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

Pfffft.

A QUICK FACT CHECK:

Fischer played in eight U.S. Championships, winning all of them,^[198][199] by at least a one-point margin.^[200] His results were:^{[198][201][202]}

I proved your first statement to be false; however, I have to acknowledge that the second statement may have some validity to it. However, the truth is that we will never know what drove Bobby Fischer away from chess. He withdrew not only from chess but in almost everything else in life... Money, fame, women, everything most people desire. He could have had all of it and took none of it. In that, Bobby Fischer was truly unique. I think it would be a mistake to say "oh, he'd gone crazy or whatever..." Perhaps he became more spiritual, perhaps there were other things... But, like I said before, all we can do is speculate. And that's not worth it. The truth is that we don't know and we'll never know.

Bad history (as demonstrated above).  Bad Freudian analysis.

Fischer gave up on the US championship because it was only 11 rounds long - which he felt was too short.

Kasparov would win ofc ......

Fischer would lose to Karpov. There is absolutely no doubt about it when one reads GM Krogius' excellent treatise of the Fischer-Spassky 1972 match. 

I'd take GM Krogius' word over anybody else's on this regard, as the man is a genius. His book "Psychology in Chess" turned me into a chess player when I read it back in 1989, and single-handedly lifted me up into tournament-player level. Excellent reading and most recommended. 

GM Krogius was present at the scene. Fischer would have never, never, never even remotely come within a chance to win the 1972 WC match, had Spassky not indulged in hugely excessive gallantry, letting Fischer have his way in 101 little (and not so little) ways before Game Three was actually being played. 

One can argue that it takes a one-in-a-hundred WC, such as Spassky was, to really give to someone like Fischer the conditions he really needed to actually pull off a WC match win. Nobody else - NOBODY else would ever be that accomodating. 

Not Lasker, not Capablanca, not Alekhine, not Botvinnik, not Kasparov, not Carlsen - nobody. 

It really took a Spassky. 

And for that fact, and after reading GM Krogius' account (which is recently being made available to the chess.com community) it becomes patently clear why and how Fischer has always been so friendly and appreciative of Spassky. He was grateful. Only he (and a handful of others) knew how far out of his way did Spassky actually go, to give him a chance to take the crown. 

Had anybody been sitting on the WC throne in 1972 but Spassky, Fischer would have become one of the greatest players to NEVER have won the WC. 

But Spassky was overly sympathetic with the oddball's talent and personality, and granted him a place in history, at the very top of the game. 

It is pretty well known and documented that neither Karpov nor the Soviet administration would have ever let what transpired in 1972, happen again in 1975. 

The fact is, they haven't. 

Part of Fischer's "battle tactics" was to motivate himself into battle by beginning the battle way before the chess match itself starts - by eccentric behavior and demands. He would make the opponent acquiesce and accomodate - and the chess match would already start on a downward slope because of that. 

This was his own way to calm down his nerves and get into focus prior to the commencement of the games themselves - create tailwind for himself, so to speak. 

The Soviets wouldn't allow that in 1975. They've seen that film before - in 1972. 

'Tis truly sad that the Fischer/Karpov match never came off but, since opinions are being solicited and since I was born 6 months before Fischer, I argue that no person could equal Fischer over-the-board with Fischer at the peak of his chess. For example, recall Fischer's score of 23.5 out of 24 in a speed tournament which included most of the world's best players at the timeof the tournament. And, even more astoundingly, Fischer's performance in marching to the World Championship during which he demolished Taimanov, Larsen, Petrosian, and then World Champ Spassky.

So, for my money, I'd bet that Fischer would have slaughtered Karpov and in not all that many games.

Albin Gambit

@solskytz That's pretty dubious, I think. You say if the World Champion in 1972 had been anyone but Spassky, Fischer would have lost. Meaning Fischer would have lost if the title holder had still been, say, Petrosian? The Candidates Tournament would suggest otherwise.

"recall Fischer's score of 23.5 out of 24 in a speed tournament which included most of the world's best players at the timeof the tournament"

It was a club event without other top players than Fischer (and he scored 21.5/22). He did score 19/22 in the other blitz event he played, which indeed was quite strong, but no 23.5/24.

<TheronG12> it seems that Fischer approached candidate matches differently than his obvious shattering nervousness prior to and during the beginning stages of Reykjavik 1972. 

The problem wasn't the chess strength of the opposition. The problem was Fischer's own unsteady mental state. 

Spassky extended a helpful hand to him, within that state. I say that nobody else would have. 

Fischer would lose and/or forfeit the match on psychological grounds only, The chess strength of the opposition being truly irrelevant.

One really had to accomodate him extensively for him to even have a chance. Spassky did - and I daresay that pretty much nobody else would. 

To fully understand and appreciate what I'm talking about - I strongly suggest that you read GM Krogius' account. Unfortunately I can't link to it - but look for it on this website and you'll find it (probably some other user will post the link soon enough)

That's a reasonable argument. I don't know if it's true or not, but it's plausible, at least.

Of course, even if it was true in 1972, it doesn't follow that his mental state would necessarily have been the same in 1975.

I don't think we can know one way or the other. Which means that people will probably be arguing about it for centuries.

Fischer showed that he wasn't mentally wired any different in 1975 than he was in 1972. 

Read about all of his excessive demands prior to the commencement of the 1975 match. 

The difference was, that this time around, somebody said "No!"

And that was it. 

Lawyers know that in court you need to have "substance" and you need to have "form". 

Substance as in - good arguments, a good case, good presentation of the case, good precedents to lean on, familiarity with the law

Form as in - knowing the correct procedure, following and respecting it, manners, court etiquette, being dressed in a certain way, coming on time

Form becomes substance, and is no less important than substance. 

People who love Fischer, mostly do it (apart from his admittedly enormous chess prowess) because he seemed to show that you can DEFY form, and exclusively rely upon substance. It's "rebel against the system" - much in the spirit of the 1960s in Europe and the US. 

However, in the real world, it doesn't work. 

You really need both form and substance. 

Fischer had tons of substance. Unfortunately he would never respect form. That should have been his undoing in 1972 - and it has been ever after that year. 

SpiritoftheVictory wrote:

Had Fischer remained motivated, Karpov would not have been a World Champion until the Kasparov / FIDE split. 

Good points Yuree and Eric.

Interesting.  Years ago I bought "Both Sides of the Chessboard" by Ivo Nei and Robert Byrne.  I got the impression from that book that Spassky felt he was the one who needed to prove something, given Fischer's amazing run from 1970 to 1972.

Yes, <JamieDelarosa> - definitely from the chess standpoint Spassky did have something to prove.

But it is also true that Spassky was definitely within his rights to call the match off and keep the title, in view of Bobby's behavior between the official beginning of the match, and the beginning of game three. Most champions would, in my opinion. 

Spassky was under no obligation to go out of his way and let Fischer get away with his behavior - making the champion wait for days and days without showing up in Iceland, allowing the champion to embarrass himself by being ALONE at an opening ceremony etc.

Then coming late to the board in each and every game until the score was in his (Fischer's) favor

I really recommend Krogius' account. It's a true eye opener. The match that shouldn't have been...

Nobody can take from Fischer his amazing run that led to the match with Spassky - but that same match in itself wasn't his finest hour. The games don't tell the entire story.