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

It seems you are desperate wanting to change the opinion of people ,who thinks that Karpov will beat Fischer. 

No Fischer will not give Karpov a lesson cause karpov will beat him. It has been seen that sports personality who play themselves can be wrong. And Karpov did not give certainty as an answer.

And as many told, Korchnoi is a hard opponent. He has positive score against Fischer.

The historical record up to 1975 supports Fischer.

Karpov has great track record that shows he will beat Fischer. Record shows Korchnoi has a positive score against Fischer. I guess then it means Korchnoi will beat Fischer in a match.

Record shows Fischer got scared playing against Karpov. Record shows that Fischer is not a proven world champion because he did not defended it(many players  have a good run, but perform poor in the next year). 

Many thought Alekhine will not beat Capa in their world championship, but Alekhine beat him.

You continue to make factual errors

1960 Buenos Aires, Fischer-Korchnoi 1/2-1/2 (Fischer age 17)

1962 Stockholm, Fischer-Korchnoi 1-0,

*1962 Curacao, Fischer-Korchnoi 0-1

*1962 Curacao, Korchnoi-Fischer 0-1

*1962 Curacao, Fischer-Korchnoi 0-1

*1962 Curacao, Fischer-Korchnoi 1/2-1/2

1967 Sousse, Korchnoi-Fischer /2-1/2

1970 Rovij-Zagreb, Fischer-Korchnoi 1/2-1/2

* indicates a game played in the Curacao Candidates tournament, in which the Soviet players colluded to ensure Fischer would not become the challenger to Botvinnik.

The issue is only about what  might have happened in 1975.

Yeah Fischer and Korchnoi are tied. While Anatoly Karpov beat Viktor Korchnoi 35 to 17, with 69 draws.

I like to add that Fischer is 3 years not active(professional), facing Karpov in 1975.

Karpov was the best active player from 1974 to about 1984. Even the most avid Fischer fan would agree with that.

It sounds like there are some here who believe that Fischer was willing to play a match against Karpov. He wasn't. He wasn't willing to face Karpov in 1975, or any time afterwards, even though they met a couple of times. Fischer was never going to play Karpov. That is a deep loss to the chess world. We were denied a fantastic match.

The reasons for that are up for some debate, but the fact that it was Fischer who didn't want to play has been pretty well established.

Karpov had everything to gain by a Fischer match, Fischer had very little to gain.

Fischer had two previous hiatuses, and came back stronger than ever.

After taking 18 months away from international over-the-board play (Vinkovci, Sept 1968, to USSR vs World match vs Petrosian March 1970), Fischer came back in devastating form - as the strongest player of all time.  Petrosian had just been unseated by Spassky the previous year.

Anyone who thinks Fischer would have been "rusty", or "unprepared", or was "scared" of Karpov, knows nothing about ischer.

The difference is, he will be facing one of the greatest(there are people who thinks Karpov is the greatest) player of all time(Karpov). 3 years lay off is still a negative  no matter how you twist it.

Strongest player of all time? I disagree with your opinion. Fischer is unproven champion. Kasparov is the strongest for me.

"* indicates a game played in the Curacao Candidates tournament, in which the Soviet players colluded to ensure Fischer would not become the challenger to Botvinnik"

I don't know how many times you have claimed that Fischer was the by far strongest player in the World in 1962 and would have won the Candidates with a huge margin instead of finishing three points from third place if not for the draws between "cheaters" Keres, Geller and Petrosian. Fischer stated that Korchnoi threw games to the top three, but wasn't included in some draw pact and ended up 0.5 behind Fischer. I wonder how far ahead of Fischer he would have finished if he hadn't allegedly thrown all those games and been affected by the draw pact between Keres et al. If one believes Fischer's excuses for being so far from a top three spot, that is.

It's worth noting that the last fifteen games between Keres and Petrosian were short draws. The last eighteen games between Geller and Petrosian were draws, with one exception. These guys usually drew each other when there was no Fischer in the field, and did so for many years.

Geller vs Petrosian 1957-1983 +1-1=24, most of the draws 11-19 moves long.

Keres vs Petrosian 1961-1973 +0-0=15, no games more than 30 moves.

The panel has decided it would be Fischer by a small margin of 10-8. It would ,of course be 10-0 if he was seconded by a certain coach,who need not be named.

Dont know if someone else pointed earlier.

Though karpov never said it directly if you read his comments,works; he would agree that he was never a match for fischer in '75

Russian-American GM Lev Alburt: "Karpov always took a sober view of what he was capable of.  He knew he could hardly draw a game with Fischer, never mind score one or two wins.  His only chance was to disrupt the [1975] match.  So a whole arsenal of tricks was worked out, designed to upset the sensitive American...." (Russians vs Fischer, by Dmitry Plisetsky and Sergey Vorinkov, pg. 419)

The book was originally a Russian language publication in 1994.  The updated, expanded version was printed in 2005.

"Karpov always took a sober view of what he was capable of. He knew he could hardly draw a game with Fischer, never mind score one or two wins" etc etc

These types of statements are beyond idiotic. Spassky won and drew a fair share of games against Fischer, Karpov "knowing" that he could "hardly draw a game" against Fischer is of course ridiculous.

"Was Fischer right in demanding that the world title be protected by a two-point handicap---that the challenger would be considered the winner with a 10-8 score and the champion would retain his title in the event of a 9-9 draw?  Yes, this was quite natural: the champion deserves this, not to mention the fact that further play to the first win in the event of an even score would be nothing short of a lottery---the winner in that case could not claim to have won a convincing victory.  The genius Fischer was not given a chance to defend his title by this rejection of a two-point handicap.  What followed was that the Soviets later adopted Fischer's idea of an unlimited match instead of a match to 24 games.  But instead of the two-point handicap, they protected Karpov far more reliably and far more ruthlessly with respect to the challenger---by insisting on a return match"

- Korchnoi

Fischer must have been badly out of form if he thought Karpov could beat him 8 times.

"Was Fischer right in demanding that the world title be protected by a two-point handicap---that the challenger would be considered the winner with a 10-8 score and the champion would retain his title in the event of a 9-9 draw? Yes"

He didn't demand that before the match against Spassky did he?

could be he wanted to give Karpov an even bigger lead to make the match interesting. good point there, Isee!

It's possible that Schlechter-Lasker had such a scandalous match clause, but in the history of the World Championship, such odds were far beyond anything Botvinnik or other World Champions were given since FIDE took over. 

Today, champions don't even get draw odds. If there's a draw, there's a play-off. 

Imagine what Korchnoi would have had to say about the 2-point clause if Karpov had requested it in his matces against Korchnoi. This was just posturing by Korchnoi, who shared Fischer's hatred of the Soviets. But Korchnoi had far better reasons for that hatred.