"I think that if Fischer and Karpov had actually met and played for the title right away as was scheduled, Fischer would have crushed Karpov"
Fischer scored 12.5-8.5 against Spassky, and Karpov was a greater player. Whatever the hypothetical result, I don't think anyone could have crushed Karpov in the 1970s-80s. Kasparov played five matches against him and all were quite even.
"I think that if Fischer and Karpov had actually met and played for the title right away as was scheduled, Fischer would have crushed Karpov"
Fischer scored 12.5-8.5 against Spassky, and Karpov was a greater player. Whatever the hypothetical result, I don't think anyone could have crushed Karpov in the 1970s-80s. Kasparov played five matches against him and all were quite even.
Karpov also played Korchnoi in 1978 and Korchnoi almost managed that. Korchnoi missed clear wins in games 5, 17 and 25, in games 13 and 17 (later) he blundered away draws, in game 9 he had comfortable advantage. OTOH, Karpov failed to win games 7, 20, 22 and 25 (earlier). This match had many embarrassingly looking games from both players - a thing you didn't see with Fischer. Also Karpov's legendary ability to defend in worse endgames didn't work this time: Korchnoi's victories in games 21, 28, 29 and 31 were clear and impressive.
Maybe, Karpov was temporarily out of shape in 1978, but he wouldn't have got away with such play vs Fischer.
Polar_Bear wrote:
"I think that if Fischer and Karpov had actually met and played for the title right away as was scheduled, Fischer would have crushed Karpov"
Fischer scored 12.5-8.5 against Spassky, and Karpov was a greater player. Whatever the hypothetical result, I don't think anyone could have crushed Karpov in the 1970s-80s. Kasparov played five matches against him and all were quite even.
Karpov also played Korchnoi in 1978 and Korchnoi almost managed that. Korchnoi missed clear wins in games 5, 17 and 25, in games 13 and 17 (later) he blundered away draws, in game 9 he had comfortable advantage. OTOH, Karpov failed to win games 7, 20, 22 and 25 (earlier). This match had many embarrassingly looking games from both players - a thing you didn't see with Fischer. Also Karpov's legendary ability to defend in worse endgames didn't work this time: Korchnoi's victories in games 21, 28, 29 and 31 were clear and impressive.
Maybe, Karpov was temporarily out of shape in 1978, but he wouldn't have got away with such play vs Fischer.
Totally agree! Fischer would of beat Karpov, because despite of his team of GMs karpov had a hard time beating Korchnoi, and Anatoly had the best Geller.
Polar_Bear, unfortually you are preaching to the choir, fabelhaft believes that Kapov would of beat Fischer and Carlsen is the best world champion ever, non-master are easily persuaded to believe whatever being told by other players without any critical thinking whatsoever, they only look at the final score. Carlsen, did he really beat Anand in the first match, maybe it was the pressure of having such few games that Anand crumble and lost, Carlsen has never been tested and let see playing someone a lot younger if Carlsen can retain the title, in 12 games match how can this possibly be a way to choose a real world champion, just one game is a enough to win the title ( can be a blunder in a game); at least 24 games is a better way to determine the true champ. In Capablanca and Lasker match, Capblanca was never in danger in losing but not so with Carlsen, Carlsen had two lost games in the first match against Anand.
Folks, you forget that Fischer was also a Human and made some mistakes too. It's not like he was a machine. Even at his peak performance 1970-72, he made some mistakes. And he would certainly make mistakes and lose games to Karpov. Karpov, already in 1975 was an extremely strong player (as was Korchnoi). It's really unfair to say that Fischer would crush Karpov or the other way around. Let's just agree that it would've been a fantastic match.
Stop with this crap already people, my God let it go.
I agree completely, the fact this "discussion" has went on for over 100 pages is just pathetic.
I agree completely, the fact this "discussion" has went on for over 100 pages is just pathetic.
How so? Much in history are 'pathetic', as you call it. Why did the Roman Empire fell? Could Hitler have won WWII? etc etc. Books about Hitler and of WWII are in the millions. What's more challenging in chess history than this topic about Fischer and Karpov? Your local chess club, celebrating 20 years of active 'service', or what? 
I agree completely, the fact this "discussion" has went on for over 100 pages is just pathetic.
How so? Much in history are 'pathetic', as you call it. Why did the Roman Empire fell? Could Hitler have won WWII? etc etc. Books about Hitler and of WWII are in the millions. What's more challenging in chess history than this topic about Fischer and Karpov? Your local chess club, celebrating 20 years of active 'service', or what?
Discussing why and how things happened regarding historical events is entirely different. These discussions in chess about "who would win against who" when discussing players of different eras, or players who are dead, is 100% hypothetical and moot, there is no way to make progress in the discussion. It's just a mish-mash of "X is my favorite player, therefore X would win" or "Y played this opening/style, Z played this opening/style, therefore Z would win".
I don't know. This topic draws soo much interest beyond fandom, idolizing and obsession. Of course it's a hypothetical conversation. But between a player at the height of his illustrious journey to the WC, after many years of setbacks, "conspiracies", going through hoops ever since he was fifteen. An up-n-coming young challenger. The perennial product of the Soviet cog groomed to take back the crown from the Yankee upstart.
The implications, as Morra opined, had Karpov won against Fischer are intriguing. It may have better prepared him, added much validity to his self-esteem knowing he had bested Bobby and wasn't the default Champion going into his future matches with Kasparov.
I believe history would've been different from then on.
Likewise, if they had played and Bobby, without a doubt in my mind, beat Karpov...could well as have the legendary career that the two K's enjoyed.
Ah, what might have been.
An analogy would be the Pacquiao-Mayweather fight.
It never happened five years ago (maybe more) and many were disappointed, speculated about the outcome.
Fortunately, they did fight. Yet some still speculate about the rematch. I don't think it's at all pathetic to discuss the many possibilities of such a game between them. They were roughly the same age (5-7yrs differential) playing strong chess. But they had differing styles and to me more than enough juice to call such a match Epic. I think that's worth discussing even though Bobby's gone. We have, because of the internet, many resources, information, game scores from 1975, to draw from. To make reasonable deductions for ourselves to at least debate about the outcome.
Perhaps it was good that Bobby Fischer disappeared from the chess world. It gave a chance for Korchnoi to shine. I mean, the '74 and '78 Karpov - Korchnoi encounters were fantastic. And the fact that Korchnoi qualified to be the challenger once again in 1981 - when he was 49 or 50 years old, is also remarkable - despite the fact that he was massacred by Karpov. Korchnoi is also one of my favorite players - a true old fighter of the 64 squares. :)
Heh. Some would consider and observe, Garry's many antics, shenanigans during his career as douchy. That he was overambitious enough, self-entitled to be a more of a c__khead than Bobby may have been. Ever.
But if paranoia attacks Fischer during their match, it is a big advantage for Karpov.
Super game
Read my blog please
Thank you for read
Karpov, of course, is a fantastic player. He is also one of my favorite players. However, I said this before and will say it again: it's impossible to know how things would've played out if the match with Fischer took place. I agree with Fischer's demands though that the match should've been long and the challenger should've been able to demonstrate superiority by beating the champ by at least 10-8.