It wasnt actually a title defense, it was Spassky excercising his right to a rematch.
Karpov - Fischer
Sort:
Fischer was selfish. I disliked seeing him not play Karpov. It is a tragedy for chess that he never played Karpov.
Apr 15, 2013
0
#64
PIRATCH wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
It is easy to get confused with FIDE practice, as they listed it Topalov -- Kramnik. Clearly, in any real sense, Topalov was the challenger. But, FIDE, being utterly corrupt, may have viewed matters differently.
There is no reason to adopt FIDE practice over common sense and established conventions in this matter, nor in any other where they deviate from what is right.
Even here you are wrong. Topalov won the World Championship (Tournament) one year before. Therefore for FIDE Topalov was Champ and Kramnik Challenger (even if it was a re-unification match) ...
Edit: And don't forget: different countries = different customs!
LOL fake world championships. Who thinks Khalifman or Kasimdzhanov was a world champion? Watching that whole 13-year farce caused me to lose any respect for FIDE I might have been idealistic enough to have.
Apr 15, 2013
0
#65
DaMaGor wrote:
Who thinks Khalifman or Kasimdzhanov was a world champion?
Their mothers!
Ziryab wrote:
DaMaGor wrote:
Who thinks Khalifman or Kasimdzhanov was a world champion?
Their mothers!
but come on even if you dont agree they were the strongest, didnt they win fair and square or am i mistaken?? i mean you cant blame them for winning i guess. I mean it wasnt their fault it had that format.
i mean its not like those 2 guys are boasting everywere that they are the greatest players that ever lived.
Apr 15, 2013
0
#68
TetsuoShima wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
DaMaGor wrote:
Who thinks Khalifman or Kasimdzhanov was a world champion?
Their mothers!
but come on even if you dont agree they were the strongest, didnt they win fair and square or am i mistaken?? i mean you cant blame them for winning i guess. I mean it wasnt their fault it had that format.
That's the thing, even if a tournament they won had that format, it wasn't the world championship and everyone except FIDE bureaucrats knew it.
Apr 15, 2013
0
#69
DaMaGor wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
DaMaGor wrote:
Who thinks Khalifman or Kasimdzhanov was a world champion?
Their mothers!
but come on even if you dont agree they were the strongest, didnt they win fair and square or am i mistaken?? i mean you cant blame them for winning i guess. I mean it wasnt their fault it had that format.
That's the thing, even if a tournament they won had that format, it wasn't the world championship and everyone except FIDE bureaucrats knew it.
In the photo of Khalifman on the cover of Chess Magazine, it was clear from the way he held the cigar and the glint in his eye, that he know the real World Champion was Garry Kasparov, and that he was merely the victor in a grueling and misnamed knockout tournament.
thanks for commenting, now another thread i can untrack 
He did not defend his title, Spassky defended his title against Fischer in 1972. Karpov defended his title, Kasparov defended his title. The only way Fischer could ensure that he would not lose, was to not play. Both Karpov and Kasparov went to school on Fischer and would have been much harder to handle than anyone Fischer had faced before.
mykingdomforanos wrote:
think of how much players go downhill quickly, yet after 20 years off the track, he came back to successfully defend his title!!!
GreedyPawnGrabber wrote:
What do you think would be the result if they played in 1975?
I think Fischer was still good enough at that time to hold himself and avoid being ashamed. Probably Karpov would have won by +3.
Hard to say it would have been very,very close Fischer might have beaten him in the first match if he brought his A game but in a re-match in 1978 or maybe 1980 Karpov would have won and if he survived that Fischer would have to play Kasparov who was rising up the ranks fast.
alec86 wrote:
GreedyPawnGrabber wrote:
What do you think would be the result if they played in 1975?
I think Fischer was still good enough at that time to hold himself and avoid being ashamed. Probably Karpov would have won by +3.
Hard to say it would have been very,very close Fischer might have beaten him in the first match if he brought his A game but in a re-match in 1978 or maybe 1980 Karpov would have won and if he survived that Fischer would have to play Kasparov who was rising up the ranks fast.
