Beautifully written. One can sense the greatness of the author. Hats off.
If Fischer would played Karpov for the World Champion, who would win?
Sort:
It's as though the mysterious disappearance of a player serves as a demarcation line between one era and the next.
Case in point: Morphy, whose disappearance left people asking themselves questions and paved the way to Steinitz theory of the game
Case in point: Alekhine
And it's true - nothing marked the onset of the new era so sharply, as the blunt refusal of one, Robert James Fischer, to play, as the new generation poured into the scene.
AlexandraThessa wrote:
Karpov would win almost all of his games with his white queen pawn opening. Fischer didn't have defence against it. Also, Karpov would draw most of his games with black with either Petroff or Ruy Lopez. So it would be an easy win for Karpov, no doubt.
Alexandra, I will politely disagree with you. Fischer extremely dangerous as black, his king's Indian defense and Gruenfeld defense will give Karpov trouble, my opinion Karpov would of avoided 1.d4 against Fischer. At the time Anatoly was an expert in the Najdorf 6.Be2 and won many beauiful games, it woud been interesting how Fischer would handle Karpov's 6. Be2 in the Najdorf. Karpov would played the Caro-Kann defense against Fischer just like he did in their match with Spassky. Your judgement is correct about Fischer, I think Fischer had some doubts and anxiety about the match against Karpov, but did not mean he fear Karpov. Fischer had doubts with Spassky but when Fischer starts to play chess he start to gain confidence, I think the long match Fischer would of benefit and would been able to re-group his emotion. What great pity this match never took place, there would been a lot exciting games , Karpov really wanted to play Fischer, that proves Fischer was a worthy opponent; no strong player seek to play a weak opponent.
Quik Question:
If Fischer played Fischer for the World Championship, who would win ?
petrosianpupil wrote:
Karpov had a big team of great players creating openings for him but so did all the soviet champions but Fischer out prepared everyone, only kasparov could compare in terms of opening prep. A young Karpov never had the endgame skills of Fischer.
That what makes Fischer special, he was like the old masters depending on his ability and he was very through in his opening preparation, and also his adjournments he did his own analysis, not depending on seconds. Fischer completely outplay Botvinnik and when they adjourn, it was Geller to find the saving move not Botvinnik, Fischer on his own did his best and did his own analysis on his adjournment, I believe he was only nineteen years old and already he was playing in very high caliber without any trainers or seconds.
Young Karpov had the benefit from Botvinnik's teaching and the Soviet support and help, one them was his helpful second Geller, he one world opening expert. Also Karpov would have a team of strong grandmasters to help him beat Fischer, the help come in adjournments and opening preparation from Geller: and Fischer would been on his own versus against Karpov and a team strong grandmasters in their match if it took place. Maybe thats what makes Fischer a great player, he was his own man and trusted his own ability as a player, not like Karpov who needed the support of his seconds to win a match.
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
Quik Question:
If Fischer played Fischer for the World Championship, who would win ?
lol Oh Lola! You are so hilarious! Only you can ask a funny question. Well, I think it would be a tied, Draw! It would be funny Fischer demanding conditions against itself and arguing about trivial things, highly entertaining!
ipcress12 wrote:
More from Kasparov on the 1975 match (with my emphasis):
In any case, I also think that everything should have tried to ensure that the match took place: it would have been of enormous benefit to chess. On the other hand, Fischer's unwillingness to play showed that at that moment he was extremely unsure of himself. After all, he had not taken part in competitions for almost three years and, whatever is said, a world champion is after all bound to play chess and demonstrate that he is the strongest.
Karpov was the representative of a new generation, which Fischer had not yet beaten, and with which he had practically not even played (apart from a few games with Mecking, Andersson, Hubner and Browne). For him Karpov was both a chess and a human mystery, genuine terra incognita - and for Fischer this was the last straw. As it was, he found it hard to sit down at the board, and here there was also the fear of the unknown. Had Korchnoi, Spassky or Petrosian qualified for a match with him, I think that Fischer would have played. Definitely! He would have been confident in himsdf and this would have been a continuation of his era. But Karpov marked the onset of a different era!
I respectful disagree. It was not fear but his principles he would not compromise even if it cost him everything, that is why I admire Fischer so much, every few players would do this. What be more practical is play the match for five million dollars, win or lose and Fischer is millionaire. For Fischer chess was pure, the best man wins and they needed to be tested; unlimited games was the best test and the winner will be the true champion, of course this is very impractical for the organizers. To prove my point, Fischer refuse to play in US championship because he felt 12 rounds was too short, the longer the rounds the stronger player will prevail and win the tournament. Todays world champion cycle is a joke and do we really produce the best challenger? And 12 games match for a world champioship match is that really how we can prove a player is worthy of the title "world champion"; Anand would have a better chance if it was 24 games against Carlsen in their first match, just one lost is enough to decide a match.
If Fischer played Fischer for the World Championship, who would win ?
We already know. Fischer lost to Fischer.
ipcress12 wrote:
If Fischer played Fischer for the World Championship, who would win ?
We already know. Fischer lost to Fischer.
That is so hilarious! lol
AlexandraThessa wrote:
Karpov had a huge plus score against Spasky (Spassky) who was better than Fischer. All of Fischer's wins over Spasky (Spassky) came under unfair conditions in Iceland.
I think the objective result would be +5 in favor of Karpov in a match of 20 games. Which would show that Fischer was no weak opponent indeed. Karpov would not be able to win convincingly such match without showing his best. But at the end of the day, Karpov's superiority in all phases of the game would decide the result.
