Examples of Soviet cheating in FIDE competition: Petrosian-Korchnoi match, 1971

So are we playing ?

Communists can't be trusted.

Fischer was the rambo of chess ;)

However, chess was never a state sport in the US, and had no government support.

There is little propaganda value in individual achievement, likre Fischer's.

Karpov's 1976-1979 have no bearing on what may have happened in 1975.  More enlightening is his 1974 match vs Korchnoi.

Spassky did not think Karpov would beat Fischer in 1975.  Korchnoi did not think so.  Kasparov did not think so.  Even Karpov himself did not think so.

You have no way of knowing that.  Fischer's past history demonstrated that even when he was not actively competing, he was always playing through games.

   "Kasparov also asserts that Bobby’s 3-year lay off would have hurt him. Well Bobby had a history of withdrawing from competition, only to come back renewed and much stronger.  Bobby Fischer also showed that he could leave his outside issues behind, when he was at the board.  Karpov also had the disadvantage of not knowing what Bobby was playing. Fischer stop playing official games after 1972. Fischer also expanded his opening repertoire during the 1972 match.  Bobby Fischer had the advantage of having Karpov’s most recent games. In fact Bobby went over a game of Karpov’s in 1974. Fischer wrote to Chess Life's Larry Evans about a missed win by Karpov. So evidence shows Bobby was still involved in chess and keeping tabs on Karpov."

Actually, in an interview with Ron Henley, Karpov stated 40% in 1975 and 50% in 1978.  But close enough.

Manila 1975 would have been a $5 million match.  But only because Fischer was playing.

I believe Fischer was just fed up with FIDE and its favoritism towards eastern bloc countries , the USSR in particular . He had already made up his mind not to play anymore after winning the title in 72 . 

Fischer stated his reasons in his FIDE title resignation.

He was the undisputed world champion who established reasonable terms for a title defense match, and he did not trust the FIDE with his title.

It has been posted in this topic:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/if-fischer-would-played-karpov-for-the-world-champion-who-would-win

Here is the key passage from the telegram:

On June 27, 1974, Fischer sent a telegram from Pasadena, California to the FIDE Congress: "As I made clear in my telegram to the FIDE delegates, the match conditions I proposed were non-negotiable ... FIDE has decided against my participation in the 1975 World Chess Championship. I therefore resign my FIDE World Championship title."

They may have auctioned that off too ... 

They should title a decent film about Bobby, "Bobby Fischer, God of Chess".

I dunno, but Pawn Sacrifice sounds like rite plonk.

It should be an interesting film.

The main conditions included

1) Unlimited games

2) First to 10 wins

3) A score of 9-9 terminated the match as drawn

Essentially this required the challenger to win 10-8 to become WC.  This was very contraversial and some people think the demand was made knowing it would be unacceptable.

Fischer wrote at the time in defense of his proposal:

The first player to win ten games, draws not counting, with unlimited number of games wins the match. If the score is nine wins to nine wins, draws not counting, the champion retains title and the match is declared drawn with the money split equally. Versus the old system of the best of 24 games wins the match (12.5 points) and if 12-12 the match is drawn with the champion retaining the title and prize fund is split equally. Draws do count in this system.

The unlimited match favors the better player. This is the most important point, because in the limited game system the match outcome can turn on a very low number of wins, giving the weaker player a chance to "luck out." Also, in the limited game system the player who takes a game or two lead has an advantage out of all proportion. This creates an added element of chance. The player who wins the match should be the player who plays best over the long run, not the player who jumps off to an early lead.

Jaime, totally I agree what you stated! 

"Fischer was just fed up with FIDE and its favoritism towards eastern bloc countries , the USSR in particular"

FIDE is so often described as simply anti-Fischer and pro-Soviet that I wonder what this idea comes from (apart from Fischer himself). As soon as Fischer demanded Candidates matches instead of tournaments FIDE introduced it (and Fischer started boycotting the Candidates). As soon as Fischer demanded that draws before move 30 should not be allowed in the Olympiad FIDE introduced it, whereupon Fischer himself broke the rule, stating it didn't apply to him.

All his demands ahead of and during the match against Spassky were met, and FIDE eventually agreed to his demands concerning rule changes ahead of his title defense, i.e. making it first to ten wins. They were also very close to agree to his demand that Karpov had to win 10-8 to win the title, the vote being as close as 44-47 for forcing Karpov to win 10-8.

FIDE cut down on the number of Soviets allowed to participate, abolished the rematch, and did a number of things that in no way were pro-Soviet. Then it's another thing that chess was very big in Eastern Europe and that there have been times when the ten best players in the world were from the Soviet Union, and that of course affected the game in many ways. The Soviets had much influence but it wasn't some sort of black vs white, evil vs good situation.

Some quotes on related matters from Wikipedia (I know, but it's at least a source it is easy to refer to...):

"In 1969, Fischer refused to play in the U.S. Championship because of disagreements about the tournament's format and prize fund. Since that event was being treated as a Zonal Tournament, Fischer forfeited his right to compete for the right to challenge world champion Boris Spassky in 1972. Grandmaster Pal Benko agreed to relinquish his qualifying place at the Interzonal in Fischer's favor, and the other participants waived their right to claim the spot. FIDE president Max Euwe interpreted the rules very flexibly to allow Fischer to play in the 1970 Interzonal"

"Among Fischer's demands was a requirement that the challenger must beat him by at least two games in order to take his title. The FIDE argued that it was unfair for a challenger to be able to beat the world champion, yet not take his title. Fischer would not back down, and eventually FIDE awarded the title to Karpov by default. Some commentators have questioned whether FIDE president Max Euwe did as much as he could have to prevent Fischer from forfeiting his world title"

FIDE also put an end to the system where the title holder could play whoever he wanted whenever he wanted and introduced a qualification cycle, etc. Also this they have been criticised for, and many of the things they did especially from the 1980s onwards they should be very criticised for, but they weren't all that bad for chess.

"There are no minds to be persuaded one way or the other here because no one seems open to to anything other than what they already believe"

If people even believed what they posted it would be one thing, but when they write stuff like that the Karpov vs Spassky match only can be explained by Spassky being ordered to throw the games etc it is difficult to take seriously.