Fischer vs Karpov '75 and the future of chess...

And I think the only reason Anand, Carlsen, and Aronian would score well against Fischer is because they came later in time. 

I'd have a hard time believing any of those guys would score well against Fischer if they were all contemporaries.  They are all obviously elitely good at chess but have any of them shown Fischer-esque brilliance?   Russian champs, ex-champs, and contenders were already conspiring against Fischer when he was Carlsen's age.

Carlsen may still be young enough to win the champion but every missed chance to play in these world champ events is costly.  Younger GM's are cropping up, he needs the experience to beat the older crop, and his younger contemporaries (Aronian, Radjabov, Mamedyarov) are all gaining that experience while he sits.

well, seeing that this whole thread is a fictitious one...

Here's the real storey behind the famous 1972 match, which have been circulating among underground chess followers for years -

The story goes that prior to 1972, Fischer played Spassky 5 times and never even came close to beating him...yet Fischer beat Spassky like a drum during the WCC (even forfeiting one game), Spassky also conceided to every wish that Bobby requested, aven though he could have easily won by default. Why would he have done so?

The rumour is that Spassky planned to loose to Fischer all along, this would have resulted in his lost of prestige in the Kremlin, but would have easily paved his way to leaving Russian Supremacy for more humane conditions in France. His plan however took longer than he expected, and he was only able to settle in France with his family in 1976, and granted citizenship in 1978.

Fischer was actually informed of the "tank" by Spassky, and was too humilated to say anything about it (since all along he and the rest of the world thought he had actually defeated Spassky), he clearly was no match for Spassky, and obviouly no match for Karpov (who was even stronger than Spassky)...so he did the only thing he could to preserve his status...he disappeared...he did however, resurface to face Spassky in 1992 to prove to Spassky that he was the better player...he did, but his victory was bitter sweet, since it was obvious to everyone that Spassky was no longer interested in chess.

Bobby's personal diary details all of this, but is closely guarded by his family to preserve his integrity.

I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but much of that is true.  I don't think they deliberately conspired together, but Spassky didn't want to remain World Chess Champion for example, and he showed it.  Take this excerpt from Rueben Fine's book "The World's Great Chess Games":

"Once he had become world champion there were many indications that he was not comfortable in the role.  He lacked the determination to win.  In one tournament he had spent his spare time playing bridge with some friends, all master of much inferior rank.  He could not bring himself to beat them at the chess board, contenting himself instead with draws.  At other times he remarked that he would rather not become champion, he would much sooner be an ordinary guy just playing for the fun of it.  After his loss to Petrosian he wrote with prophetic insight:

       'I hope I shall be stronger in three or four years' time than now [1966]; but after that I shall decline and another strong player will take my place.  Chess is an abnormal way of life, and to remain at the top you need to be very self-disciplined.  Botvinnik is a very dedicated man and has this discipline, but it is a quality you need to be born with.  I am quite the opposite; very impractical and completely disorganized.' "

That's pretty clear.  Spassky didn't even take the '72 match seriously.  Karpov who helped him train said he mostly played tennis and would travel down to Moscow everyday instead of focus on his training sessions.  I feel Spassky and Fischer used each other in mutually acceptable ways, though they did not personally conspire to it.  Spassky was the nice guy World Champion who loved chess, but also many other things in life, and Fischer was the up and comer who wanted to win at all costs.  Spassky knew Fischer would stop at nothing, and probably deep down knew he would fall, and that was alright to him.

Actually in that respect Spassky was very much like Capablanca.  He let his natural talent carry him and was too lazy to study opening theory much and that became his downfall.

Also in 1992, Spassky gladly took one for the team against Fischer again.  Both got paid.  Spassky wanted the money and wanted Fischer to come back, and Fischer wanted the money and wanted to show the world he was still the "best".  Spassky and Fischer were pals.

Spassky is awesome.

Yeah I heard Spassky since childhood wanted out of the USSR due to propaganda from his parents (his grandparents were informal friends of the czar), so he grew up planning to use chess as his path to glory, failure, and ultimately egress from the communist USSR.   It worked like a T and he partnered with Fischer to get over 1.5 million again in 1992.   No wonder Spassky and Fischer were "frenemies".  Some people play chess with plastic, wooden, or even platinum pieces, others use world super-power governments.  Spassky rules, the greatest non-boardgame/computer chess player ever.

