The precision and energy that he played with is just unmatched in the history of chess. So Bobby Fischer from 1970 to 1972." - On his dream rival Carlsen CNN 2015
About Fisher unmatched in history of chess. What about Carlsen? I think Carlsen has harder competition than Fischer had. Caruana, So, Kasparov, Nakamura, Aronian are all fantastic players. I guess that nr 10 today is stronger than number 5 was back in the seventies.
Carlsen is a rare talent. I would put him in the same realm with Fischer, Kasparov etc. As for Carlsen facing harder competition. It's true, but players these days have chess engines, databases. And most importantly, Carlsen was mentored by one of the GOAT players AKA Kasparov. Same goes for Kasparov who had Top GM's and theoreticians working for him.
Fischer had no such luxury and still rekt the entire soviet union. At his peak he is just a better player than anyone in history. I would bet if 72' Fischer had Stockfish he would've cried with happiness. In addition, his maniacal dedication and superhuman focus would've allowed him to continue study until he beat everyone.
You are mentioning that players today uses engine and Fischer does not have that luxury. But Fischer's opponents also does not have an engine. Fischer at 1972 being better than anyone in history is your opinion.
No idea what you're insinuating. You said Fischer's opponents didn't have chess engine (pretty obvious), but you forgot to state that Fischer's opponents had teams of Top GM's and theoreticians working. There were I believe 35 GM's helping Spassky. Kasparov and Karpov received the same treatment. All these special privileges and yet they couldn't dominate their peers, while Fischer single-handedly rekt everyone with a large margin. Sad really !!
I know who I would pick with equal resources and time. Actually I might pick Morphy in that case.
The great thing about retiring early without facing the first challenger is that people can believe whatever they want, regardless of the evidence.
True, and sadly that works both ways, i.e. it gives detractors an excuse to come up with rubbish theories.
Karpov beat Spassky more comprehensively than Fischer did.* That's a scary proposition.
If less than one percent difference (2 years later and after the crushing loss of the crown) is "more comprehensive" in your mind, then have it.
Then, Karpov was leading his match against Korchnoi 3-0 before tiring to finish the match 3-2.
since when do half-matches started to count towards anything?
Karpov was a serious challenger, the like of which Fischer never faced.
There's no way he would have lost 13 in a 24 game match.
Or was it the other way around, i.e. Fischer was a challenge the likes of which Karpov had never met? You seem to forget the fact that he defeated Korchnoi (another member of the "generation defeated by Fischer" as Korchnoi himself put it) by the narrowest margin possible.
Karpov didn't lose ten games in a year at that time. There's no way he would have lost 13 in a 24 game match. (Your flag is showing.)
Fischer knew this. He made certain claims about why he wouldn't play in 1975, but he kept changing his stated conditions in later meetings, until both Karpov and Campomanes (the FIDE president who organized the secret meetings) acknowledged Fischer didn't want to play.
All of this has already been extensively covered elsewhere, see the "Why Fischer didn't play Karpov" thread. Honestly I don't know why you keep regurgitating cliches. I begin to suspect it's bad faith, not lack of knowledge, since even when certain facts are pointed out to you you keep ignoring them.
It's a fact - if you even bother looking at the 1975 WCC chronology - that Fischer send FIDE his list of proposals in late 73, well before Karpov emerged as his challenger.
By this time Karpov was clearly a rising star and the leader of a new generation, but he wasn't quite yet Karpov we know today. By this time Karpov tied for 1st place at the Leningrad interzonal with Korchnoi. He clearly showed he was on par with the upper echelon, but not that he could yet dominate them.
It's a fact that Fischer formally resigned his title before Karpov clearly emerged as the challenger.
Whether you accept this or not, that doesn't change the facts. Or history.
You are insulting and wrong, even on math. Work out what 4 wins, 1 loss and 6 draws is as a per cent, then work out what 5 wins, 3 losses and 3 draws is.
If we can't even agree on math, there's no point in having a conversation.
You failed to be persuasive in previous threads, and you claim now that you "proved" your point previously. Restating your thesis without proving it isn't evidence.