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

I will look for it.  You said it was here on the site??

It is - installments 0 to 3 translated from the original book in Russian. This guy keeps adding to it every couple of days or so.

I'll take Spassky's word on the 1972 match:

Interviewer: Why did Fischer win?

Spassky: From a chess point of view Fischer was already stronger than me. His time had come.

http://www.chess.com/news/spassky-ldquoi-knew-the-openings-badlyrdquo-1227

Of course, if Spassky had wanted to claim a win by forfeit, he would have been within his rights. Agreed.

I don't think anyone can say how the 1975 match would have gone. I certainly don't assume Fischer would have steamrollered Karpov. It would have been a real fight and one that Fischer wasn't prepared for as he was with Spassky, Petrosian and the other Soviet GMs.

But so much of that calculation depends on Fischer being a somewhat normal, healthy player and not the emotionally damaged person he had become.

Why do you think he would have been "unprepared" for Karpov?  The very idea is preposterous.

I said, "Fischer wasn't prepared for as he was with Spassky, Petrosian and the other Soviet GMs."

I agree with you that Spassky has been accomodative of Fischer. That just goes to show that Spassky was (and still is) a decent human being. He too, valued objectivity. He pretty much said "let it be pure chess, and let's see who wins." Fischer won.

Now, I disagree with you that Fischer's demands were unreasonable. I would say that most of Fischer's demands were reasonable. That's why the chess players of our times have the benefits they do. That's precisely because Fischer fought for these benefits and did so without a compromise. Others followed his suit, albeit absent Fischer's consistency.

Fischer's demands for an unlimited matches were reasonable. Just take a look at Karpov - Korchnoi & the first Karpov - Kasparov matches. Fantastic, fighting chess. And what do we have nowadays? Only 12 games with fast-chess tiebreaks. What a joke!

Imagine if all of Fischer's conditions were, in fact accepted. Certainly, it would put a tremendous burden on the challenger since he would have to win 10 games and lose no more than 8. However, that would put a burden on the Champion who would have to win at least 9 games to retain his title. And if the score of the match is 9-9, the match is declared drawn and the money is split equally. I say - very fair conditions! The challenger needs to prove that he's at least a notch better that the reigning Champ to deserve the title. And, of course, it has to be in a long match.

The bottom line for me is that Fischer was the greatest chess player of all times not so much for his chess but, more so, his fighting Spirit. And I don't care what Krogius or other detractors have to say!

In my honest opinion it would be GM Robert J. Fischer !!! or let the time machine decide it !!!

I understand.  Fischer, by all accounts was thoroughly prepared, and knew every published game Karpov played.

My point is Fischer didn't grow up watching, studying Karpov for over a decade and playing him regularly in international tournaments.

Karpov was a new generation of player and still on his upward arc. Fischer had never played Karpov and had indeed stopped playing GM chess entirely after winning the 1972 match.

Fischer would have gone into the 1975 match rusty and playing a razor-sharp young man on the make. It would have been a tough match, however well Fischer knew Karpov's games.

I know Fischer was a helluva player in his own right. GM Biaysis, one of Fischer's few friends, played a hundred or so blitz games with Fischer post-1972, lost nearly all of them, and said Fischer was playing as well or better than he ever had.

So it's a tough call. Unfortunately, Fischer was a psychological mess. He had almost sabotaged his match with Spassky. He did sabotage his match with Karpov.

Fischer lost to Fischer.

The bottom line for me is that Fischer was the greatest chess player of all times not so much for his chess but, more so, his fighting Spirit.

I don't care for giant bold fonts, but there is something to what SpiritOfVictory says.

In this respect Fischer reminds me of the distance runner, Steve Prefontaine, or "Pre" as he was known.

Pre's heyday was in the 1970s. His records have all been broken. He never won the Gold. He was a small runner with one leg shorter than the other. But he brought a determination, a fighting spirit to running that to my knowledge has not been equalled and made him a legend among runners and those who follow track.

To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift.

I run to see who has the most guts.

