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

Okay, thank you fabelhaft for touching on part of the issue.  Championships and titles stem both from organizations, such as FIDE or PCA, and from public acclamation.

There was no doubt that Fischer was the champion after 1972, without regard to which organization sponsored the event.

Now, regarding Lasker.  His 10-game match with Schlecter in 1910 contained a clause that required Schlecter to win the match by two or more points to take the title - much more onerous than Fischer's demands for the proposed 1975 title match.

In 1911, before WWI, Lasker declined a challenge from Capablanca based on "first to ten wins."  Lasker countered with the two-win-lead clause, as in the Schlecter match, and the negotiations fell apart.  Yet, Lasker emained the champion and as the titlist, had significant leverage in the negotiations.

Lasker found the time during the war to play a short non-title match with Tarrasch.

In fact, it was because Lasker lost his German War Bond investment, that he eventually agreed to a title match in 1921.

I speculate Fischer felt he had a similar right to establish how he was to defend his title.  As it was, Fischer became a recluse, and began to show signs of a personality disorder.

Being athletic, having an winning streak on this site, is how real players would call, "temporary". Heh. What matters more here is some, ya know, substance than:"duh, Fischer sucks". )

Duh.

While I agree with most of the historionics put forth, I really don't think it matters a wit. Meaning, what happened-happened. Who knows...instead of the K's, it might of been Fischer vs the Russian contingent~again, same-o, same-o. Just speculating (like the lot of you) though....Bobby was already at the edge of using primative engine tech (ahead of Garry!). I can only imagine how things would've been different had he continued to play and nuture chess.

Hmm.

8|

Of course the winner would be Fischer, cause he is a beliver of the God 7.0 engine

Since Fischer is not alive anymore his time would run up so Karpov would win

I feel a world champion should be able to set reasonable conditions for match. I believe condition were fair: Fischer made three principal (non-negotiable) demands.

(1) The match continues until a player win 10 games, draws not counting.

(2) No limit to the total number of games played.

(3) In case of a 9-9 score, the champion (Fischer) retain the title, and the prize fund is split equally.

 Fide accept the first proposal but rejcted his other two proposals.

Fischer demands were fair but Karpov did not want to play Fischer.

  Karpov's demands for the world champion match were accepted, especially the champion to retain the title if it was tie and return match if Karpov lose the match; why was Karpov so favorite by FIDE?

"Karpov's demands for the world champion match were accepted, especially the champion to retain the title if it was tie"

Karpov of course didn't have any demands, those were the rules since 1951 onwards. Fischer's demands were so far from serious that it's scary how close FIDE were to agree to all of them.

I agree!  But it was a typo on my part - I corrected it to "1972" in the text.

There was no "tie clause" in Karpov-Korchnoi in 1978 or 1981.  First to 6 wins, unlimited games, no right of rematch.

"There was no "tie clause" in Karpov-Korchnoi in 1978 or 1981. First to 6 wins, unlimited games, no right of rematch"

No, so I guess that the OP refers to Karpov's fourth title match with the "demanding tie match odds" thing. This was nothing Karpov demanded, but rather an effect of the unusual situation after the 1984 match. Aborting it without result after five months of play when Karpov was leading 5-3 created some problems. Since it had become obvious that unlimited matches were impossible one had to decide what happened if the match was tied, and returned to the system from the Botvinnik years. But Karpov just followed whatever regulations that were set by FIDE, even if he often benefitted from them being to his advantage. The FIDE title match against Anand is maybe the worst example, with Anand having to play continually for a month to then get one day of rest before going to another country to immediately play a rested Karpov.

Just how bad things can go when the Champion thinks he can do what he wants is exemplified by not only Fischer, but also Kasparov, who gave a title match to the loser of the Candidates instead of to the winner, after having said that Kramnik was going to be his successor. This was in the days when they were still friends, which changed when Kramnik refused to return the favour.

I guess Kasparov should be given some credit for abolishing the return match, never to return to the World Championship cycle, unless one counts Kramnik demanding a "rematch" if he lost the World Championship 2007. FIDE gave him said rematch, if rematch could be defined as a match you are given "for free" after losing the title, but I think that too was wrong and went against previous agreements.

Kramnik had signed a contract that he unconditionally accepted 2007 as the World Championship and relinquished all claims to the title with the reunification match in 2006. Later it was declared that he no longer would accept Anand as World Champion in 2007 unless he was given a match against him. So Champions have often tried to adjust the regulations to their advantage, in that respect Anand stands out as someone who never did something of the sort.

Personally, there hasn't been a "real" match for the championship since 1993, or maybe 1995, of you think best-of-20 is sufficient.

The FIDE is a mess.

The qualification cycle for the match after Carlsen-Anand 2 should already have had the Grand Prix qualification series started, but the events have just silently disappeared, and there has been no mention regarding the regulations. As usual FIDE will make up the rules as they go and it's unclear how the players will be picked for the next Candidates.

Even the great Mikhail Tal had a tough time with Korchnoi..."Victor The Terrible" would have given Fischer a run for his money ANY TIME.

Karpov obv

I think Karpov would have beaten Fischer in 1975.....

Karpov...and Fischer knew this.

I never quite understood why Fischer did not play in 1975.....I felt he really did not want to play unless he was SURE he could win, and that meant, in the first place, to have everyone, but specially the Soviets,  BEGGING HIM to play....if he could achieve that, already a psychological victory would have been won.

But the Soviets had learned from the Spassky-Fischer match, where Spassky made the mistake of agreeing to Fischer's demands before the third game.....that, by itself, was a big turning point in the match....and they were not going to let Fischer play his "games" with them again....

After losing his first game, Fisher would have blamed the organizers for using the wrong color tablecloths to distract him. He then would have flipped over the table and stormed out, vowing never to touch a chess piece again.

Sounds like him