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

"Fischer's list of match conditions in 1975 were what he believed would produce the finest chess and the most equitable result"

He just forgot about demanding that the challenger must win with a margin of two games to get the title back in 1972.

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

JD: Because people are complicated and Fischer especially so. People often do things for more than one reason and those reasons may contradict each other.

My guess is Fischer wanted to play Karpov in 1976 but still felt ambivalent about it. If he lost to Karpov, he would have to live with that. If he ratcheted up demands for playing conditions until Karpov's side refused, he could say he was still the champion and blame the Karpov people for preventing a match.

The latter course was safer for him in the short-term, though long-term it sent him into a self-imposed exile and sad life.

People, not just Fischer, do stuff like this all the time.

NM Raymaster2500 wrote:

Hard to say what would happen if Fischer had been able to bring his best game to defending his title against Karpov in '75. I kinda think Fischer would have won.

My argument though is that Fischer was psychologically so conflicted about the possibility of losing that his forfeiture was inevitable. He only managed to play Spassky in '72 because Spassky and others bent over backwards to let it happen.

I absolutely loved My Sixty Memorable Games. It remains one of my all time favorite chess books. The main reason I love it so much is that Fischer was very objective* in his analysis of those games. When he was confined to analysing what happened on the chess board, he was the model of objective, clear thought. Getting him to the board was the hard part. 

Fabelhaft makes a good point. Fischer would never have agreed to his own conditions in 1972. An objective observer will conclude that Fischer's conditions were unfair and greatly favored the incumbent. 

Karpov spoke of his meeting with Fischer in Japan. Fischer was not interested in a match, and was never going to agree to terms. Even if all his terms would be met, Fischer would suspect a trick and add new conditions. He had done as much before. 

____

* Some will argue that one is either objective or not. Being "very objective" is a bit like being "very pregnant". I disagree. There are degrees of objectivity, and there are precious few examples of pure objectivity. But that's more of a philosophical discussion, ideally left to those who have actually read their Hume, Comte and Carnap.

Not true!  Fischer in the 1060s had suggested matches with Botvinnik, Stein (then-USSR champion), or any of the top Soviets based on a "first-to-XX-number-of wins" basis.

Karpov and Fischer met three times to discuss a match to unify the titles - his professional title and the FIDE title.  The Soviets, at the time, still clung to the fantasy their chess players (and athletes) were "amateurs."

But in his suggested matches with Botvinnik et al did he include the condition that they would win a tie so he had to win by two games? I'm guessing that's the condition fabelhaft is primarily referring to.

Fischer's conditions were based on what he knew was historical precedent.  Fischer had discussed before the Capablanca-Alekhine 5-5 tie clause in 1927.  His confidence was such that he knew he would prevail in a long match - and he saw a long match as a true test.

Karpov would have folded like a cheap suit in 1975 - which is why the Soviets did everything they could to prevent Fischer's conditions from being accepted.

That doesn't really answer my question. Do you know, did he include in his proposed matches the condition that he had to win by two games? Did he have different conditions, or did his proposals never get to that level of detail?

We only know for certain what Fischer proposed for 1975, and what he wrote in defense of those conditions.

We do know, in a general sense, he favored terms like those used in earlier, pre-FIDE matches.

I think Fischer would win.

Here, in his pre-match interview (April 1972) Fischer talks about unlimited match. He doesn't mention the 10-8 clause though. So, the question of whether Fischer would agreed to the clause as a challenger is open. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. In either case, I believe, that clause is fair in a long, first to 10 match. Why? Because it's up to the challenger to prove that he is at least a little better. Fischer proved it in a match with a fixed number of games when he prevailed over Spassky 7-3, draws not counted. Here's the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFByQx3YyMk

By the way, I'm not speculating who would win. Because, at the end of the day, all it is is speculation; it's an opinion, a bias; it can't really be 100% objective or accurate. I'm comfortable in knowing that I won't ever know. Not in this lifetime.

Now, when I die and my Spirit goes up or down, I'll ask folks over there this same question. They'll probably know. If they don't, then, oh, well... And yes, if there's nothing after death then, I guess, it's another oh, well... :)

Wow,interesting.Would you care to elaborate?!

Time to step away from your keyboard, put down the kool-aid you're drinking, and go outside to see what reality looks like.

Karpov himself thought that Fischer would be favored in 1975, but he thought that by 1978 he was clearly better than Fischer (especially given that Fischer would have been extremely rusty). 

Don't feed the troll. 

I can't post in your other threads since you blocked me long ago when you first "appeared" for noticing some details proving you are a sockpuppet/troll...but this also confirms it.  Anyone as highly rated who professes to be a Karpov expert would surely have mentioned the Caro Kann here.

Hopefully you will eventually get caught for whatever blitz-bot software you are/were using. 

Don't take "Alexandra" seriously.  That troll has been bounced from the site many times.

Many times? Really?

And isn't it time already for ONE MORE TIME?!?! :-)