If Fischer would played Karpov for the World Champion, who would win?

  • #1761
    Millennium_FalconNZ wrote:
    SmyslovFan wrote:

    How many sockpuppets has this guy created?

    how many people you accuse of being TROLL or racist that disagree with you?

    is it american trait ..?

    Read through my posts. I almost never accuse someone of being racist. If a person is really being racist, I would report it rather than engage in conversation.

    I rarely call people trolls, but it does happen from time to time. 

  • #1762

    Evidently, it's weird too when commenters rant just to see their own words, a common need I guess for attention.

    Especially when playing victim when no one is really attacking, ganging up on them, or bullying.

    Please read the posts carefully would be my advice.

    Mrmaxcy was referring to Fischer about being an anti-capitalist as well as an anarchist. Not you.

    Smylovfan was simply being rherorical, not attacking you.

    This is forum buddy. Expect confrontation, antagonists, allies, know-it-alls, haters. Everyone is under the microscope bro. Deal or get outta the kitchen.

  • #1763

    Bobby Fischer at his prime-

    Anatoly in his prime

  • #1764

    Heh. You know, I was expecting that sort of response.

    I haven't a clue though, where you're being bullied or who is disrespecting you. So far, reading the last several posts, it seems to me you're shadow boxing by yourself and looking for a fight. Adding tragedies, political goings on, doesn't help prove whatever point you're trying to make.

    For me, forums aren't for proving you're right, that you're smarter. Everyone here has an opinion, to discuss openly. Yeah. It's a give and take. To enlighten. But not everyone is diplomatic or hurtful. You just have to expect it.

    Bottom line: people can't hear you if you make to much noise brother.

  • #1765

    Karpov, of course, is a fantastic player. He is also one of my favorite players. However, I said this before and will say it again: it's impossible to know how things would've played out if the match with Fischer took place. I agree with Fischer's demands though that the match should've been long and the challenger should've been able to demonstrate superiority by beating the champ by at least 10-8.

  • #1766

    Ok, so now it's time for a confession. Yes, I have been posting the funny pics, etc. about Fischer and Karpov.

    I think that if Fischer and Karpov had actually met and played for the title right away as was scheduled, Fischer would have crushed Karpov. However, I think Karpov would have come back to a re-match a much stronger and wiser player and history will never know what would happen.

    In case you think that I don't respect Karpov based upon my earlier posts and jokes about the two - here is a story.

    When Karpov played against Hjartarson in Seattle in 1989 for the quarter finals, I had the priveledge of working the large Demo board on stage during a couple of their games. (For the younger crowd - this was before technology of today where the boards are electronic and display the games on televisions for the audience to observe.) The two players were up on a stage in a large room with the audience at a distance in theater like seats.

    My job was to stand on the stage in the auditoreum near the players and observe their game. When either player moved, I would immediately go over to a large demonstration board and duplicate the move so the audience could clearly see it from their seats.

    I recall several things about Karpov. He was so intense and focused when he played. He would sometimes get up and wander about while thinking, then come back and sit down. Or he would go over to a private area on stage and sit on a couch while thinking. 

    What I most recall is his incredible intense stare. I remember one time when he looked at me and I made eye contact. I felt like his eyes were lasers piercing right through me. I am not kidding. He was very much the professional gentleman player in all his manners. But his intensity of play, and the intensity of his eyes while playing really left an impression.

    While I am not necessarily a huge fan of his dry, technical style, I respect that he is one of the best chess players in all of history. 

  • #1767

    "I think that if Fischer and Karpov had actually met and played for the title right away as was scheduled, Fischer would have crushed Karpov"

    Fischer scored 12.5-8.5 against Spassky, and Karpov was a greater player. Whatever the hypothetical result, I don't think anyone could have crushed Karpov in the 1970s-80s. Kasparov played five matches against him and all were quite even.

  • #1768
    I hate him
  • #1769

    Goffydog 

    I hate him
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You are too young to have such an opinion. What do you possibly know about either player? 
  • #1770
    fabelhaft wrote:

    "I think that if Fischer and Karpov had actually met and played for the title right away as was scheduled, Fischer would have crushed Karpov"

    Fischer scored 12.5-8.5 against Spassky, and Karpov was a greater player. Whatever the hypothetical result, I don't think anyone could have crushed Karpov in the 1970s-80s. Kasparov played five matches against him and all were quite even.

    Karpov also played Korchnoi in 1978 and Korchnoi almost managed that. Korchnoi missed clear wins in games 5, 17 and 25, in games 13 and 17 (later) he blundered away draws, in game 9 he had comfortable advantage. OTOH, Karpov failed to win games 7, 20, 22 and 25 (earlier). This match had many embarrassingly looking games from both players - a thing you didn't see with Fischer. Also Karpov's legendary ability to defend in worse endgames didn't work this time: Korchnoi's victories in games 21, 28, 29 and 31 were clear and impressive.

    Maybe, Karpov was temporarily out of shape in 1978, but he wouldn't have got away with such play vs Fischer.

  • #1771

    Polar_Bear  wrote:

    fabelhaft wrote:

    "I think that if Fischer and Karpov had actually met and played for the title right away as was scheduled, Fischer would have crushed Karpov"

    Fischer scored 12.5-8.5 against Spassky, and Karpov was a greater player. Whatever the hypothetical result, I don't think anyone could have crushed Karpov in the 1970s-80s. Kasparov played five matches against him and all were quite even.