Certainly not in 1980 because back then it was a 3-years-cycle. So next one was 1981. But as I mentioned before if Fischer won in 1975 what effect would that had had on Karpov. (Remember all opponents of Fischer in the matches 1970-72 were not as strong as before!)
But it's just all speculation. And it does not lead anywhere. 
Apr 16, 2013
0
#76
Estragon wrote:
It is entirely plausible that Fischer, perhaps more than anyone, realized the extraordinary nature of his results from 1970-72 and how difficult it would be to maintain that sort of record. Remember, he scored wins against a number of top GMs in that period who he had a much closer recent score against, like Korchnoi, Gligoric, Hort, and Portisch, not to even consider Soviet players.
So even though he would have won his share of tournaments going forward, and might well have beaten back Karpov at least in 1975, the magic would be gone, the legend would be tarnished, the myth vaporized. It seems the most likely explanation for the fact he refused to even play in tournaments after winning the 1972 match, despite the record financial offers and his ability to virtually dictate conditions to most organizers.
The other logical explanation is that he just went bat-poop crazy right away.
I agree with this rationalist explanation, but he was bat-poop crazy long before 1972. I believe it was a combination of fear and his desire to create the Fischer Legend.
And despite what Reb and others say, I also doubt he would have been able to maintain his amazing rating for long if he decided to play in tournaments and face Karpov in a match.
Fischer's rating was based on the incredible match-play results where extremely strong GMs refused to play for the draw and got crushed. A close examination of the games show that Fischer's play was far from perfect and he was lost in several positions he ended up winning! Mark Taimanov wrote about that in his autobiography, showing where he was close to winning and then blundered. This was what really hurt Larsen and Taimanov, not just losing 6-0, but losing because they blundered in good positions!
Fischer knew he couldn't count on that happening against players such as Korchnoi and Karpov who were first and foremost, fighters.
So it was a combination of fear, desire to create a legend by going out on top, and, well, the guano.
SmyslovFan wrote:
Estragon wrote:
It is entirely plausible that Fischer, perhaps more than anyone, realized the extraordinary nature of his results from 1970-72 and how difficult it would be to maintain that sort of record. Remember, he scored wins against a number of top GMs in that period who he had a much closer recent score against, like Korchnoi, Gligoric, Hort, and Portisch, not to even consider Soviet players.
So even though he would have won his share of tournaments going forward, and might well have beaten back Karpov at least in 1975, the magic would be gone, the legend would be tarnished, the myth vaporized. It seems the most likely explanation for the fact he refused to even play in tournaments after winning the 1972 match, despite the record financial offers and his ability to virtually dictate conditions to most organizers.
The other logical explanation is that he just went bat-poop crazy right away.
I agree with this rationalist explanation, but he was bat-poop crazy long before 1972. I believe it was a combination of fear and his desire to create the Fischer Legend.
And despite what Reb and others say, I also doubt he would have been able to maintain his amazing rating for long if he decided to play in tournaments and face Karpov in a match.
Fischer's rating was based on the incredible match-play results where extremely strong GMs refused to play for the draw and got crushed. A close examination of the games show that Fischer's play was far from perfect and he was lost in several positions he ended up winning! Mark Taimanov wrote about that in his autobiography, showing where he was close to winning and then blundered. This was what really hurt Larsen and Taimanov, not just losing 6-0, but losing because they blundered in good positions!
Fischer knew he couldn't count on that happening against players such as Korchnoi and Karpov who were first and foremost, fighters.
So it was a combination of fear, desire to create a legend by going out on top, and, well, the guano.
Yeah right, well we can believe in the phenomenal facts of Fischer or we can trust the insights of nobodies. Most everyone said back then Fischer was stronger, but i guess Smyslov knows better then all GMs.
Smyslov's analysis seems reasonable. I doubt Fischer would have won a match against Korchnoi.
Apr 16, 2013
0
#79
GreedyPawnGrabber wrote:
Smyslov's analysis seems reasonable. I doubt Fischer would have won a match against Korchnoi.
wat
Why do people (including Kasparov) assume that Fischer wouldn't have continued to get stronger if he chose to keep playing after winning the championship?
Pretty poor assumption if you ask me.
that is a pretty good point, also i would think its hard to tell how strong Fischer really was.