Fischer vs. Korchnoi?

The match would be very interesting, but Fischer should win

Fischer had a two year break from tournament chess when he played Petrosian in March 1970 in USSR v Rest of World match, and won by 3-1.  Right after that, Fischer won the World 5 min Championship by 19/22 points, losing only to Korchnoi (they split games).  In April 1970, Fischer won at Rovinj/Zagreb with 13/17, and dominated the Palma Interzonal with 18½/23 points in November 1970, before going on to destroy Taimanov and Larsen 6-0, then Petrosian 6½–2½.  Korchnoi had lost the 1970 Candidates Match to Petrosian by (−1=9).  In the 1974 Candidates Match with Petrosian, Korchnoi led 3-1 with one draw when Petrosian withdrew (Korchnoi needed one more win).

Korchnoi is a great player, and he was nearly the equal of Karpov in the 1970s, ultimately edging out Petrosian in the early 70's.  But Fischer was at a different level, and the two time offs from chess in the 1960s did nothing to dull his strength, so there is no reason to think he would have been dull in 1975.  Neither Korchnoi nor Karpov would have been a match for him.  But, he had nothing more to prove, and he was tired of FIDE disrespect.

korchnoi plays e6 and bobby kicks him under the table

Which did Bobby hate more, the white French or the black KGA? Trust me, I have no illusions of being Fischer the 2nd, but I think it's funny that those are the openings I despise from the respective sides. Does anyone else feel the same way and if so, which lines do you prefer?

"he had nothing more to prove, and he was tired of FIDE disrespect"

How did FIDE disrespect him?

If you accept this version of events, then Fischer's demands become sinister. Here's a guy who is so far above everyone else that he has no reason to play them. Instead of simply retiring, he creates a pantomime act where he makes demands that he himself would never have accepted as a challenger. 

The generally accepted version is that Fischer was unable to accept a match where he had any chance of losing. Another thread provides a link to an excellent essay in The New Yorker . 

Before Fischer, there was someone who had seemed invincible upon winning the World Championship. Jose Capablanca had won the title without a single loss to Emanuel Lasker. Everyone considered him invincible. But he was not able to defend his title even once. Fischer was well aware of chess history, and had studied Capa's games in depth. 

Fischer definitely had something to prove by defending his title. The endless Fischer-Karpov threads are a testament to the fact that is perhaps the greatest match never to take place. We are poorer because of Fischer's decision to vacate his title rather than risk losing it.

"But he (Capablanca)was not able to defend his title even once".                        The way this is written is highly misleading.What do you mean by "even once"?Capa lost the match to Alekhine and from there on and despite being the worthiest opponent to Alekhine,he was never given a rematch(in sharp contrast to Karpov who got four rematches but lost them all.)Alekhine retained his title by making sure he would face "safely beatable"opponents,like Bogoljubov and Euwe.

I disagree, Smyslovfan, that Fischer would not have accepted his own conditions as the challenger. He was fighting against the political power Soviets had in FIDE, wanted a system that would favor the talent of the players rather than team power. Once he was champion and had gotten revenge for the previous cycles in which the Soviets were gaming the system, he felt that he had a right to demand his conditions for placing quality chess first.

btw, I am a huge fan of Smyslov, too--have two of his game collections.

I'm also a big fan of Smyslov, but even more one of Alekhine (as you can see from my profile picture)

Fischer would easily win.

When called before the Sports Committee, during their tied 1971 Candidates Semi-final match (Fischer had already beaten Larsen 6-0), both Petrosian and Korchnoi were asked who would be the stronger player to meet and stop Fischer before he reached Spassky.

According to Karpov:

It was already clear that the winner would have to play Fischer, who on the other staircase, was rapidly ascending to the chess throne. There was practically no doubt that Spassky would be able to deal with him, but in the Sports Committee it was decided that it was better that it didn't come to this, that it was desireable to stop him half-way.

And so the officials summoned Petrosian and Korchnoi and asked them directly which of them had the better chances against Fischer.  Korchnoi said that "the generation beaten by Fischer" had practically no chances.  But Petrosian said that he believed in himself.

For the record, Petrosian had lost a mini-match to Fischer in 1970 (2 draws, two losses) at the USSR vs the World event in Yugoslavia.  Why the Sports Committee asked Korchnoi to throw the match in the remaining two games is unclear, as Korchnoi would have been a better match for Fischer.

After this it was suggested to Korchnoi that he should allow Petrosian to win, and in compensation they promised to send him to three major international tournaments (for which a Soviet player in those times was a princely reward.

I met Korchnoi in Pasadena in 1983 when Kasparov was supposed to play him in match. I had bought my tickets but unfortunately the Russians wouldn't let Kasparov come. I did get an autographed book though from Viktor.

Cool. In '72 Fischer was better than Korchnoi and everyone else.

What I don't understand is why the sports committee didn't emphasize Petrosian's failing health. It is a significant factor that was underestimated at the time. Wouldn't it be better if Korchnoi had actually played in place of Petrosian. Kasparov suggested in his great predecessors that Korchnoi at the time himself had little chance on par with Petrosian anyhow.

The way I see it, they arguably made a bad choice then and there. The match would certainly unfold more evenly, at least for a while, but Fischer would surely have taken the lead and had an advantage that Korchnoi would not have been able to equalize.

So, Korchnoi took a dive in 1971?

What do you think. Do you have more info to add than the poor health ?

interesting

Norlandia, there are two sources I have seen:

1.  Korchnoi in his 1977 autobiography Chess Is My Life wrote "...others were convinced that the Sports Committee had not yet decided who to put up against Fischer. In the West many were thinking the same way, being unable to believe that the match was being played seriously. And only those who knew me well realized that I was trying very hard, but that my play was not coming off. I was most upset when, in the heat of the moment, I overreached myself, and lost form an excellent position in the ninth game."

2.  In Bernard Cafferty's book Candidates Matches 1971 he quotes GM Igor Zaitsev in the decisive 9th game that the tide turned at the 21st move

So, Korchnoi may have not been on his top form in 1971, but this game looks extraordinarily difficult to play, with both sides finding many moves that the best engines of today come up with.  It doesn't look like a give-up to me.