    Karpov also played Korchnoi in 1978 and Korchnoi almost managed that. Korchnoi missed clear wins in games 5, 17 and 25, in games 13 and 17 (later) he blundered away draws, in game 9 he had comfortable advantage. OTOH, Karpov failed to win games 7, 20, 22 and 25 (earlier). This match had many embarrassingly looking games from both players - a thing you didn't see with Fischer. Also Karpov's legendary ability to defend in worse endgames didn't work this time: Korchnoi's victories in games 21, 28, 29 and 31 were clear and impressive.

    Maybe, Karpov was temporarily out of shape in 1978, but he wouldn't have got away with such play vs Fischer.       

     

     

     

     

     

    Totally agree! Fischer would of beat Karpov, because despite of his team of GMs karpov had a hard time beating Korchnoi, and Anatoly had the best Geller. 

    Polar_Bear, unfortually you are preaching to the choir, fabelhaft believes that Kapov would of beat Fischer and Carlsen is the best world champion ever, non-master are easily persuaded to believe whatever being told by other players without any critical thinking whatsoever, they only look at the final score. Carlsen, did he really beat Anand in the first match, maybe it was the pressure of having such few games that Anand crumble and lost, Carlsen has never been tested and let see playing someone a lot younger if Carlsen can retain the title, in 12 games match how can this possibly  be a way to choose a real world champion, just one game is a enough to win the title ( can be a blunder in a game); at least 24 games is a better way to determine the true champ. In Capablanca and Lasker match, Capblanca was never in danger in losing but not so with Carlsen, Carlsen had two lost games in the first match against Anand.


  • #1772

    Folks, you forget that Fischer was also a Human and made some mistakes too. It's not like he was a machine. Even at his peak performance 1970-72, he made some mistakes. And he would certainly make mistakes and lose games to Karpov. Karpov, already in 1975 was an extremely strong player (as was Korchnoi). It's really unfair to say that Fischer would crush Karpov or the other way around. Let's just agree that it would've been a fantastic match.

  • #1773

  • #1774
    Eric_Ross wrote:

    Stop with this crap already people, my God let it go.

    I agree completely, the fact this "discussion" has went on for over 100 pages is just pathetic.  

  • #1775
    Fixing_A_Hole wrote:

    I agree completely, the fact this "discussion" has went on for over 100 pages is just pathetic.  

    How so? Much in history are 'pathetic', as you call it. Why did the Roman Empire fell? Could Hitler have won WWII? etc etc. Books about Hitler and of WWII are in the millions. What's more challenging in chess history than this topic about Fischer and Karpov? Your local chess club, celebrating 20 years of active 'service', or what? Smile

  • #1776
    livat01 wrote:
    Fixing_A_Hole wrote:

    I agree completely, the fact this "discussion" has went on for over 100 pages is just pathetic.  

    How so? Much in history are 'pathetic', as you call it. Why did the Roman Empire fell? Could Hitler have won WWII? etc etc. Books about Hitler and of WWII are in the millions. What's more challenging in chess history than this topic about Fischer and Karpov? Your local chess club, celebrating 20 years of active 'service', or what? 

    Discussing why and how things happened regarding historical events is entirely different. These discussions in chess about "who would win against who" when discussing players of different eras, or players who are dead, is 100% hypothetical and moot, there is no way to make progress in the discussion.  It's just a mish-mash of "X is my favorite player, therefore X would win" or "Y played this opening/style, Z played this opening/style, therefore Z would win".

  • #1777

    I don't know. This topic draws soo much interest beyond fandom, idolizing and obsession. Of course it's a hypothetical conversation. But between a player at the height of his illustrious journey to the WC, after many years of setbacks, "conspiracies", going through hoops ever since he was fifteen. An up-n-coming young challenger. The perennial product of the Soviet cog groomed to take back the crown from the Yankee upstart.

    The implications, as Morra opined, had Karpov won against Fischer are intriguing. It may have better prepared him, added much validity to his self-esteem knowing he had bested Bobby and wasn't the default Champion going into his future matches with Kasparov.

    I believe history would've been different from then on.

    Likewise, if they had played and Bobby, without a doubt in my mind, beat Karpov...could well as have the legendary career that the two K's enjoyed.

    Ah, what might have been.

    An analogy would be the Pacquiao-Mayweather fight.

    It never happened five years ago (maybe more) and many were disappointed, speculated about the outcome.

    Fortunately, they did fight. Yet some still speculate about the rematch. I don't think it's at all pathetic to discuss the many possibilities of such a game between them. They were roughly the same age (5-7yrs differential) playing strong chess. But they had differing styles and to me more than enough juice to call such a match Epic. I think that's worth discussing even though Bobby's gone. We have, because of the internet, many resources, information, game scores from 1975, to draw from. To make reasonable deductions for ourselves to at least debate about the outcome.

  • #1778

    Perhaps it was good that Bobby Fischer disappeared from the chess world. It gave a chance for Korchnoi to shine. I mean, the '74 and '78 Karpov - Korchnoi encounters were fantastic. And the fact that Korchnoi qualified to be the challenger once again in 1981 - when he was 49 or 50 years old, is also remarkable - despite the fact that he was massacred by Karpov. Korchnoi is also one of my favorite players - a true old fighter of the 64 squares. :)

  • #1779

    Fischer was a great chess player but as a person a total cockhead

  • #1780

    Heh. Some would consider and observe, Garry's many antics, shenanigans during his career as douchy. That he was overambitious enough, self-entitled to be a more of a c__khead than Bobby may have been. Ever.

Top
or Join

Online Now