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

So you know better than Karpov?

Fischer would say that he DID defend HIS title, 20 years later.

He DID defend his world title in 1992... At least according to himself.

LOL, Jamie beat me to it.

And yes, may he rest in peace. The peace he never found during his life.

They both look happy in that picture.  A world away from the confrontation in 1972.

I don't dispute that Kasparov held the FIDE title.  Fischer knew chess history, and knew, prior to the tournament won by Botvinnik after Alekhine's death, the titlist remained the titlist until he was defeated over the board, resigned, or died.

There have been several title matches that featured a challenger who was not necessarily one of the "elite."

And Fischer-Spassky 1992 had a $5 million purse.  Kasparov commanded $1.5 million once, as I recall.  I think the market settles this point.

You really believe that Fischer was the champion all those years? I know Fischer believed that. But he was crazy as hell. What's your excuse? So according to you, If Carlsen decided today to never play again, he would hold the WCC title until his death? The chess world would just come to a standstill for the next 60 odd years until he died?

Dumbest thing I've heard on this board. And that's saying something.

Karpov and Kasparov were both superior to Fischer.  

With the topic I'm not 100% sure who'd win between Karpov and Fischer but I'd actually say Fischer because it was well-known that Karpov couldn't play tactical chess very well his was all strategy whereas Fischer showed signs of Aspergers which would improve his ability to absorb chess knowledge like a sponge... I personally think Fischer would've beat Karpov but I doubt he'd have beaten Kasparov

Who was/were the World Champion(s) from 1993 to 2000?  And why?

Just the FIDE titlist?

Who was the "world champion" from 1859 to 1884?  No player would dare claim the title (not even Steinitz, who was probably the best active play for many of those years) while Morphy was alive.

Emanuel Lasker did not play a championship match from 1910 to 1921 - eleven years!  Was he not still champion all that time?  And if so, why?

It seems to me you don't know the history of the title in the same manner that Fischer knew it.  Fischer sought to "turn back the clock" on the FIDE, which he considered a corrupt organization.  Can you blame him?

And that ends any chance of your making it to a fifth day.... you'll be banned. Of course you'll probably just make another "identity".

Is there really any sense in arguing about who would have won in that match? The only thing to state is that it's very pitty that people had no possibility to watch the match which promised to be extremely intriguing and exciting

It isn't about knowledge of history, and having it meaning that you consider Fischer as World Champion 1972-2008 while not having it means disagreeing. In 1993 you could either consider Kasparov World Champion for having won the undisputed title and playing the undisputed challenger from the FIDE qualification, or you could consider Karpov the World Champion since the (up until then) undisputed title holder and challenger decided to play their title match outside FIDE.

Fischer didn't play Karpov outside of FIDE in 1975, and didn't play any chess at all for 20 years. When he did he refused to play against top opposition, but declared that it still was the World Championship. The difference between the 1992 and 1993 matches is thus quite big.

There was no World Championship before 1886, if such a title had existed with the same qualification system as in the late 20th century no one would have seen Morphy as the World Champion decades after he retired. The World Champion would simply be whoever won the World Championship.

Lasker played two title matches in 1910 (and one in 1907), and a match against Rubinstein was planned when it was stopped by the war in 1914. The war didn't mean that Lasker was considered to have lost his title, it just meant that chess activities were interrupted. The match between Lasker and Capablanca was played less than two and a half years after the war was over.

If what Fischer did was turning the back on corruption, how come he didn't give any other players the chance of becoming World Champion? His only opponent between 1972 and 2008 was a Spassky that was far from the top, and that was 20 years after 1972. I don't think Fischer did what he did because he found his "system" more fair or was against corruption or was more knowledgeable about chess history than others, I think he just found it to be more to his own advantage, combined with his mental state getting worse.

Actually Karpov defeated Fischer in 1975. By forfeit.

Logical arguments made by all (heh..

.with some exceptions, of course).

I believe Fischer would've won, for sake of argument, no doubt. He was still at the height of his powers during that time, and Karpov was still an relatively talented unknown up-n-comer. Of course, in hindsight (looking back at Karpov's great career) one may give cause that he stood a great chance vs Bobby. But ultimately, I stand by my quote. Fischer wins.

(On an side note, anyone can give such credentials, but being on an forum...