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

"Fischer and Anand shared the connection of being the first "great" chess players from their own countries."

Anand sure was, but Morphy, Pillsbury, Marshall, Reshevsky and Fine were not too bad.

Lackadaisical analysis.

The regulation games were:

1960 Buenos Aires, 1/2-1/2 draw

1962 Stockholm Interzonals, 1-0 Fischer

1962 Curacao Candidates Tournament Rd 5, 0-1 Korchnoi

1962 Curacao Candidates Tournament Rd 12, 1-0 Fischer

1962 Curacao Candidates Tournaments Rd 19, 0-1 Korchnoi

1962 Curacao Candidates Tournament Rd 26, 1/2-1/2 Draw

1967 Sousa Interzonal, 1/2-1/2 Draw

1970 Rovinj/Zagreb, 1/2-1/2 draw

(This does not include several tournament 5-minute rapid games played against Korchnoi)

The point being, both of Korchnoi's wins over Fischer came in the 1962 Candidates Tournament, where Fischer accused the Soviet players  of (and they tacitly admitted) collusion.  The system was changed after this cycle to knock-out matches.

Fischer was 19 years old at the time (Korcnoi was 31 and in is prime), and played at a serious disadvantage - the Russians being ordered to take him to the limit every game, after his brilliant Interzonal.

This is to take nothing away from Korchoi, who was certainly one of the all-time greats (and he too suffered from at the hands of the Sivet chess machine).  It simply points out the weakness in your comparative argument.

"The point being, both of Korchnoi's wins over Fischer came in the 1962 Candidates Tournament, where Fischer accused the Russian players (and they tacitly admitted) of collusion"

Fischer accusing Petrosian, Geller and Keres of collusion in 1962 is no reason to see his results against Korchnoi as better than they were. I don't know if "the Russians" admitted to collusion, but in any case these players usually drew very quickly against each other in the Soviet Championships and other events so no surprise there and never any discussion on the subject then, it was first when Fischer needed an explanation for finishing so far behind the top three in 1962 that these draws between Petrosian, Geller and Keres became so crucial. I certainly believe the games between these three players were "friendly", by the way, but not that this affected Fischer any more than for example Korchnoi, and none of them particularly much.

The argument that Fischer would have beaten Karpov since Fischer might have scored better against Korchnoi than Karpov did is dubious. We only know the actual career scores between these players, and that Karpov's were better. It could have been different if Fischer had played Korchnoi more, but it would still not say much about that hypothetical result between Karpov and Fischer. Kasparov had 15-0 against Shirov, who won his Candidates match against Kramnik easily, but Kramnik still won the title match against Kasparov just as easily.

Karpov and Kasparov only played first to six wins, and still their match was stopped after almost half a year without any result having been reached. First to ten wins is just too much. Anand and Kramnik must soon have played a hundred games against each other, and none of them still reached ten wins.

Mark Taimanov, in an interview, spoke about the Soviet drawing tactics among themselves:

"But generally speaking I don't consider it a moral concession. A draw affects those only who agree upon it, and it helps the rivals. There is nothing unsportive in it. Partners agreeing upon drawing limit their achievements. Agreed draws can be explained by considerations, not sportive only, but friendly as well."

long before Columbus the fact the world was round was known to many people it just was'nt advertised today is the same many of us know how else could it be otherwise natural selection has granted us few the ability to know we just know!

And We know who would win but we wont Tell!

"In 1975 they could not have looked into the future and decided that it was a bad idea because of the 1984 K-K match. Unlimited matches had been played before 1975 and nobody thought it had been a bad idea up to that point. It was only when Fischer issued his conditions that it suddenly became a problem..."

Ever since FIDE took control of the title after Alekhine's death the title matches had been limited to 24 games, but FIDE did eventually agree to Fischer's demand that the rules should be changed and the match should be unlimited, which I think was a bad decision. One shouldn't just change the rules because the World Champion demands changes that he thinks will improve his chances. It's scary how close FIDE even were to accept the demand that Karpov had to win 10-8 to get the title, I think it was a question of a nothing more than a couple of votes. But unlimited matches to ten wins just have to run into big problems with planning. The players have many events to play, and the sponsors can't sign up for year long matches. Better to have it decided by chess skill than by who is in best physical shape after ten months of continuous play.

The key points in the Title match rules, proposed by Fischer, were essentially the same as required by Lasker, 55 years earlier.

The thought occurs to me, that with Fischer's uncompromising style and the fact that he was trashing out everyone at the time, the 10 wins would not have taken long, unlike the KK matches. He reached levels of creativity that are amazing (like the example posted earlier where he quashed white's queenside play in a KID and actually played it more like he was on the white side of a KID). I admire Karpov over Kasparov because of his great understanding of the cooperation of the pieces and later years. He would not have been a pushover, even for Fischer, and I agree it is a great shame that they didn't play a match. I'd add that Kasparov's analysis of Fischer in his books shows more about Kasparov's style than Fischer's playing level. When Fischer said that he realized he could play for a win without equalizing first, he just blew past Kasparov, in playing humans right there. That said, Kasparov was amazing in his prime, but once he lost a match to a computer ( admitidly unfairly guided by a human) it was all over for him, because of his viewpoint of chess, and ego wise. Finally, I'd add that Fischer (in his WC match against Spassky) reminds me of Bruce Lee when he had his no style epiphany. He would not have dug into a Berlin defense slugfest like Kasparov did against Kramik, but would have moved the battlefield onto other openings.

