Fischer was a great challenger but a lousy champion. However it hard not to feel pity for the man, he hurt some people with some of the things he said but he hurt himself more than anyone else. It impossible not to admire his chess skill and his victory over Spassky (and the soviet chess world) but it is also clear that he had deep psychological problems which got worst as he grew older. I hope someday there is an american world champion with the skill of fischer but the personality akin to Boris Spassky.
Karpov - Fischer
Sort:
India needs more to promote propessional chess as doing in the game of crickect.
mykingdomforanos wrote:
Ubik42 wrote:
Why are you embarrased?
your post was embarrassing
Why would you think so.
Cat got yer toungue!
As in "oops, yeah the dates are right, but I sure can't admit it now!"
it sure figures a cat would be another Fish lover.
You still lost me. My post is embarrasing because you like Fischer?
Blind worship is amazing.
Apr 14, 2013
0
#29
Karpov in a interview say that he believed in 1975 Fischer had 60% chances of win against 40% of win Karpov, in 1976 Karpov believed the chances are equal.
In my opinion Fischer believed that He had more chances but his opponent had a good chance.
He chose to leave the chess. This is a legitimate decision, I think he had not run or chicken out. Likely he realized his mental illeness and leave the competition for this.
JM3000 wrote:
Karpov in a interview say that he believed in 1975 Fischer had 60% chances of win against 40% of win Karpov, in 1976 Karpov believed the chances are equal.
In my opinion Fischer believed that He had more chances but his opponent had a good chance.
He chose to leave the chess. This is a legitimate decision, I think he had not run or chicken out. Likely he realized his mental illeness and leave the competition for this.
Like I said, we cannot know, he had already quit chess for 3 years by the time Karpov came around.
Estragon wrote:
The ONLY reason the question of Fischer vs Karpov wasn't settled over the board is because Fischer chose not to play. Even if you believe he was justified in refusing to defend his title under the rules acceptable to FIDE, he could have met Karpov in any tournament. Karpov was the most active tournament player of any champion. He played constantly and in all the major events.
It would have been an interesting rivalry. Fischer was clearly better than anyone Karpov had faced, but Karpov was precisely the type of player who would prove most difficult for Fischer, never creating weaknesses, ingenious strategist, and excellent endgame player.
For whatever reason, it was Fischer who decided he would never play Karpov, or later Kasparov.
but lets see it from another perspective, lets say a 10 year old kid walks up to you and says i can beat the ... out of you, do you really have to punch it in the face to show you are stronger or do you just walk away knowing that there is no chance the 5 year old can beat you?
conejiux wrote:
Fischer was not a superior being! He was a superior chess player, no doubt, one of the top five of all time. Superior beigns are very few in history. Chess is a game, a game that give money and fame to the big talents, who plays to achieve a very good income and keep the ego satisfied. A superior beign is another thing, a higher thing. A question for TetsuoShima: become billionaire is the goal of a superior beign?
he was a superior being with his work ethic, his strive, his will and energy and also his intelligence and endless passion. he would easily made hundreds of millions on the stock market or any other endeavour....
People like Fischer are very rare and far inbetween even among world champions.
Not to mention Fischers superb analytical skills and his astonishing memory.
That Fischer was superior, he probably didnt feel the need to prove anything. He has already satisfied all ambition he had of being the strongest player who ever lived.
ok Estragon that maybe was a far stretch but you cant just say Kasparov and Karpov were better just because Fischer didnt play, because we just dont know.
fisher was a COWARD everybody knows it.no need to discuss even
cesurpawn wrote:
fisher was a COWARD everybody knows it.no need to discuss even
i bet he had 100 times more courage than you.
Fischer was good - no doubt. Only Karpov, Kasparov and a few more of the WC were better players.
We all don't know what would had happened in 1975 ...
BTW the thread shoud be wrote: Fischer - Karpov (because the reigning Champ is always mentioned first)! 
We also don't know what would had happened to Karpov if he'd have lost in 1975. All opponents who lost in a match against Fischer were not as strong as before! 
The only quote I have in mind was by Peter Leko: "Fischer had the most knowledge of chess I ever met!" (Fischer was Leko's coach for some years. There Leko came back from a trainings session with Topalov where the two analyzed several lines in the Sicilian. He showed these lines to Fischer. Fischer nodded and sayed: "Yes, there are a lot more lines!") *amazing*
TetsuoShima wrote:
cesurpawn wrote:
fisher was a COWARD everybody knows it.no need to discuss even
i bet he had 100 times more courage than you.
he was a COWARD like you.understand ...this forum to express our toughts about chess ,fisher denied to face karpov cuz he is a coward everyone knows it read history ,if you too offense then do not come to FORUMS go play in kindergarden
Why are you embarrased?