Having a high rating does not guarantee that your next performance will be good....it's still all speculation. We can argue till we're blue in the face...it does not matter.
If Fischer would played Karpov for the World Champion, who would win?
Sort:
A player with the highest rating is more likely to win, they possess more knowledge and understanding in chess. Lets take a look at the Hedgehog setup, Fischer played it perfect against Ulf Andersson in 1970, back than there was little information on the Hedgehog setup.
Karpov lack knowledge in the Hedegehog setup and Anderssson beat Karpov in fine style. There is a difference when it comes to chess knowledge between Fischer and Karpov, Fischer knew more about chess than Karpov. Fischer played longer than Karpov, he had more experience than Karpov.
Well played by Andersson.
hijodeluna wrote:
Yure,
That's a very very very bad example. Karpov was playing vs the Sicilian from a Taimanov move order. That is a unique (VERY unique position) drastically different than the one Ulf and Bobby were discussing.
Let's be a little more apples to apples. Fischer was mediocre at best, but perhaps more like bad, versus the French defense. Karpov would wipe the floor with Bobby when comparing how each one handled the French defense when they were White.
Not to mention how Karpov demolishes the Alekhines Defense and the Sicilian. :)
Fischer wins in '75 and '78. Korchnoi would have been tougher opponent in both years than Karpov because he had lots more experience.
Bobby was not chessed out but wanted a fairer fight against the Soviet dominated chess scene of the 70's.
Karpov
Aug 15, 2014
0
#1068
btickler wrote:
varelse1 wrote:
Again, moot point.
If Fischer had played Karpov in 75, it woulda went to (at the latest) game 7, when Fischer would have flipped over the table, and stormed out.
Karpov wins.
You know, a Google search on "Bobby Fischer flips over table" yields nothing but other threads where you have made this same baseless assertion about an action Fischer never took ;)...just saying.
.
Of course, "flipping over the table" was a figure of speech.
If you are going to insist on posting on threads where the grown-ups are talking, will you please make an effort to keep up. We'd rather not pull over every ten minutes to explain the most basic things to you.
varelse1 wrote:
Of course, "flipping over the table" was a figure of speech.
If you are going to insist on posting on threads where the grown-ups are talking, will you please make an effort to keep up. We'd rather not pull over every ten minutes to explain the most basic things to you.
I know it was a figure of speech. The hyperbole of your statement was my whole point but apparently the sarcasm was lost on you...you are painting Fischer with a brush that doesn't really hold up under any kind of scrutiny. You've been bashing him in every possible thread you could find for the entire time I have been here, and it's always the same arguments that go over the top in terms of what Fischer actually did, or who he was. There's a difference between being obstinate and difficult, and throwing childish tantrums and flipping tables. I know it, you know it, "we" all know it.
As for the grown-up thing, who is this "we" exactly? I only see one guy with a gollum avatar calling other people childish ;)...I've been here about a year now and I have yet to see you post anything thought-provoking or that wasn't relatively easy to understand, so the "keep up" imperative falls a little flat.
I'll admit though, that when I first got here, I would look for your votechess posts since you were one of the only 1900+ players posting. Over time, though, it became clear to me that you were a better kibitzer than innovator/driver in those games and I began to wonder how you were rated that high at all. Lo and behold, your ratings have dropped 150-200 points since then.
Yeah, not sure there's anything I need to keep up with really...
JamieDelarosa wrote:
I_Am_Second wrote:
Pre 1972 Fischer would win
Post 1972 Fischer would lose
After winnng the title, Fischer just sorta lost his zest for the game.
Nope. He studied every Karpov game, guaranteed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/from-the-archives-bobby-fischer-in-1972/
Probably.
btickler wrote:
varelse1 wrote:
Of course, "flipping over the table" was a figure of speech.
If you are going to insist on posting on threads where the grown-ups are talking, will you please make an effort to keep up. We'd rather not pull over every ten minutes to explain the most basic things to you.
I know it was a figure of speech. The hyperbole of your statement was my whole point but apparently the sarcasm was lost on you...you are painting Fischer with a brush that doesn't really hold up under any kind of scrutiny. You've been bashing him in every possible thread you could find for the entire time I have been here, and it's always the same arguments that go over the top in terms of what Fischer actually did, or who he was. There's a difference between being obstinate and difficult, and throwing childish tantrums and flipping tables. I know it, you know it, "we" all know it.
As for the grown-up thing, who is this "we" exactly? I only see one guy with a gollum avatar calling other people childish ;)...I've been here about a year now and I have yet to see you post anything thought-provoking or that wasn't relatively easy to understand, so the "keep up" imperative falls a little flat.
I'll admit though, that when I first got here, I would look for your votechess posts since you were one of the only 1900+ players posting. Over time, though, it became clear to me that you were a better kibitzer than innovator/driver in those games and I began to wonder how you were rated that high at all. Lo and behold, your ratings have dropped 150-200 points since then.
Yeah, not sure there's anything I need to keep up with really...
LOL
I can't believe how some people are saying Karpov was an better e4 player than Fischer?
And specifically, Hijo, what variation of the French gsve him trouble? And besides, Karpov hasn't depended on the French in ages (if ever)
Fischer had problems with the Winawer French which he mentions in My 60 MG. Though in Game 1 vs Larsen he won one of the great fighting games vs it
Meanwhile Karpov did not make much progress with the Tarrasch vs Korchnoi's French in 1974 though he did win a top game versus Uhlmann with it.One could Karpov did better with d4 after switching from e4 after not making much progress with e4 vs Kasparov.
I don't think Karpov's Elo in 1975 was further behind Fischer's than Kramnik's was behind Kasparov in 2000 so a lot depends on the chemistry between the Two of them.
But ultimately Fischer was too unwell remember he even ended up living off his mother's pension according to Brady's biography of him , when he could have earned Millions for just playing almost anyone , even a simul, before getting back to some condition to play Spassky in 1992.
Aug 16, 2014
0
#1077
Fischer could have made millions....but his anti-social anger would not let him....
Aug 16, 2014
0
#1079
Yes, Fischer was basically a clear-headed strategical player, despite his popular reputation for tactics.
Aug 16, 2014
0
#1080
This game is a good example of Fischer losing his way in the maze of complications....
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044020
Fischer plays a world championship match in 1975 against Karpov, Bobby wins.
Fischer with his powerful rating 2785 to Karpov low 2710. Duh! The player with the highest rating wins. Fischer would of beat Karpov in 1975, Bobby would of been the first 2800. Again Fischer playing Kasparov in 1984 for world champion, now think hard, Fischer massive 2840 to Kasparov puny 2720, not hard to figure who is going to win in 1984.
Remember back in 1975 Fischer and Karpov were the only two player to reach 2700 level. After beating Karpov, Fischer would of been 2800. It took a long time for player to reach 2800 and Kasparov being the first player to achieve it.
Fischer would not have reached 2800 by beating Karpov unless he gained 20 rating points from the match (he lost 5 points from his high of 2785 in beating Spassky). Clearly this would mean he'd finish with either 12.5 or 13 points. For a 2780 against a 2710, gaining 20 points from the match would require a score of 12.5-4.5 or 13-5. (13-5 would be a performance of about 2866 by Fischer.)
I find this very unlikely at best, especially since Fischer had not played any competitive chess in three years.
This is calculated by current standards; things may have been different in 1975.