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

Ardent Fischerphiles would have people believe that the only help he ever got at chess was from his sister Joan.

11 minutes ago·Quote·#975

Sports_Suck_2014

SS ~what team of GMs, IMs & maybe an Ex-world champion helped a young Bobby Fischer? I'm curious too.

Gee. It'd be interesting to give credit for all the help young received in the 1959 Interzonals/Candidates 1962 , 1967? Wow. I give you a moment ta gather u

Er. Cool. (Don't mind my typos)

heh.

(What's really weird is, our country never truly supported our players like other countries do- not just the former USSR. Paul Morphy, Frank Marshall, Samuel Reshevsky, Reuben Fine, Robert Fischer, Gata Kamsky, Nakamura...no further comment)

I don't know where it comes from that amateurs think chess evolves and today's players play stronger than their precedessors in the past. Maybe they do, maybe not, nothing proves nor disproves that. My explanation is these ignorant amateurs don't understand chess and chess psychology enough, and equipped with engines they think they are in position to make categorical claims and compare legendary players from different eras.

My honest opinion is that top level chess has declined in the past 10-15 years, and the real reason is - computers, thus yes, the effect of computers is exactly opposite than some might think. Players don't prepare themselves and don't understand chess strategy and psychology enough, they memorize opening lines instead. That is also the reason why Carlsen is so dominant over his peers: he learned from Kasparov to employ different training methods, and this made him stronger over other contemporary players, but still not fully on par with true legends.

Also nobody should ever compare some arrogant bulgarian dude with true chess legends. I know, he happened to win some FIDE self-styled world championship, but it was a mere round-robin tournament, not knockout. I have seen plenty similar self-styled championship tournaments here at chess.com, so what? Kasparov may have a great win vs him, I have won plenty of great games myself too and nobody cares.

It is just plain lie Fischer never used help from a second. He was accompanied by GM Lombardy, who had been his trainer from Fischer's childhood.

In 1978 Korchnoi used whole team as Karpov did. GMs Keene and Stean as official seconds plus unofficial expert help from GM Oscar Panno and Jacob Murey.

IM Atle Grønn also believes that chess evolves, because the players in our time can learn from a larger number of great players and games.

Which means Karpov probably have taken one step further than Fisher,

But if they had been on top at the same time, Karpov wouldnt have had that knowledgebankadvantage.

Different players have different ability to pick up the knowledge. Magnus is fantastic at it, and against Poland he used a move that he remember Boris Spasskij had played. This saved him calculationtime, and is one of the resons he was ahead on the clock, and avoided bad moves due to lack of time.

In chess, having more ideas is an advantage, so if you add tons of GM-ideas to your own, you see more opportunities.

"That is also the reason why Carlsen is so dominant over his peers: he learned from Kasparov to employ different training methods, and this made him stronger over other contemporary players"

I think the main thing Carlsen learnt from Kasparov, and learnt rather quickly, was that he didn't want to use his training methods :-)

I think he used Kasparov for ca one year, and one thing that impressed him was all the preparation -notes. He did benefit a lot of the Kasparov-help. It was an important brick in his wall.

Carlsen is half Capablanca half Lasker ... a perfect fusion of two.

Why are we still talking about this?  We established that Fischer would've won.

Kasparov stole his entire opening repertoire from Fischer.  So I think we can say even Kasparov thinks Fischer was the better player.

Kasparov learned from his predecessors and not just from one man.

Fischer played the Spanish, Sicilian Najdorf, KID and Grunfeld.

Kasparov played the Spanish, Sicilian Najdorf, KID and Grunfeld.

Complete copy cat.

Hands down Fischer. I say this because he was absolutly obsessed with chess. Inorder for anyone to be extreamly good at any profression or skill, they have to spend an enormous amount of time doing it. Nobody just wakes up one day and is good at something. Think about Michael Jordan..... He spent countless hours practicing and improving at basketball and that helped him become what he was. Fischer was so obsessed with chess that he tought himself other languages just so he could read chess books that weren't in English. The countinuous time he spent studying chess gave him an intuative ability to play chess. Anyone can become this good at anything if they put all their time into it. For more information on how our brains develop intuative thinking and skills, read the book, "Thinking: Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman". No other chess player has ever matched Fischer's dedication to study the game. 

FIDE really wanted to work with Fischer but Bobby wanted all his demands met. Fischer has great saying, " You have to give squares to get squares." If only Bobby could follow his own advice, he would of been more happy and productive.

"If Fischer played Karpov for the world championship, who would win?"

Right now? Karpov would win on time. Fischer's dead.

Back in 1975? Fischer would win the first WCC match. Karpov might very well win the second, though.

That's true.  Fischer was not the best because he was American.  He was the best because he revolutionized the game virtually singlehandedly.

My previous comment referred to the comparision of two games and the impact they made.

Also, at his peak he was rated... what?... 170 points higher than anyone else in the world? No-one has ever duplicated that feat.