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

Karpov has said himself that he only gave himself a 40% chance of winning against Fischer. That does not bode well when you have to play against the greatest player the world had ever seen.

Ateatoenail Karpov loses in 12 moves to Larry Christiansen

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1069116

Someone who blunders as badly as Karpov would have been Taimanov'd by Fischer.

Indeed. "Fischer had no positional knowledge?"

That has to be the most ignorant statement ever made.

Fischer's play is the epitome of Clarity & Positional play not seen since Capablanca. Maybe endgame wasn't his true forte but it was high level. His preparation was on par with Alekhine. He could go toe to toe with the likes of Tal & Keres in fast play. His idyllic memory & competitiveness was at least equal to Kasparov.

Please don't tell me Karpov would've crushed Bobby.

And certainly don't make comments that are blatantly absurd. Thanx.

Right!  Taunt the troll; don't feed it!

That 2700chess all time highest ratings modification only happened last year or the year before after some kind of dubious spreadsheet that showed Karpov eclipsing the rating (for something like a day or two mid-tournament?) was submitted.  If Karpov had really had and held the higher rating, it would not have taken decades to establish it ;).

P.S. Hello, page 100.

You must look at the world champions career records to get any real comparisons of who is the best. When all the details were put into a computer in 2006, many factors decided the outcome which can be read on wikipedia.com and yes Fischer came out tops! Also who would be most qualified to rate the best player ever? For me it would have to be Grandmasters and a year or so ago they voted on who was the best Player of the 20th century. The person given most votes by the grandmasters was Bobby Fischer. He is not my favourite player but he definately interested me more than an other chess player ever.

Also I have a tribute disc to Bobby Fischer by Roman Dzindzichashvili who says he truly believes Fischer is the best player the world has ever known. Roman, worked with Karpov and Kasparov and despite their great strength, and  knowledge and sheer will to win could not match that of Fischer who had a greater  pyscholigical effect on opponents like no other player had ever. Of course Carlsen has arrived on the scene but its still too soon to tell whether he would become the greatest ever as he could lose his title next time round which shows despite his massive rating may not be the best ever.

"its still too soon to tell whether he would become the greatest ever as he could lose his title next time round"

Do you consider Fischer as a candidate for the greatest ever spot? He only played one title match while Carlsen already won two. I think he is far from being the greatest ever though, he is still only 24 years old, and comparing his career achievements with those of Lasker or Kasparov who both were #1 for at least 20 years and played eight title matches is unfair. At the moment I'd rank him top ten and maybe even top five but not top three.

Its funny how Fischer and Carlsen seem to both have a psychological effect on their peers though in 2 different ways. From the way you hear it told people seemed to outright fear Fischer. You get the impression his physcial stature, dramatically intense will to win, and random outbursts truly intimidated people beyond the board. While for Carlsen it seems people get the feeling that Carlsen will beat them but that they wont understand where it went wrong. 

"Go ahead.  Make my day."

Those who argue Fischer was nutty in 1975 and therefore could not have played his best against Karpov, forget about 1992.  He was still brilliant, 20 years after his first Spassky encounter.

Fischer had a personality disorder and was somewhat paranoid - but he was not insane.  There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that he kept up on happenings in chess between 1972 and 1975.  It is completely keeping with Fischer's character to believe he knew about and studied every published Karpov game.

Retro-diagnoses have become popular, and even entertaining.  For instance, one sort of investigation concluded Edgar Allen Poe mat have died from rabies.

However, in your passage, there is not a single professional opinion.

I believe it was Dr Anthony Saidy, an international master, medical doctor, and friend of Fischer's, who suggested the wide-reaching "personality disorder" diagnosis.

If someone would know beforehand who would win, they would not play. 

Do you know what Fischer's performance-rating was for the 1971 Larsen match was?

And that was pre-Elo inflation.

Heh. Indeed. It's been interesting, the back-n-forth, anecdotes & opinions. Regurgitating comparisons of accomplishments during their careers, peak ratings and such...

Sadly, not many have argued for or against the essence of the topic:

In 1975, how would the then young Challenger, Anatoly Karpov fare against the reigning World Champion, Bobby Fischer if they had played?

Of course it's a hypothetical question, but it really is an easy question to answer if you think about it. Or to put it in another way, to speculate/opine simply because it's not like they were living in different eras or time periods. For example, Carlsen vs Capablanca.

lol @AlexandraThessa, Fischer was anticapitalistic as well, some kind of anachist. 

How many sockpuppets has this guy created?

Read through my posts. I almost never accuse someone of being racist. If a person is really being racist, I would report it rather than engage in conversation.

I rarely call people trolls, but it does happen from time to time. 

Evidently, it's weird too when commenters rant just to see their own words, a common need I guess for attention.

Especially when playing victim when no one is really attacking, ganging up on them, or bullying.

Please read the posts carefully would be my advice.

Mrmaxcy was referring to Fischer about being an anti-capitalist as well as an anarchist. Not you.

Smylovfan was simply being rherorical, not attacking you.

This is forum buddy. Expect confrontation, antagonists, allies, know-it-alls, haters. Everyone is under the microscope bro. Deal or get outta the kitchen.

Heh. You know, I was expecting that sort of response.

I haven't a clue though, where you're being bullied or who is disrespecting you. So far, reading the last several posts, it seems to me you're shadow boxing by yourself and looking for a fight. Adding tragedies, political goings on, doesn't help prove whatever point you're trying to make.

For me, forums aren't for proving you're right, that you're smarter. Everyone here has an opinion, to discuss openly. Yeah. It's a give and take. To enlighten. But not everyone is diplomatic or hurtful. You just have to expect it.

Bottom line: people can't hear you if you make to much noise brother.