I posted #23 because I could not explain the following-

1. Why was Spassky so accomodating to Fischer, when it was clear that Fischer was not reciprocating?

2. Why did'nt Spassky just accept the forfeit?

3. How could Fischer, not having beaten Spassky in any of their previous 5 encounters, defeated Spassky so convincingly, even forfeiting one game?

There is one little anecdote that contradicts a little what I have mentioned.  According to Frank Brady's "Endgame".  During the 1972 match before game 3 when they were going to play in the back room,  Fischer started throwing tantrums again:

"Spassky appeared on time at the backstage  location; first he sat  in
Fischer’s  chair  and,  perhaps  unaware  that  he  was  on  camera,  smiled
and swiveled around several times as a child might do. Then he moved
to his own chair, and waited. Fischer arrived eight minutes late, looking
very pale, and the two men shook hands. Spassky, playing white, made
his  first  move  and  Fischer  replied.  Suddenly,  Fischer  pointed  to  a
camera and began shouting.
    Spassky was  now  on  his  feet.  “I  am  leaving!”  he  announced  curtly,
with the bearing of a Russian count, informing Fischer and Schmid that
he was going to the stage to play the game there.
    Schmid  recalled  later  that  “for  a  second,  I  didn’t  know what  to  do.
Then I stopped Spassky’s clock, breaking the rules. But somehow I had
to get that incredible situation under control.”
    The men continued talking, but their voices became subdued. Schmid
put his  arms  around  Spassky’s  shoulders,  saying:  “Boris,  you promised
me  you would  play  this  game  here. Are  you  breaking  that  promise?”
Then turning to Fischer, Schmid said: “Bobby, please be kind.”

Schmid, appealing to Spassky's gentlemanly side, basically saved the match.

If this bothers you then the Kramnik/ Kasparov match must bother you even more ?  It should if you are consistent with your reasoning. First Kramnik loses a match to shirov in which the winner was to face Kasparov. In that match Kramnik could not win a single game to Shirov who has a terrible record against Kasparov. Not only does Shirov get cheated out of his shot at Kasparov but Kramnik gets a shot and Kasparov cant win a single game against an opponent who just failed to win a game in a match with Shirov, whom I believe had never beaten Kasparov ?! Add to this the fact that even though trailing Kramnik in the match Kasparov gives Kramnik 2 short draws with the white pieces !  Its clear , to me anyway, Kasparov was NOT trying to win the match with Kramnik.......

As for Fischer never even coming close to beating Spassky in their first 5 encounters thats simply not true. Have you looked at those games ? 

The book on Spassky was he didnt like to play enemies. He liked playing guys who were friendly. He was always accomodating to everybody.

What do you mean accept the forfeit. The match was never forfeited. Only Euwe and fide could forfeit the match. And Fischer knew just how far he could go. Kasparov says the game Fischer forfeited was genius. Kasparov said Spassky should have come back in the very next game and forfeited thereby making the psychological burden even. Fischer played Spassky like a fiddle, but he played everybody like a fiddle.

Taimanov was a concert pianist---Fischer was a concert violinist

In the famous park interview which is all over the internet---Fischer was asked---if you are the stronger player why did you lose three times to Spassky? Fischer responded---Those were tournaments where I needed a win against Spassky and I pushed too hard. In the coming championship match I will win---my elo is 100 points above Spassky and we will sit down and face each other 24 times---there is no way the guy can win!

Shane was dead no doubt in my mind. Fischer v Karpov 1974 hmm lot of doubt in my mind. I go for Fischer, just, but in the process his cloak of invincabillity (sic) is shattered and Karpov wins the rematch. Fischer retires and goes on to promote peace in the Middle East. Karpov goes on to dominate world chess for 20 years after which he becomes a key advisor to Russian President Gary Kasparov himself a once promising chess player. Me? In 1985 I win the lottery and marry Demi Moore. 

He said that, but it was in a more doubtful manner.  He said in another interview it was also to prove to himself he was the best.  By the way I'm still looking for that park bench interview in full, all the ones on the internet are just the same few minutes copied over and over, but there's more.  I found a bit more where he briefly talks about his father in that same interview but that's it, there's still more. 