"The key points in the Title match rules, proposed by Fischer, were essentially the same as required by Lasker, 55 years earlier"

Lasker's title matches did not require a two point win margin. The match against Capablanca was limited to 24 games or first to win 8. Ten years earlier Lasker had said that he only would play Capa under other rules than his previous challengers, and that he would keep the title with a low scoring -1 loss. Capa naturally refused to play under such rules, and everyone sided with Capa since that demanded rule was as unfair then as in 1975.

Just imagine if Carlsen thinks that a long match improves his chances, tells FIDE to change the rules so the match is unlimited first to ten wins instead of just 12 games, and that Anand forfeits the match unless he approves, and FIDE just agrees to the demand. That's what they did in Fischer's case, and still people claim FIDE was against Fischer somehow.

By the way, some say that Lasker vs Schlechter had a two win margin clause, but that is without any support in sources. If it had existed it would obviously have been very unfair too.

No offense to all. But i think Karpovs chances against Fischer in 1975 would have been higher than that of the consensus then had been predicting.

Karpov avoids taking risks and may well be satisfied with a draw with black and a win as white. It is true he had Tal on his side in the 1978 match but he himself had stated that although Tals approach was superb , it did not fit his  style (the Karpovian style). And this team -up although was succesful in defending a crown, it wasnt as impressive  as expected not until he played as himself in 1981 and massacred Korchnoi in Merano.

Fischer too had Larsen as a second but he himself stated that he didnt learn much, another example is Carlsen and Kasparov team-up. Its not about what great player you have in your team, the important thing is does it fit you. Contrasting styles may proved to be a disaster unless the other could adapt.Which obviously the above mentioned guys didnt.

Going back to topic, Fischer in my opinion is the most hardworking chess player of all time. So much so that he tries to squeeze a win from a seemingly barren position.Which i think is also a weakness. When Fischer went back to his Sicilian, he narrowly escaped against Spassky proving that the RUssians then had his numbers when it comes to this opening. Of course Karpov benefited from that and the other Fischer openings used in the match. So was Fischer played out? I guess he wasnt but his openings were. And due to this Karpov may have  had a chance. But Karpov too has a weakness "physical frailty". If your not fit then you dont play 100percent. Secondly, against a seemingly "lemon type looking opening" like that which the late GM Tony Miles used against him , Karpov seem to lose is nerves and this could be fatal. Lastly, Karpovs ability to constrict his opponents style is unbelievable. All in all i still see a Fischer win had they met in 1975 but it would have been a very close match for the title in the history of the game. I agree with the notion that Fischer would have won in 1975 but  by a close margin and retain the title but Karpov winning it dominantly in 1978.

"I hate the Russians because they've almost ruined it. They only risk the title when they have to, every three years"

When FIDE introduced the qualification cycle and World Championship regulations every third year seemed quite reasonable. It was an improvement on the previous "system" without qualifications, where the title holder picked whichever opponent he preferred and played as rarely as he wanted. With the FIDE regulations the title holder had to defend every three years, against a qualified challenger. The qualifications were very time consuming, Spassky had to play well over 100 games in his first full World Championship cycle.

If the title matches were to be played more frequently it would have been difficult to have a similar qualification, especially if the title match was unlimited. Fischer showed no interest in defending the title more often himself, even to "risk it" after three years he demanded lots of rule changes intended to improve his chances. Fischer considered it legitimate to defend it first after 20 years, against an opponent that neither participated in some qualification or was in the top 100 of the time. He still considered himself the only World Champion at the time, and was furious when Kasparov once referred to them as "co-Champions".

The question is how often the World Championship should be held. Lately the all too frequent World Championships (2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013 and another one in 2014) have devaluated the title a bit. Maybe every third year was no worse after all.

Fischer fans should own up to the fact that Fischer was not behaving rationally at the time.

    Point taken.  However, I want to point out two things.  One, we are talking about a 10 year time span.  Two, Fischer and Korchnoi also played blitz in 1970 and again had equal scores: 1 win, 1 loss each.  So even in 1970 when Fischer was at his peak and Korchnoi past his, and in a time control that favored Fischer; Korchnoi still scored equally with Fischer!

    You don't see that with Karpov vs. Korchnoi...Karpov beats Korch soundly in all time periods. I realize that styles are a factor but much less so in chess than in boxing for example.

    I wasn't saying this is proof that Karpov would win in 1975.  I'm just saying it is food for thought.  Take that into consideration along with many other evidence such as Karpov making every effort both before 1975 and even into the early 1980's to play Fischer and Fischer just kept finding excuses for it not to happen.  Judge for yourself the meaning of this.

Behaving rationally isn't necessary to play good chess.

There was another rumour that Fischer played a match with Larry Christiansen just before his return match with Spassky, which Fischer won 3 and a half to a half anyone know if this is true ?, if it is then I guess once again the games will be unobtainable.....

Lance Armstrong. OJ Simpson. Bobby Fischer.

Just a few of the many would-be legends who fell from immortality, due to their own weaknesses.