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

Hijodeluna, you are right in some ways....but also, Kasparov made Karpov stop playing e4!

It IS true....according to Kasparov in his "My Great Predecessors" book....

So it is not even my own statement....and certainly not ignorant.

"Beginning with the third match (1986) Karpov gave up e4 and did a lot of work consolidating his opening repertoire"- Kasparov, "GARRY KASPAROV ON MODERN CHESS, PART TWO....KASPAROV VS KARPOV, 1975-1985"

The defeat in the 24th game of the second match, which cost him the WC title, certainly shook Karpov....he could not crack Kasparov's Sicilian!

Well I am an old timer and remmeber well reading every issue of Chess Life from cover to cover back them. First Fischer would have beat him badly at least in the first match if they played. EVERYTHING Bobby asked for was GIVEN to Karpov for his match later making FIDE as corupt as it ever was.  It was Policial 100% back then and seeems like it is leaning once again the same with a space traveler running the place. Just my opinion since I DO live in a free country of speech I hope although this is a private forum I do understand. I will see if the moderators lean Marxist or not. 

Karpov was a great e4 player, no doubt about it. I cannot forget his demolition of Dorfman in the Sicilian, or Unzicker in the Ruy Lopez...

"It is your team who builds the repertoire at that level."

But you direct your team...afetr all, it is you who makes the moves. No way the team tells Karpov..."ok, you will not play e4 against Kasparov any more." No way, José.

The main decision not to play e4 must have come from Karpov himself.

Clearly Karpov played very well after e4, but I think results show he was better with 1 d4. He drew the 87 match with Kasparov and had his huge win at Linares 94 as a D4 player.

If Ficher and Karpov had played in 75 the unlimited length match rule would have favoured Fischer but it was quite unfair that FIDE gave in to this change.

Motive, folks:  Fischer made that many contingencies because deep down in his own heart he feared the loss of his title (to Karpov or whomever it had been).  He held true to his belief until it was stripped from him, thereby allowing him to still assert he'd never been beaten.  Cagey or cowardly, the choice is yours.

Hijo de Luna, I don't know that you have a deep knowledge of that, either.

Pray tell , how exactly do you presume to know what Bobby felt deep down in his own heart ?. answer : you can't know and therefore any assertions you or any other poster makes about Bobby's motives can never be a definitive explanation .

one thing we know for sure....among others....from his behaviour...he was one angry man.

Apart from a 2671 played called Saric..Magnus couldn't demolish him last week ...he couldn't even manage a draw ; in fact it was Magnus who was the one being destroyed !

Just because Carlsen is the highest rated player ever certainly doesn't make him the best there has ever been ..if you placed Carlsen into a different chess era armed with only the knowledge of that era who can honestly say that he would have a higher rating than say Fischer or Kasparov...today's ratings are grossly inflated and are not that meaningful as a guide to greatest of all time or indeed greatness per se .

How exactly you ask?  Well, firstly, his actions, and secondly human psychology.  179 demands is unreasonable and such extremity in demands is only done when the demander knows they will not be met.  For the same reason a prospective groom or bride makes 179 demands for a wedding; to obviously not go through with it.  Had every condition been met (178/179 isn't too bad) do you honestly believe more conditions would not have followed? 

So while there's no definitve explanation to a hypothetical situation (dur), the motive is still obvious to any layman.  I met Fischer while castnetting at a lake in Florida; he was eating a slice of soggy pizza and laughing at me because I was in his words, "clearing the, ha ha ha, clearing the ha ha ha lake out ha ha ha of fish the day before the bwahahaha kid's fishing tournament the next day."  I didn't ask him then why he didn't take on Karpov, but had I asked, do you think he'd have told me and had he told me, would it have been true?  Nobody knows a damn thing other than they didn't play so why waste anymore time on such a droll topic.  (Anticipating the "then why are you posting in here? comments").  

I wont bother to find it ..thx all the same.

Every thing Bobby wanted was given to Karpov in the next cycle. It was all published word for word in Chess Life. I have the original articles and I am sure it's aon line also. FIDE said Fischer's demands were unreasonable and then granted more than what Fischer wanted to Karpov in his title defense. FIDE was back then and remains 100% political.  Saying that Fischers demands were unreasonable is debatable but then how come FIDE granted all Bobby's wishes to Karpov?  

The idea that a defeated champion is entitled to a re-match is much more of an advantage to the title-holder than was the 9-9 tied match clause.

A challenger under the rematch rules had two win two matches to hold the title s/he had won in the first encounter.

The FIDE has been a Soviet/Russian apparatchik since World War II.

Charles Kalme was the author of the article back in the 70's. He had his PHD in Mathematics, ALL FACTS. he proved Mathematically that Fischer's demands were fairer than the match he played against Spassky.