Pffft
Had Fischer played Karpov in a match to 10 wins in 1975, Fischer would have prevailed 10-2. Fischer was at least 100 ratings points better than Karpov, and his losses (if any) would have come from trying too hard to win a couple of games in stale positions.
JamieDelarosa wrote:
AlexandraThessa wrote:
Karpov had a huge plus score against Spasky (Spassky) who was better than Fischer. All of Fischer's wins over Spasky (Spassky) came under unfair conditions in Iceland.
I think the objective result would be +5 in favor of Karpov in a match of 20 games. Which would show that Fischer was no weak opponent indeed. Karpov would not be able to win convincingly such match without showing his best. But at the end of the day, Karpov's superiority in all phases of the game would decide the result.
Pffft
Had Fischer played Karpov in a match to 10 wins in 1975, Fischer would have prevailed 10-2. Fischer was at least 100 ratings points better than Karpov, and his losses (if any) would have come from trying too hard to win a couple of games in stale positions.
I concord Fischer would of prevail over Karpov! Karpov was second best player at the time of Fischer reign, that saying a lot about Karpov as a player how he dominate his lesser skill grandmasters.
In my mind, Fischer 72-75 would have been the same thing we're seeing with Carlsen now; pure tournament domination, that is. And a championship match win against Karpov to top it off goes along quite naturally with all of this so...
yureesystem wrote:
JamieDelarosa wrote:
AlexandraThessa wrote:
Karpov had a huge plus score against Spasky (Spassky) who was better than Fischer. All of Fischer's wins over Spasky (Spassky) came under unfair conditions in Iceland.
I think the objective result would be +5 in favor of Karpov in a match of 20 games. Which would show that Fischer was no weak opponent indeed. Karpov would not be able to win convincingly such match without showing his best. But at the end of the day, Karpov's superiority in all phases of the game would decide the result.
Pffft
Had Fischer played Karpov in a match to 10 wins in 1975, Fischer would have prevailed 10-2. Fischer was at least 100 ratings points better than Karpov, and his losses (if any) would have come from trying too hard to win a couple of games in stale positions.
I concord Fischer would of prevail over Karpov! Karpov was second best player at the time of Fischer reign, that saying a lot about Karpov as a player how he dominate his lesser skill grandmasters.
Like you said,Karpov was always second best.Second to Fischer,second to Kasparov.He did manage to narrowly beat Korchnoi at Baguio though,(with the help of hypnotists,parapsychologists and top Soviet GM's)and retain his "title",which he got for free by the way.Not a bad player your boyfriend,if only he had worked a bit harder to gain his "title".
More than just the usual Soviet "sporting tactics" ... in 1978, the Soviets were holding Korchnoi's wife and son as hostages.
AlexandraThessa wrote:
JamieDelarosa wrote:
AlexandraThessa wrote:
Karpov had a huge plus score against Spasky (Spassky) who was better than Fischer. All of Fischer's wins over Spasky (Spassky) came under unfair conditions in Iceland.
I think the objective result would be +5 in favor of Karpov in a match of 20 games. Which would show that Fischer was no weak opponent indeed. Karpov would not be able to win convincingly such match without showing his best. But at the end of the day, Karpov's superiority in all phases of the game would decide the result.
Pffft
Had Fischer played Karpov in a match to 10 wins in 1975, Fischer would have prevailed 10-2. Fischer was at least 100 ratings points better than Karpov, and his losses (if any) would have come from trying too hard to win a couple of games in stale positions.
Unfortunately, nobody takes seriously the opinion of a barely 1200 player from the south of USA. Spend a few years reading more books and when you break through 1500 come back. I promise to read your message.
Sweetie, I got rid of your previous troll accounts, and I'll get rid of you if you don't behave.
Ok, I see we have a heated discussion here. Let me try to tone it down a bit with a story about Emanuel Lasker... :)
Emanuel Lasker was the second official World Champion. Ruling world chess for over 20 years, Lasker also excelled and achieved a certain amount of fame in mathematical and philosophical circles. His skills in business were less developed, as shown by his failure to succeed at pigeon breeding. Buying two pigeons, he patiently waited for them to mate, but became increasingly upset when nothing happened over a long period of time. Finally he called in an expert, who pointed out that putting two male pigeons together like he had done made baby pigeons a rather unlikely prospect.
Jamie, you're a 1200-rated player (with a rating of 1800)... how are we supposed to take you seriously? When you get your rating (of 1800) over 1500, then we'll listen.
Fischer and Spassky get full length feature films about their lives.
Karpov gets a Disney comic book ... I can't make these up folks!!
AlexandraThessa wrote:
Jamie, you must be proud of yourself. You just did the best you can do or have ever done - faked a comics. Wow Greatest lifetime achievement.
I must disappoint you however. Karpov does not read comic books, like you.
LOLZ
http://www.chessinschools.co.uk/resources.htm
More from Kasparov on the 1975 match (with my emphasis):
In any case, I also think that everything should have tried to ensure that the match took place: it would have been of enormous benefit to chess. On the other hand, Fischer's unwillingness to play showed that at that moment he was extremely unsure of himself. After all, he had not taken part in competitions for almost three years and, whatever is said, a world champion is after all bound to play chess and demonstrate that he is the strongest.
Karpov was the representative of a new generation, which Fischer had not yet beaten, and with which he had practically not even played (apart from a few games with Mecking, Andersson, Hubner and Browne). For him Karpov was both a chess and a human mystery, genuine terra incognita - and for Fischer this was the last straw. As it was, he found it hard to sit down at the board, and here there was also the fear of the unknown. Had Korchnoi, Spassky or Petrosian qualified for a match with him, I think that Fischer would have played. Definitely! He would have been confident in himsdf and this would have been a continuation of his era. But Karpov marked the onset of a different era!