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

Now that's unfair too. Korchnoi was playing his best chess in the 70's.

 If you know the history of chess, you know that other world champions had more unreasonable demands than Fischer and they were met.  Some had the exact same clausethat was the sticking point.  Some forced the opponent to raise their own prize fund.  Look at Botvinnik having an automatic rematch stipulated in the contract.  Each time he lost the World Championship he got to avoid the candidates matches completely and get a rematch.  Spassky didn't have that, and after he lost to Petrossian he had to go through the entire candidates to challenge him again.  The World Chess Championship has had a long history, over 80 years, of the champion pretty much setting the playing circumstances.  That's one of the things that make the title so grand...you have to knock the champ off the pedestal now that he's nice and comfortable up there.     

    Remember, the Soviets were internationally embarrassed by Fischer. Remember also, that Euwe (a Russian) was head of FIDE at the time. Remember also, that politics played an important part of chess during the cold war.  I think these factors played a part in Euwe's decision. 

    If you study Fischer's bio you'll see that many of his demands were for the bettering of chess, not his selfish interests.  He wanted quiet playing halls. He wanted lights that didn't cause glare on the pieces and boards.  He wanted spectators several feet back instead of learing over the players.  He wanted spectators to be quiet and not smoke near the players.  He wanted players to dress better; have better sportsmanship.  He wanted larger prize funds.  All these things help EVERYONE involved in chess.

    In my oppinion Fischer is very overrated and Karpov is somewhat underrated.  Fischer's highest playing level was a year or two tops.  Before that, yes, he dominated the US championship.  But frankly, the field was never that strong when compared to international level competition.  When Fischer played against international level opponents in interzonals, his results were mediocre.  That all changed for the briefest of time...a year or so.  Everyone assumes that Fischer would maintain his high playing level for years after he reached it.  However, if you look at the other former world champions, no one stayed at their all time peak for long.  Look at chessmetrics.com...Bottvinik had a similar peak around 1946 lasted less than a year and he went back to playing 'normal' level for him.  

   If they had played in 75' I give a slight edge to Fischer. Here's how I think it may have played out...Karpov would have taken an early lead due to Fischer being out of practice for 3 years.  Then a long series of draws.  Then Fischer would come on strong due to Karpov not having much stamina at that time.  78' Karpov would easily handle him. 

   Where do they rank in all time greats?  I put Karpov neck and neck with Kasparov as 1st.  Fischer lower but in the top 10 for sure. 

Fischer beats Karpov. Ans.

The Russians.

Had they played early , I think Fisher would have won. BUt Karpov was amazing. Many say Kasaparov is the greatest all time, yet look how close the matchs with Karpov were.

Karpov was and still is also a gentleman and continues to help support chess a lot. One of my Favorite Players. He always accepted Fisher's offers to play.

Sports_Suck_2014 wrote:

    "Remember, the Soviets were internationally embarrassed by Fischer. Remember also, that Euwe (a Russian) was head of FIDE at the time. Remember also, that politics played an important part of chess during the cold war."

Euwe was Dutch not Russian.

What a nonsense about "Fisher haters". Why on earth should anyone who loves chess have reasons to hate Fisher?

Another big nonsense - Do you believe yourself what you have written, and do you really believe that, among the company of many other really amazing and strong chess players like Larsen, Portish etc. - the "old and weak man" Korchnoi "by some strange chance" gained the right to play two WC matches with Karpov? 

:) Yes, I wanted to write about the "Russian" Euwe :) It has been clarified already

Wow! that's some whacked out metaphor, there.  Fischer was a great chess player.  I guess Columbus did "prove" the Earth was round, though it didn't need proving.  He didn't discover a new continent.

?

This is silly. Karpov DID beat Fischer in the World Champs 1975. And by a sweeping score of 6-7. Unfortunately, once the US govt. got a hold of ole bobby for MK ultra he was never the same...

FIDE president Max Euwe was a Dutch, but he was old and manipulated by Russians. Nevertheless, Karpov wanted to play, he made no demands on his own and didn't reject Fischer's. Unfortunately Karpov was mere playing puppet and had no control over Soviet chess federation machinations. Fischer's demands served as pretence to abolish the match and Soviets greeted it, especially when Karpov himself evaluated his chances modestly.

Who would have won? I don't know. Karpov's best games were indeed better than Fischer's average games. That's all I know. It means nothing. Karpov smashed Spassky more than Fischer, but Spassky's play collapsed in the end of their candidate match: until game 6 (where Spassky overestimated his chances in the middlegame and missed a draw in the endgame) it was Spassky who had initiative. IMHO, the match Karpov vs Fischer would have been decided by psychology. The one with better nerves and more stamina would have won. Karpov had motivation and better background help, but lesser endurance. Everything was possible, maybe even Fischer would have collapsed like Brazil (vs Germany) in soccer this week, or opposite.

That's an interesting comparison with the kind of sensational Brazil-Germany soccer match, and it sounds very true about nerves influencing sport competitions, especially in chess

Fischer was ready for Karpov in 1975 and I am sure Fischer study Karpov's games throughly. Fischer match against Spassky in 1992, he never left anything to chance, Bobby play some training games with Gligoric and Eugene Torre. Bobby took black in all his training games, that is how confident he was. Fischer has the ability to win with black and here is two games.

Fischer would of won Karpov In 1975 and 1978.

The sum total of Fischer's behavior from 1972-75 (what he did as opposed to what he said), is hardly indicative of a supremely confident Champion. I have to concur with chess-gg that Fischer was a great chess player but a terrible champion. In addition, when he refused to defend his title, he cheated not only Karpov and the entire chess-world but himself of what could have been potentially some of the greatest games ever.

Columbus never made it to the Continent. Moreover, he died believing that he had made it to islands along the edge of Asia. This belief is closely related to what he was trying to prove: the size of the earth. There had been two estimates going back to the Greeks. Columbus was on the wrong side.

Somehow I think all this does indeed relate to Fischer. He said, 1.e4 is "best by test".

Thank you for correcting me regarding Euwe's citizenship.  

   Actually it's very easy and logical!  Fischer played 8 games against Korchnoi.  Score was 2 wins for Fischer, 2 wins for Korchnoi and 4 draws. Fischer had an EQUAL SCORE against Korchnoi in classical time control games.  

   Karpov played 108 classical time control games with Korchnoi.  Score was 31 wins for Karpov, 14 wins for Korchnoi and 63 draws.  Karpov scored MORE THAN TWICE as many wins against Korchnoi as korch did against him!!

   People need to get real.  Fischer wasn't the antisocial ***hole people make him out to be...he had his good and bad moments like anyone else and being in the public eye, his bad moments were recorded.  Likewise, Fischer wasn't a chess god!  Kasparov and Karpov were better than Fischer.  Fischer is an all time top 10, maybe top 5...maybe.