishments in tournament chess is incredible, 170 tournaments won, more than any grandmaster including Kasparov, see for example Linares 1994 where he won one of the strongest tournaments ever with 10/12.

It's easy to make up stories (without quoting source material), but the accomplishments of a long glorious chess career doesn’t lie.

Have a great day.

Well, the OP claims that "everything written there is true" so parody may not be the right word for it.. Among the "true" things:

"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"

"FIDE and Soviets made Karpov champion by forcing his opponents to either lose or resign"

"Karpov did not dare to play and resigned his title fearing he will be beaten in a fair fight"

Etc etc etc

The thing about Fischer only wanting a fair fight and FIDE denying that to make Karpov Champion doesn't get less silly just for being repeated so often around here :-) Fischer was against draw odds when he was challenger but demanded various rule changes after winning the title. The first to ten wins demand was eventually accepted by FIDE even though it was a huge change that no one except Fischer wanted. Now the match could go on for a very, very long time. In the end Fischer's demand that his challenger had to win 10-8 to get the title lost the vote in FIDE, but with a very slim margin of only three votes. If Fischer had been the challenger and the Soviet had demanded these changes I wonder if it would have been stated as often that all they wanted was a fair fight... 

@fabelhaft, I was referring to details and facts when I said "everything written there is true" e.g. Anand playing Karpov right aftr a tournament and a journey. Kamsky playing Karpov in front of communists who reckoned Kamsky a traitor and Karpov a hero etc. The rest, my own commentaries which I made to laugh, was not something I was referring to.

@fabelhaft, as for Fischer's demands being fair or not is debateable but I just asserted they are fair to make the point of the content, to make Karpov seem lucky :D

"I was referring to details and facts when I said "everything written there is true" e.g. Anand playing Karpov right aftr a tournament and a journey. Kamsky playing Karpov in front of communists who reckoned Kamsky a traitor and Karpov a hero etc"

I wonder to what extent Kamsky was considered a traitor and Karpov a hero, it's not as if the match was played in Soviet times, this was five years after Communist rule, and many Russians were leaving or had left for the west and the "old" Communists were far from seen as heroes.

I also wonder about the part "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".

I mean, if it is a fact that FIDE wanted to erase the draw odds to stop Fischer, why did they confirm the same draw odds rules they always had before Fischer demanded them to be changed to his "challenger must win 10-8 to get the title" rules?

"FIDE's rules were that the reigning champion retained the title in the event of a 12-12 tie after 24 games. The same rules governing World Championship matches had been in place since the 1949 FIDE Congress in Paris. They were confirmed at the 1974 Congress in Nice"

https://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/7375$wix.htm

 Kamsky was reluctant to play in any former Soviet bloc countries, the FIDE president guaranteed his life safety  and only by doing so Kamsky was convinced to play the match.

Especially in 1990s communists and communism were still very popular in Russia, it was so till Putin's golden years started.

• In the 1993 legislative elections of Russia the party that came first (with 22% of the votes) was a party that was promising state-intervened economy like back in the Soviet Union
• the communist party got 12% of the votes, came third. 
• Another party that had communistic economy concept got 8% of the votes, Agrarian party. They were more communist than the communist party, they were centrist, like the Soviet Union in 60s and 70s, they were collectivist - Soviet Union was a "collective property/ownership" state.

In a sense in that election you can say "Pro-communist economy" parties got 42 percent of the votes.

Economical liberalists got more votes but you got the idea: communists was still a major force and they would not tolerate a "defector" that abandoned the Soviet Union and defected into the USa. Kamsky was mocked, booed etc when he reached Russia for the match.

And that part, "These all were done to make Karpov champion without any risk of Fischer defeating him" were my exageration/fiction of course. In reality, I do not think FIDE did so to help Karpov or to ensure Fischer will not play. I just made that up to make the case stronger

by the way, in 1995 elections, 1 year before the match, Communists came 1st. Communist parties against got around 42% of the votes. Communism was still very popular in Russia at that time.

Like Francoism is here.

But did Francoism get 42 percent of the votes?

The biggest party in the 1995 elections was the reformed Communists with 22% of the vote. The old Communist party had been banned after their failed coup in 1991. One could say that various left wing parties together with the reformed Communists reached 40%, but that is rather far from supporting the idea that Karpov was considered a hero for having supported the old Communists and Kamsky a traitor for moving to the US when he was 15. Kamsky moved back to Russia in 2015, by the way, and I don't think anyone is considering him a traitor nowadays either.

If I would make a list of "lucky" World Champions it would have Karpov, Kramnik and Euwe in the top three. Karpov for some of the reasons listed here. He was one of the greatest, but also had some advantages his opponents rarely had. Like basically all other top players in the world supporting him with opening ideas and analysis etc. Korchnoi didn't really have an equal match against him in that respect.

But Kramnik might beat Karpov in the luck section :-)

Kramnik was picked as one of only two participants in the 1998 Candidates, lost the match but was still given the title match in 2000 without any qualification being played. Before the match Kasparov had abolished the rematch, so Kramnik could keep the title without a rematch.

Then Kramnik could defend thanks to draw odds in a cycle where the best players didn't participate. After losing the title in 2007 he was given a match against the World Champion, once again without playing a qualification, and also without draw odds for the reigning Champion.

After Carlsen had shared first in the first qualifying event in 2008, FIDE changed the rules of the cycle, giving Kramnik a place in the Candidates without playing the qualification events. Kramnik was also given the wild card to the 2018 Candidates. 

Euwe was lucky in that he got a title match that he probably never would have qualified for. He lost matches to Capablanca, Keres, Bogo, Spielmann etc but was given a title match partly because Alekhine considered Capablanca to be a stronger opponent. Capablanca had beaten Euwe in a match in 1931 without losing a game, and that match was suggested to be played for the right to face Alekhine, not that Alekhine had any interest in that. He picked Bogo once again, and then hoped Euwe would be an easy opponent. Now, Euwe was a great player, greater than many think, but I'm pretty sure he never would have won a qualifiaction event.

Sometimes even absolute majority. But better I shut it up, I don't mean to spoil the thread.

Communist-centred parties  reaching 42% of the votes was to support the idea that "communists were still very popular" at the time.

For Kamsky being considered a traitor, you can search for pre-match exchanges. FIDE president had to guarantee his life security personally so that he consents to play in Russia. 

"FIDE president had to guarantee his life security personally so that he consents to play in Russia"

I think Kamsky's dad was a bit demanding, to put it mildly. When Kamsky couldn't play on the location FIDE had chosen for the match, they had Elista as the reserve option, which Rustam took as a chance to make the usual fuss, saying that Gata's life was at risk if he played in Russia, etc. He also accused Kasparov of planning to kill Gata with poison to stop him from becoming World Champion, to which Kasparov responded that he rather would poison Ivanchuk :-)

while his dad's behaviour might have been [intentional] exageration, it is still there: FIDE president promised his life security and then the match took place.

+ There were other issues as well, mentioned in the article :-)

Quality bait.