I've also gathered through various sources that he's also interviewed on film on the following shows, so if anyone wants to put on their detective cap and contact some archiving companies on getting the footage, that would be great.  Here's the shows I've researched him being recorded on, but haven't found the footage:

Arlene Francis "Home" show on NBC - 1956
Chess Treasury of the Air BBC Radio - 1961?
Bob Hope - Oct 5th 1972
The Merv Griffin Show - 1972
The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson - November 8th 1972
Camera Three - The Curious Tensions of Chess - Date Unknown
The David Frost Show - January 28, 1972

He's also interviewed by Dimitrije Bjelica in 1971, but Dimitrije is such a terrible interviewer I don't know if I want to see it.  Regardless, I tried contacting him through his youtube account and email, but never got a response.

Well I guess you can't fault Fischer for Spassky failing to live up to his potential or not forcing FIDE to call forfeit or not caring as much about chess as Fischer did.

But it still begs the question, who'd win in 1975 between Karpov who crushed Spassky and Fischer who crushed Spassky, who could have crushed all if he tried (maybe, don't know)?

I have heard that Kasparov liked a young Karpov against a cold Fischer who hadn't played since 1972. 

Karpov I have seen quoted says he gave himself a "40%" chance but that might be so he wouldn't look too cocky.

Spassky says Fischer in 1975 and Karpov in 1978.

What do other top players say?  Anybody know?

Kasparov thought Karpov was a better opponent because he wouldn't have given in to all of Fischer's demands during the match.  I think he also thinks Karpov wouldn't have fallen for the psychological aspect of the matches like people felt Spassky did.  I agree for the most part.

Maybe it's just me, but Kasparov talks about Karpov so much.  After listening to the interviews and reading the books and so on, it gave me this impression that he wanted everyone to think Karpov would have defeated Fischer and thereby by proxy proving that he himself is better than Fischer since he ended up defeating Karpov.  His "My Great Predecessor's" books though are still one of the best in Chess literature.  He paid his respects to all his predecessors despite not being returned it from say Fischer.

I think Kasparov is the only modern super-GM who would have a chance against Fischer, but he would still lose.  Kasparov seeks to impose his will on the game and that can lead to mistakes, but Bobby was a truth-seeker at the board.  That's his edge.

Dannyboy, dont you get it---Kasparov says Karpov would have won in 75' and Kasparov was superior to Karpov---VOILA---Kasparov is the greatest of all time.

Kasparov is angry about these world wide polls that usually place Fischer as the greatest of all time. In the future Kasparov will probably say---look at our simul scores---I am clearly superior! The man is really concerned about what destiny is going to say about him. Look at what he says about DEEP BLUE---The machine was cheating! Take the machine out and shoot it! I was robbed! What will Kasparov's epitaph say---"The man Deep Blue spanked like a child---and he cried like a child too."

There was suspicious activity going on with the Deep Blue match.  I feel sorry for Kasparov during all that.

"There was suspicious activity going on with the Deep Blue match. I feel sorry for Kasparov during all that."

Come on dude---get real. Do you think there was a man on the grassy knoll? Do you think the American govt was part of 9-11? Were john Kennedy and Marylin rocking and rolling? Was the wind really blowing the flag on the moon? do you believe our brave soldiers at Little Big Horn saved the last bullet for themselves rather than suffer the terrible tortures of the indians? Do you believe the govt knew about Pearl Harbor and didnt warn the troops? Do you believe Jack the Ripper was a member of the royal family? Did Schlechter really have to beat Lasker by two points?---Well do you?

Raul, I want you to say something nice about Kasparov.  This statement must not include "but" or "even though" or any other word or phrase that might explain away the great chess player he infact was.

Go!

Oh and while we're at it.  Fezzik I want you to say something nice about Fischer.  Hahaha!

Go!

After these two statements, I will now pronounce Raul and Fezzik husband and wife, or wife and husband.

Fischer still had huge interest in chess.  But he was very paranoid and somewhat insecure.  Robert Byrne said Fischer was afraid to fly because the Russian KGB might bomb the plane.  He actually didn't go to a dentist for the longest time and had multiple caveties because he thought the dentist would put track or mind control devices in them.  He had his fillings removed for the same reason.

But as far as his interest in chess is concerned, he still loved it.  He was still carrying around his pocket chess set well into the 80's, buying the latest issues of Chess informant, watching chess TV, as well as analyzing Kasparov-Karpov match games.  I think he dropped from the scene due to a combination of paranoia, uncertainty in himself, and because he reached the top and had nothing to prove anymore.  But he still followed chess very closely.

This is a good example of his paranoia, especially in his later years, fast forward to 1:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XnDiFNjSaw

Also, take note of what he says at 2:30