Somebody may beat me, but they are going to have to bleed to do it.

-- Steve Prefontaine

There have been better runners since, but two movies have been made about Pre.

Wow! I didn't realize that the original question was asked 16 months ago. How long will it last? I wouldn't be surprised if I come back in 16 millenia and see it you folks still arguing. Oh, wait...

Edit: I normally write in big letters since it's easier to see. I hope that more ppl would do so. Easier to read.

"Fischer's demands for an unlimited matches were reasonable. Just take a look at Karpov - Korchnoi & the first Karpov - Kasparov matches. Fantastic, fighting chess"

The unlimited Karpov vs Kasparov match had lots of very short games, drawn in 17 moves or considerably quicker, and finished without a result after almost half a year. All the other Karpov vs Kasparov matches were limited and considerably more interesting.

SpiritOfVictory: I get it ... to a point. To those who read online a lot thought it seems like you are SHOUTING at us.

The more usual solution to your situation is to zoom your browser or your monitor.

Tonight I'm watching "Pre," one of the movies on Steve Prefontaine I mentioned earlier. I had forgotten the details of his performance at the 1972 Olympics.

Pre was younger and smaller than his competition -- in particular Lasse Viren, a Finnish runner, a world record holder, and one of the greatest distance runners of all time.

Pre got boxed into a slower pace than would work for him, so he took the lead to break it up, then ran a guts race to the end, trading leads with Viren multiple times.

Although Pre could have settled for the silver or the bronze medal, he pressed Viren to win all the way, until Pre conked out in the final yards and came in fourth.

Fischer only had five games against Spassky in 11 years (1960-1971).

"Sabotage" is an emotionally charged word.  Fischer demanded perfect playing conditions, adequate compensation, and knew the history of championship-level play, back into the 1800s.  He studied all of the great players of old.  He knew his contemporaries.

Each time Fischer took a break away from international chess (mid-60s; late 60s), he came back stronger than before.  He commented to friends about the mistakes he was finding in the Candidates' games during the 72-75 cycle.

When Fischer did return in 1992, he played fine, having been away for 20 years.  If a 20-year hiatus caused no crippling psychological damage to his game, why do you think a 3-year hiatus would have?

JD: Fischer played fine chess in 1992, but not world champion chess. Of course, neither did Spassky, who had continued playing GM chess but was a spent force at the top levels. Let Kasparov from "My Great Predecessors Vol. 4" tell it:

The match showed that the two players were still in the romantic era of 1972. Although the struggle itself was interesting and Fischer displayed enormous practical strength in a number of games, in general his play was already that of yesterday. I think that, despite his displaced state of mine [mind?], Fischer understood perfectly well that he would not achieve anything with such play. Against any young player with a rating of over 2600 (in 1992!), he would have found things tough. Therefore in general the 'return match' bears no relation to Fischer's play. It was simply an attempt to earn some money and at the same time test himself. The test convinced Fischer that he would do better not to play any more.

If Spassky had claimed the 1972 title by forfeit -- as he was within his rights to do so -- "sabotage" strikes me  as an acceptable word for what Fischer had done to himself.

Fischer's performance rating in 1992 was ~2618. Kasparov said that the quality of play was about 2650 strength. 

Fischer played a couple of beautiful games, but floundered horribly in others. The great thing about the 1992 match was the hope that he might play more games and show that his performance was just rusty. Unfortunately, that's the last mark he made. Compare Fischer's result with Kasparov's against Short. 

In 1975, nobody knew how Fischer would play. He had clearly lost his hunger for the game, but most believed he could regain it in time for a match against Karpov. Fischer's demands weren't reasonable, they were designed to be unreasonable. 

Then why, SF, the continued negotiations with Karpov after 1975?  What may be clear to you does not align with his subsequent actions.

Fischer's list of match conditions in 1975 were what he believed would produce the finest chess and the most equitable result.  He was the undisputed world champion and the strongest player of all time (at least, at that point).  His match terms were based on historic considerations.